The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - April 7, 1993 (133)os CITY OF LUDI [COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of Implementation of Planning Fees MEETING DATE: April 7, 1993 PREPARED BY: Assistant City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt a resolution implementing the planning fees shown in Exhibit 2, effective July 1, 1993. Further, the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a master document which will contain all fees and charges of the City of Lodi and to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will make provision for administrative variances. BACKGROUND: The attached Council communication, Exhibit 1, outlines the rationale for a cost recovery system. The first set of fees being presented to the City Council are those fees designed to recover costs in the Community Development Department. These recommendations were taken before the Planning Commission which held a public hearing to solicit comments from the public. Members of the development community were in attendance and did comment on these fees. After hearing from the public, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: 1) The fees be implemented in two stages - the first being all fees under $500 be implemented as recommended and those fees over $500 be implemented in two steps. 2) The new fees become effective July 1, 1993. 3) The fees for Code enforcement for the second compliance inspection be $100 and the third compliance inspection be $300. 4) The City Attorney prepare an amendment to the Zoning restrictions providing for an administrative variance and that the fee for this activity be less than a normal zoning variance. S) That the City Council consider charging actual costs when project review exceeds charges by two times. APPROVE6— THOMAS A. PETERSON recycled paper City manager JGFEES/TXTA.01V �� April 7, 1993 Page Two As a matter of information to the City Council, we did conduct a survey of like fees charged by neighboring communities. Those fees are shown as Exhibit 3. FUNDING: bone. Respectfully submitted, zO /� (5�4ry t. Glenn '-16sistant City Manager JLG/vc JGFBBS/TXTA.01V To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Assistant City Manager Subj: Cost Recovery Program Date: March 3, 1993 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt as general policy its intent to recover the costs of service from individuals and/or groups served to the extent that individual members of the public are benefiting from specific City facilities or personnel in a way different from that enjoyed by all citizens. The first step in this process would be to schedule a public hearing on the topic. The suggested date is April 7, 1993. BACKGROUND: The underlying assumption in this recommendation is that for services benefiting an individual that individual should pay for the cost of the service. The intent of this proposal is not to make a profit but to recapture all of the costs or a reasonable percentage of the total cost of providing special services. This approach is certainly fair and equitable in that the person that has the greatest benefit is the person that pays and does not loom to their cross-town neighbor to pay the cost. It does not seem equitable for the tax dollars of Mrs. Dobler, an aged widow living on Social Security in a one bedroom rental, be used to pay for a lot line adjustment so a person can expand their residential lot to add additional footage, or to pay the costs of extracting a drunk driver from his damaged automobile, or the costs abating abandoned vehicles. All of these costs should be borne by the direct beneficiary of the service. There are circumstances in which it is reasonable policy to set fees at more or less than the cost of providing the service. There are a number of factors which must be considered in setting fees. 1. SUBSIDY AND BENEFIT: The decision to subsidize a service from general tax revenues begins with real and/or perceived benefits. Subsidies arise when the price charged to service users is less than the cost of providing the service. The approach to cost recovery and subsidy levels begins with assessing private versus public benefit. The graph below display this approach to setting fees. when the benefit is community -wide, shown on the bottom axis at the left edge, then the corresponding share of support (tax dollars), shown on the left axis, is high. As services benefit individuals more directly, the portion of costs covered by fees increases. EXHIBIT 1 Too: Cost Recovery go so: 7o((r `(( COMMUNITY (taxes) so:Il AO: so: INDIVIDUAL 70: (tees) TO: Os' COMMUNITY 8ENEIIT renwmAL sEMe/17 For example: Police Patrol services performed by patrol officers benefit the community as a whole through crime deterrence. Accordingly, costs of service are 1001 supported by taxes. YOUTH ATHLETICS Cost Recovery eOf� COMMUNITY t�txsa) INDIVIDUAL L (lees) �.� yearn, rrew�..t serenr Shared benefit By the same token a lot line adjustment or an annexation is a direct benefit to a specific property owner and the general public should not be required to subsidize the processing of that activity in any way_ Accordingly, the entire costs is paid by the requestor of the service. PUBLIC SAFETY, PATROL Cost Recovery e0� COMMUNITY aos (taxes) .o. 'Oa tNDIVIDUAL aea (leve) >a wrwir.rt ferenr nww..a N.rm Comasxdty wide. 100% Lax vuoported Youth programs benefit participating young people and their families directly. Most communities feel that offering children a safe educational outlet for their energies also benefits the community as a whole and accordingly the youth sports are supported partially by participant fees and partially by general tax revenue. u SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS ba wag nacovery ma a% es COMMUNITY (taxes) as wa oa oa ee..wu..•r .rw.n INDIVIDUAL (fees) Benefit to builder. homeowners 2.ECONOMIC INCENTIVES: In some cases it may be desirable to use feen as a means of encouraging or discouraging certain activities. For instance an inverse rate structure for water rates may be used to encourage conservation or fees for senior citizen and recreation services may be subsidized heavily to encourage participation. -2- 3.ELASTICITY OF DEMAND: The price charged for a service can affect the quantity demanded by potential users. In some instances raising the price of a service results in fewer units of the service being purchased. Whether total revenue goes up, down, or stays the same results from the magnitude of the fee increase and potential volume decrease or vice versa. An example may be the price charged for parking permits. If the cost for a permit is doubled the number of people buying the permit may go down to the extent that fewer total dollars are received. 4.COMPETITIVE RESTRAINTS: Although a city may have a monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries, citizens and industries may choose to relocate to other communities with lower fees. There may also be alternatives within the private sector i.e. recreation facilities, campgrounds, etc. Once the true cost of services is known then council can consider economic as well as political factors when deciding how high to set its user fees. The City has contracted with David M. Griffith to conduct a study to assist city staff in determining the cost of providing services. In their study they used what could be considered a building block approach to the costs. They determined not only the amount of time and resources to actually perform the units of work, but also the direct department overhead and the citywide overhead to accomplish the tasks. In some cases this may be appropriate and in some cases it may not be appropriate or for practical situations it may be discounted. At any rate they prepared for the City their determinations of what these costs are. it should be strongly emphasized that they dealt only with figures that staff gave to them. Council is requested to adopt a Master Cost Recovery Resolution that lists all fees for services. The intent is to place all fees in the same place for ease of research and understanding. This resolution should have a provision that will raise these fees on an annual basis. Every five years the basis of the fees and any changes in methodology of providing services or increases or reductions of overhead should be reviewed. It is staffs hope that the initial discussion will center on the philosophy and practicality of adopting a set of fees that will cover costs of providing service. Again this approach is certainly fair and equitable in that the person that has the greatest benefit is the person that pays. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT It is fully understood that it is not practical to expect such a dramatic step forward to be accepted in the blind; therefore I am including in this memorandum recommendations to establish Community Development Fees and an explanation of the rationale for staffs recommendation. This report has been reviewed by the Community -3- Development Director and forwarded to the Planning Commission per Council's direction. The Planning Commission's recommendations are attached. The Community Development Department is functions which provide service to the planning, building inspection and code planning there are activities which are large and should therefore be paid for These activities center around the area planning and zoning issues. PLANNING charged with three distinct citizens of the City of Lodi; enforcement. In the area of beneficial to the community at by the community at large. of long range and current Advance planning is primarily responsible for long-range planning which provides the City the opportunity to control its future character. Long range planning activities are community based and impact all local residents. Preparing and maintaining the City's general plan serves to protect and enhance the 7sm7unity; therefore, it is appropriate that the cost of these servim not come from fees, but from general tax revenues. Likewise activities promoting economic development benefits all local residents and should be general fund supported. Current planning has the primary responsibility of reviewing development projects to ensure conformity with all City plans and ordinances. It is here that specific benefactors of city services can be..identified and appropriate fees established. Listed below are activities which have been identified as having an identifiable person(s) placing the demand for services on the Citys' Staff. Also included is the number of such requests the City had in 1990-91 fiscal year, the present fee, the full cost of Providing the service and staffs recommended fee. Activity Number Present Full Staff Fee Cost Recommend Annexation 6 $100 $1,984 $2,000 Dev. Plan Review 10 0 $1,634 $1,650 General Plan Amend 6 $100 $1,090 $ 500 Rezone 11 $100 $ 608 .$ 600 ..:Lot Line Adjust. 22 0 $ 171 $ 175 Parcel Map 23 0 $ 290 $ 300 Tentative Map 13 $100 $ 536 $ Soo Prelim.Env. Asses. 75 $ 0 $ 46 $ 50 Negative Dec. 20 $ 50 $ 611 $ 600 SIR 3 0 $2,242 $2,200 Mitigation Monitor 15 0 $ 581 $ 0 SPARC 19 0 $ 875 $ 875 Landscape Review 20 0 $ 188 $ 175 Use Permit 15 $50 $ 503 $ 500 Variance 20 $25 $ 347 $ 350 Home Occupation 294 $ 0 $ 23 $ 25 Zoning Plan Check. 700 0 $ 17 $ ZS -4- The services associated with these recommended fees are generally for the benefit of an individual or are associated with changes to the status of individual parcels of land. He are only recommending recovering one-half the cost of General Plan amendments as the City has a responsibility for maintaining and updating the General Plan. However, the proposed fee covers the cost of reviewing changes requested by individuals. It should also be noted that we are proposing no fee for monitoring mitigation factors associated with land development. Mitigation measures are items that are for the benefit of the entire community even though caused by the actions of an individual. It is in the best interests of the entire community to see that these actions are carried out. Further, so that no one could claim that unnecessary mitigations actions were required for the purpose of raising revenue we are'not recommending additional fees. BUILDING INSPECTION The Building Inspection Division is responsible for plan checking and inspection services for new and existing remodeled construction. It has not been the City•s intent to subsidize building regulation activities nor to raise fees to discourage growth and development. It has been the practice to charge the fees recommended in the Uniform Building Code. That practice has served the City well in the past and we therefore are making no recommendations to change that practice. MD,E ENFORCEM&NT The Community Development Department is charged with enforcing and abating certain housing code violations, abatement of abandoned vehicles, and enforcement of the zoning ordinances. Presently no fees are charged for these specialized services; however, a strong point can be made that the general community should not subsidize property owners or renters who do not comply with minimum community standards; i.e. the housing code. The approach to fees should be that the fees established assure compliance with these regulations. A carrot/stick approach might best achieve these objectives: This can be accomplished by setting no fee for the initial contact, investigation and notification of violation.. However, if compliance is not achieved then the fee or assessment should be punitive in nature. The following chart will illustrate this concept. - Activit oncept: Activity Cost Recommended Fee Complaint Received $22 $ 0 lot Field inspection $48 S 0 Admin. Processing $19 $ 0 Compliance Inspection $50 $ 0 2nd Compliance Inspection $50 $ 50 3rd Compliance Inspection $50 $200 Close File $24 $ 0 -5- By the same token the same approach should be taken with abatement of vehicles. However at the 2nd compliance inspection the City will order the vehicle towed. Activit v Cost Recommended Fee Complaint Received $24 $ 0 Field Inspection $27 $ 0 Compliance Inspection $35 $ 0 Request Tow $24 $100 Close File $12 $ 0 By adopting these fees the City Council will take steps to relieve the General Fund from subsidizing activities which are generated by and for the benefit of specific individuals or groups. Based on the numbers of requests for services processed in 1990-91 these fees will generate approximately $125,000 a year in additional revenue. N� rry L. enn Assistant City Manager -6- fixhihit 2 PROPOSED PLANNING FERS ACTIVITY NUMBER PRl:SENT FULL 7;1/93 7/1/94 COST ANNEXATION 6 5100 S1984 S1,Oi() S2,000 DEV. PLAN REVIEW 10 SO S1,634 5825 51,650 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMf.N"h 6 $1()(1 S1,090 $Soo $.Soo REZONE 11 5100 S(#1 S600 5600 LO"T LINE ADJUSTMENT 22 S0 S171 5175 $175 PARCEL MAP 23 SO S290 S.3oo S_300 TENTATIVE MAP 13 $100 $536 5.500 $.Soo PRELIM. ENVIR. ASSESSMENT 75 S0 S46 $.50 S50 NEGATIVE DEC. 20 S.% $611 $600 5600 EER 3 S0 $2-242 S 1.I() i S2,200 MIITIGATION MONITOR 4S SO 5581 S() So SPARC 19 S0 S875 S500 S875 LANDSCAPTE REVIEW 20 50 $188 $175 $175 USE PERMIT 1S 5.50 $503 S500 5.500 VARIANCE 20 S25 5347 5350 5350 HOME OCCUPATION 294 S() S2.3 S25 S25 ZONING PLAN CHECK 700 So S17 S15 SIS CODE COMPLAINT RECEIVED S0 S12 SO SO FIRST FIELD INSPECTION S0 S48 SO SO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING S0 S19 SQ SO COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SO $50 SO SO 2nd COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SO $50 5100 5100 3rd COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 5() S24 &300 S300 fixhihit 2 ACTIVITY Stockton Tracy FEE COMPARISON Manteca County Galt Lodi ANNEXATION -- - $1,900 $2,000 $4,000 N.A. $4,232 $2.000 -- -- S2,400 $950 $1.355 DEV. PLAN REVIliW - $125 $400 $3.200 $1.400 $1,650 $4,240 $1,100 $950 $1,150 GENERAL PLAN $3,500 $2,000 $1,500 _ $3,450 $4,060 5500 $250 $175 $2,375 S4,210 $50 REZONE. 52,250 St,100 St,000 $1,995 52,952 5600 NEGATIVE DEC. $2,000 s500 S2.850 52,375 $170 LOT UNE $300 $200 $460 $1,390 $175 PARCELMAP 1,600 51,000 5750 S1,135 S2.300 $300 $950 $1.355 $260 'rFKTATIVI- MAP $3.200 $1.400 $2,000 $4,240 $3,500 S500 $1,150 PFR LAT $5.245 _ PRIiLIK FNV1R.ASSf;S5MENT 5360 $250 $175 $2,375 $810 $50 $1,950 $1.100 $900 $5,245 $2,270 NEGATIVE DEC. $380 s500 $200 52,375 $170 $600 $4.200 FAR $12.300 52,000 $800 $2,375 $6,326 $2.200 DESIGN REVIEW $500 $450 $130 $20 $875 $950 $535 $260 MHTIGATION MONITOR $475 $lalt $490 $0 $1,150 PFR LAT USEPERMIT 650 $250 $450 $1,970 $1,660 $500 $1,950 $1.100 $900 $5,245 VARIANCE $1,800 s500 $500 $1.910 $1.345 $350 HOME OCCUPATION $50 $75 $55 $13 $25 ZONING PLAN CIIECK $50 $15 FXlllBlT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 93-46 asa==x=saacasa=s:aaa A RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI IMPLEMENTING AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI aaaa=xmaaaasas==.arias.=asaasac=sa=as=asaaaaasa as=aaaasaa=aaa=easas=sa= BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi wishes to recover those costs associated with providing specific services to individuals or firms requesting such services of the Community Development Department which are for the benefit of such individual or firm, as opposed to a benefit serving the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Lodi Municipal Code, the City Council from time to time may set such fees for certain development services by resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi does hereby implement the following fee schedule, to become effective July 1, 1993: PLANNING FEES ACTIVITY , Effective Effective 7/1193 7/1194 ANNEXATI')N $1 c 0 $2,000 DEV. PLAN REVIEW 5825 S1,650 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5500 $500 REZONE 5600 5600 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S175 $175 PARCEL MAP S300 $300 TENTATIVE MAP $500 5500 PRELIM. ENVIR. ASSESSMENT S50 S50 NEGATIVE DEC. S600 5600 E1R S1,100 $2,200 MIITIGATION MONITOR SO $0 SPARC 5500 5975 LANDSCAPTE REVIEW $175 S175 USE PERMIT S500 $500 VARIANCE 5350 5350 HOMEOCCUPATION $25 S25 ZONING PLAN CHECK S15 S15 CODE COMPLAINT RECEIVED SO SO FIRST FIELD INSPECTION S0 S0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING S0 S0 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SO S0 2nd COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SIM 5100 3rd COMPLIANCE INSPECTION S300 $300 Resolution 93-4b Page Two SECTION 2. The City Council by reference hereby adopts those portions of the study by David M. Griffith and Associates dated August 29, 1991 showing znd establishing the basis for setting such cost of services. SECTION 3. Prior to the public meeting held on this matter on April 7, 1993, the City provided at least 14 days prior to such meeting written notice to all interested parties who had on file a written request for such mailed notice, pursuant to Government Code Section 66016. Such hearing was held on April 7, 1993 in compliance with Government Code Section 66018 and notice thereof was published in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a. SECTION 4. All resolutions or parts or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be published one time in the Lodi News Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take July 1, 1993. Dated: April 7, 1993 zaa==a.azzaaasaaaasaazz==_c...zz===z....aa..zaaaaaaae==zzzze=.z.e====oz I hereby certify that Resolution No. 93-46 was passed and adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held April 7, 1993 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Noes: Council Members - Absent: Council Members - Jennifer Perrin City Clerk 93-46 RES9346/TXTA.OIV In DECLARATION OF MAILING On March 20, 2993 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a copy of the Notice attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit "8" attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 10, 1993, at Lodi, California. DSC#01/TXTA.FRM Jennifer M. Perrin City Clerk 4W� %q6 Peg6W,%icolini Deputy City Clerk 1 CITY 0 r LO D !EDate: ^JTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ril 7, 1993 CARNEGIE FORUM 305 West Pine Street, Lodi 30 p.m. For information regarding this Public Hearing u�' Please Contact: Jennifer M. Perrin City Clerk Telephone: 333.6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING April 7, 1993 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing .o consider the following matter: a) Implementation of a planning fee schedule All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order Of the Lodi City Council: 4 ifer Perrin City Clerk Dated' March 3, 1993 ApMved as to form: , Bobb,,, W. McNatt City Attorney IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING FEES MAILING LIST E X H I B I T " B" Executive Director Business Industry Association of the Delta 777 North Pershing Street Stockton, California 95203 Baumbach & Piazza, Inc. Consulting Engineers 323 West Elm Street Lodi, California 95240 Bennett & Compton 777 South Ham Lane Lodi, California 95242 Russ Munson c/o Verner Construction 2707 E. Fremont Street Stockton, California 95205 Ben Schaffer c/o Schaffer, Suess & Boyd 122 North Church Street Lodi, California 95240 Jeff Kirst KCF Real Estate P. O. Box 1257 Woodbridge, CA 95258 Dillion & Murphy Consulting Engineers 1820 W. Kettleman Lane Lodi, California 95242 R. Thomas Development, Inc. 1209 West Tokay Street Lodi, California 95240 Keszler-Baker c/o A. Fred Baker 327 W. Lodi Avenue Lodi, California 95240 Ted Katzakian Company, Inc. 777 South Ham lane Lodi, California 95242 RESOLUTION NO. 93-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI IMPLEMENTING AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES WITHIN THE CITY OF LODI BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi wishes to recover those costs associated with providing specific services to individuals or firms requesting such services of the Community Development Department which are for the benefit of such individual or firm, as opposed to a benefit serving the community as a whole; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Lodi Municipal Code, the City Council from time to time may set such fees for certain development services by resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lodi does hereby implement the following fee schedule, to become effective July 1, 1993: PLANNING FEES ACTIVITY , Errective EfIcttive 7/1/93 711/94 ANNEXATION 51,050 $2,000 DEV. PLAN REVIEW S825 $1.650 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5500 5500 REZONE $600 S600 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S175 $175 PARCEL MAP S300 $300 TENTATIVE MAP $500 $500 PRELIM. ENVIR. ASSESSMENT S50 S50 NEGATIVE DEC. 5600 5600 EIR S1,100 52,200 MIITIGATION MONITOR SO $0 SPARC S500 $875 LANDSCAPTE REVIEW S175 5175 USE PERMIT $500 $500 VARIANCE 5350 5350 HOMEOCCUPATION S25 $25 ZONING PLAN CHECK S15 SIS CODE COMPLAINT RECEIVED S0 SO F1RST FIF_LD INSPECTION SO SO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING S0 S0 COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 50 SO 2nd COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 5100 5100 3rd COMPLIANCE INSPECTION 5300 $300 Resolution 93-40 Page Two SECTION 2. The City Council by reference hereby adopts those portions of the study by David M. Griffith and Associates dated August 29, 1991 showing and establishing the basis for setting such cost of services. SECTION 3. Prior to the public meeting held on this matter on April 7, 1993, the City provided at least 14 days prior to such meeting written notice to all interested parties who had on file a written request for such mailed notice, pursuant to Government Code Section 66016. Such hearing was held on April 7, 1993 in compliance with Government Code Section 66018 and notice thereof was published in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a. SECTION 4 All resolutions or parts or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be published one time in the Lodi News Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take July 1, 1993. Dated: April 7, 1993 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 93-46 was passed and adopted by the Lodi City Council in a regular meeting held April 7, 1993 by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members - Mann, Sieglock, Snider, and Pennino (Mayor) Noes.- Council Members - Davenport Absent: Council Members - None 4intnhif e�Perrin ty Clerk 93-46 RES9346/TXTA.02J