HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 11, 1993CITY COUNCIL MEETIlkv SVecuJ town
January 13, 1993'
BUDGET PRESENTATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
CC -21(b) Mayor Pennino opened the meeting and read the following
statement regarding public input at the "Town Ball"
meetings.
"The reason for these Town hall meetings is to acquaint the
City Council and the public with every area of City
government, department -by -department.
The City of Lodi --along with every other city in
California --is facing significant revenue shortfalls for
the next fiscal year, and these informal meetings should
give everyone a better picture of what makes up the City
organization and where tax monies are being spent.
These meetings are NOT intended to be pubic opportunities
for complaints and mean-spirited comments, nor will any
such remarks be tolerated.
The public is invited --and encouraged --to participate in
any discussions.
Specifically, the public is invited to tell the. City
Council:
1. what City services do you (the public) feel
could be reduced or eliminated?
2. what ideas do you have for making the City
more efficient?
3. What City services are you willing to pay
more for in order to maintain them?
4. What City services are you UNWILLING to see
cut, no matter what?
It cannot be over -emphasized that the City of Lodi is
facing a real budgetary crisis. It is reasonable to assume
that some jobs will be lost and some City services will be
cut or eliminated altogether.
Si::ce no one has a corner on the market for ideas, the City
seeks a partnership with the public to work together in
resolving this financial crisis in a positive and
professional manner."
Following introduction by the City Manager, Community
Development Director Schroeder presented his report to the
City Council. Mr. Schroeder introduced members of the
Planning and Building staff and members of both the
Planning Commission and the Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee who were in attendance at the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL M TIbU
January 13, 1993
The Mayor opened the meeting to the public. .Speaking can
the matter were:
a) Virginia Lahr, 312. East Slm Street,.,Lodi ',
b) Larry: Mindt: on- behalf of the ;`Plaaafag
Commission ;f" acid ry "
C) Leonard `Bull, ed behait� of the Site�'plaa
e
Architectural Review Cammittee�
4
Tin
4���'3.°'T"..
3 4v
4.4
• R ak T�R'd • j� yam.
z y
x
T t A �ty� t''i5•'t� �;��t1 ,
Tom.
y�
PUBLIC INPUT
The reason for these Town Hall Meetings is to acquaint
the City Council and the public with every area of city
government. department -by -department
The City of Lodi ---along with every other city In
California ---is facing significant revenue shortfalls
for the next fiscal year. and these informal meetings should
give everyone a better picture of what makes up the City
organization and where tax monies are being spent.
These meetings are NOT intended to be public
opportunities for complaints and mean-spirited comments, nor
will any such remarks be tolerated.
The public is invited ---and encouraged ---to participate
In any discussions.
Specifically. the public Is invited to tell the City
Council:
1. What olty services do you (the public) feel could be
reduced or eliminated
2. What ideas do you have for making the city more efficient?
3. What city services are you willing to pay more for In
order to maintain them?
4. What city services are you UNWILLING to see out, no matter
what
It cannot be over -emphasized that the City of Lodi is
facing a real budgetary crisis. It is reasonable to assume
that some Jobs will be lost and some city services will be
cut or eliminated altogether.
Since no one has a corner on the market for ideas. the
City seeks a partnership with the public to work together in
resolving this financial crisis in a positive and
professional manner.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
ORGANIZATION
.lune 1992
Pwl lima or
_ _ = y coolrael p"tion
BUILDING
INSPECTOR d
r
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION S.P.A.R.C.
DIRECTOR 7 MEMBERS — S MEMBERS
JAMES SCHROEDER
1
1
1
DEPARTMENT I
SECRETARY j
CAROL GOEHRING 1
1
1
1
BUILDING PLANNING 1
DIVISION DPASION 1
1
r------- —�
CHIEF BUILDING ADVANCED CURRENT
INSPECTOR PLANNQJG PLANNING
ROGER HOUSTON
ADMINISTRATIVE SENK)R
CLERK NI PLANNER
DIANA GONZALES DAVID MORIMOTO
j ADMINISTRATIVE j ASSISTANT ASSISTANT
I CLERK Y I PLANNER PLANNER
r _SHERI L LORY _ MARK MEISSNER ERI: VEERKAMP
r________..__________
BUILDING BUILDING MOUSING j _ PLANNMNG
INSPECTOR I INSPECTOR t SPECuUST 1 AIDE I
kiH iLANAGAN JW MORRIS JIM SIEMERS — — — VACJJIT — — —
STAFFING
Planning
1987 1993
Community Development; Director Community Development Diretor
Associate Planner Senior Planner
Associate Planner Assistant Planner
Assistant Planner (CDBG) Assistant Planner (CDBG)
Draftsperson - Part-time
Departmental Secretary Departmental Secretary
Buildinq Inspection
Chief Building Inspector Chief Building Inspector
Building Inspector II Senior Building Inspector
Building Inspector I Building Inspector II
Building Inspector I Building Inspector II
Administrative Clerk Housing Inspector (CDBG)
Administrative Clerk - Part-time Administrative Clerk
Administrative Clerk - Part-time
Administrative Clerk Part-time CDBG
0
.�co000co
cp
0
0
0
0
0
'
M
'qd'
N
�D
00
4
O"
N
`O
00
O
C)
_�
"-4
N
tn
N
69
69
6g
6s
b4
U.O
O
O
4
O
O
X00000
o6C;kio
�
`O
CT
M
00
po ►
00
r-+
N
CT
N
4�
N
N
�
O
O
N
N
M
M
6S
4GOS
b4
69
69
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
.r,
O
kf�
Ln.
O
C:)
00
M
CT
tn
N
M
•—+
I�
ct'
00
N
,�
kn
k
N
N
N
N
N
M
b4
4r
69
Ef3
69
(y
M
00
CT
CT
CT
00
CT
00
00
cN
CT
C4%
p-1
CT
CT
CT
P-4
r-.,
r-,
+
r-.
I
SERVICES
A. Planning Administration
1. Staff for Planning Commission
2. Staff for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)
3. Zoning Administration
a. Approve Nome Occupation Permits
b. Process Variance and Use Permit applications
C. Process Rezoning applications
d. Code Enforcement
4. General Plan Administration
a. General Plan Amendments by private party, City Council
or Planning Commission
b. General Plan Updates to match court decisions and state
mandates
5. Tentative Subdivision and Parcel Map processing from
application through Planning Commission action
6. Process annexations from inception through Local Agency
Formation Commission.
7. Flood Plain zoning management
8. Administer growth management program from application through
City Council.
9. Respond to a wide variety of planning and related questions
from the public, real estate and financial community.
10. Administer the City's Community Block Grant Program,
11. Coordinate the review and processing of building permit
applications with other City departments.
12. Administer the environmental review process (CEQA) for the
City. Provide environmental documents, i.e. EIRs or Negative
Declarations, for both private and City projects. Assure
compliance with CEQA.
SERVICES AND DUTIES OF THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION
1. The Building Inspection Division is charged with the enforcement of
the following codes:
A. Uniform Building Code
B. Uniform Mechanical Code
C. Uniform Plumbing Code
D. Uniform Housing Code
E. National Electrical Code
F. Uniform Code for the Abatement of Hazardous Buildings
G. Lodi Municipal Code
H. State and Federal Handicap Regulations.
2. Services provided by the Division:
A. Verify validity of contractors license and insurance
information.
B. Plan check building plans for compliance with all Codes, State
laws, and City ordinances.
C. Issue building permits.
D. Make required inspection of every phase of work.
E. Make final inspection and issue a Certificate of Occupancy.
F. Coordinate plan check and final inspection with all other City
departments.
G. Maintain permanent records of building permits issued,
inspections made, building plans and calculations.
H. Respond to inquiries from architects, engineers, developers
and citizens concerning technical and Code data.
I. Provide special inspection services to potential buyers of
residential and commercial property.
J. Provide documents and expert witness services to the courts.
K. Respond to complaints concerning:
1. Substandard housing
2. Dangerous buildings
3. Work being performed without issuance of a permit
4. Noise
5. Property maintenance under Ordinance #1528 --Ugly Ordinance
6. Abandoned autos (97 autos were abated last year)
7. Hazardous and illegal occupancy of commercial buildings.
NEW SERVICE DELIVERY
1. Growth Management Program
2. "Ugly" Ordinance Administration
3. Noise Ordinance
4. Special Inspections, Realtors, etc. (These are paid by applicant)
a�
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department
TO: Permit Processing Review Committee
FROM: Roger G. Houston, Chief Building Inspector
DATE: January 11, 1993
SUBJECT: Contract companies
The following are companies presently providing contract services to the
Building Inspection Division.
1. WILLDAN ASSOCIATES - structural plan check services on plans
submitted by licensed engineers.
2. LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOCIATES - structural plan check
services on plans submitted by licensed engineers.
3. KEHOE SOFTWARE CONSULTING - systems analyst and computer
pt.,grammer for the computerized building permit issuance
program.
4. PACIFIC MANAGEMENT DYNAMICS - maintains the currency of
license and insurance information in the contractors database.
PLANNING SERVICES - CONTRACTED
1. Environmental Impact Preparation - Use Contractor from list -
Choose one mutually agreeable to applicant and City.
a. Jones and Stokes Associates
b. EIP Associates
C. Krienes and Kreines
d. Michael Paoli and Associates
2. General Plan Update and Eastside Downzoning were contracted to
Jones and Stokes.
MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1993
SUBJECT: BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Introduction The City Manager has asked that each department head present
ways to reduce the departmental budget. The Community Development
presentation is in three tiers. The first tier is for items to be cut that
will not affect our operations. Tier II includes items that we need but
will do without. The final tier will require reduction in services.
Tier I
Eliminate all conference expenses.
The savings are as follows:
Budget Less Remainder
Planning Administration (315) $14,649 $14,649 $ 0
Building Inspection (315) 2,070 2,070 0
Total Savings $16,719
Reduce the amount bugeted for Business Expense in Planning Administration
only. The Building Inspection amount is very small and is used for local
professional ordiniazations and networking.
Budget Less Remainder
Planning Administration (314) $ 2,040 $ 840 $1,200
Total Savings 5 840
Grand Total Savings Tier I $17,559
City Manager
January 13, 1993
Page 2
Tier II
Eliminate
all training from Planning
Administration
and reduce
training in
Building
Inspection.
Budget
Less
Rema'nder
Planning
Administration (358)
$ 816
$ 816
$ 0
Building
Inspection (358)
10,156
4,680
5,476
Total Savings
$ 5,496
Reduce the amount of overtime in Building Inspection by one-half. This
could be counter productive because much overtime is used for in-house plan
checking.
Budget Less Remainder
Building Inspection (101) $15,240 $ 7,600 $ 7,600
Total Savings $ 7,600
It is difficult to reduce overtime behond this point because of early a.m.
or late p.m. inspections, call -outs, etc.
Reduce the professional services budget in Planning Administration.
Budget Less Remainder
Planning Administration (323) $10,000 $ 7,500 $2,500
Total Savings $ 7,500
Grand Total Savings Tier II $20,596
Total Tier I and Tier II $38,155
r
City Manager
January 13, 1993
Page 3
Tier III
Eliminate the remaining funds in Training and Education in Building
Inspection and Professional Services in Planning Administration.
Budget Less Remainder
Planning Administration (358) $ 5,476 $ 5,476 $ 0
Building Inspection (358) 2,500 2,500 0
Total Savings $ 7,976
Total Savings Tier I, II and III $46,131
Any savings beyond this point will require the reductions in the 100
Series. This could require total elimination of overtime and part-time
help. Either or both of these will cripple the Building Inspection and
Code Enforcement functions of the department. At a time when we are
attempting to improve our permit processing procedures, any staff or
overtime reductions wiull make the situation worse.
SECTION II
PLANNING
The Planning Department is responsible for guiding t:ie overall development within the City of
Lodi through private project review and approvals and to promote efforts to improve economic
vitality. The department incorporates both current and long range planning activities.
DMG focused our analysis on the current planning section of the department. Current planning
has the primary responsibility of reviewing development projects to ensure conformity with all
City plans and ordinances. Most all user fees are contained in this section. Advance planning
is primarily responsible for long-range planning which provides the City the opportunity to
control its future character.
Total user fee costs, including all indirect (support) costs, are $143,215. Current revenue, based
on normal volume and existing fees, is $5,850. The total general fund subsidy to user fee
activities is therefore, 3137,365 or 96%.
The study identified and assigned costs to 17 fee or program areas, plus 3 non fee areas
(Community Development Block Grant, long range planning, and public service - counter
support).
ECONOMIC AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Subsidy - Typically, there are three major subsidy areas in the planning process. The
first is general plan maintenance and other future planning. Long range planning
activities (including transportation planning) are community-based, and impact all local
residents. Preparing and maintaining the City's general plan serves to protect and
enhance the community. DMG's experience suggests that the City should not implement
fees for this activity. Most communities subsidize this activity from the general fund
rather than spreading these costs over current planning activities.
A second major subsidy area involves special projects. These projects may be initiated
for the Redevelopment Agency or special districts. Although current planning may
benefit from such activity, related costs are generally not recovered through fees.
The third subsidized activity is general economic development. Activities promoting the
local economy benefit all local residents, and usually are general fund supported.
19
2. Economic Incentives - Fees can be structured to provide incentives or disincentives.
Incentive fee setting is the setting of fees substantially lower than full costs to encourage
growth. Conversely, fees may be raised to full cost to discourage growth. However, our
experience has been that the impact of fees on land use activity is not as dramatic as in
areas such as recreation. For most real estate development projects, planning fees are
too small a portion of total project costs to have any effect.
3. Elasticity - Planning fees tend to be relatively inelastic and thus can be raised with the
anticipation that revenue will increase. Typically, planning applications are submitted by
individuals seeking special consideration for their real property, expecting a personal
benefit or profit. As an example, a developer proposes to subdivide a property. Without
appropriate planning approvals, the project cannot go forward and the land remains
unused. The developer's objectives generally will require paying whatever fee is
established, up to the break-even point. The fee will be absorbed in the eventual price
of the project, or result in lower profits, or a combination of both.
The above observation does not preclude the fact that extremely high fees may cause a
decline in unit volume, as smaller projects become less feasible economically. In
practice, however, net revenue generated through fee increases significantly offsets
potential unit reduction.
4. Competition - As an exercise of local authority to regulate land use, there is no direct
competition that would inhibit setting fees at any desired level. There may be some
competitive restraint vis-a-vis fees from neighboring communities. Inasmuch as planning
fees are generally low in comparison to the final costs of development projects, however,
the impact of higher fees on limiting development is not significant.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DMG has worked closely with the department's managers and staff to develop an analysis which
accurately assesses the current level of service, current costs, and current subsidies. DMG
suggests an aggressive approach to setting fees for planning activities because this is an area
where services clearly benefit individuals. As financial analysts we tend to be aggressive for
land development related services. It is evident that current development fees are far below cost
and there is ample opportunity for increased cost recovery from applicants. We recommend that
fees recover the full cost of services for land development activities, any commercial or
industrial applications, and other current planning activities.
�o
We have proposed several new fees. The services for these activities are currently being
provided free of charge. The recommended fees are totally consistent with the fee schedules of
all our other clients. The new fee revenue will provide the City with $129,125 in income.
The graph and summary charts that follow display all relevant financial data for each fee (and
non -fee) activity within the Planning department. The first chart summarizes total revenues at
current, full cost, and recommended levels. The second chart displays per-unit service costs,
current fees, and our recommendations.
21
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
_ Per Unit Jnformatron:- r
UNIT CURRENT 60% OF 80% OF 100% OF
PLANNING VOLUME FEE FULL cosy FULL cost FULL COST
CURRENT RECOMMENDED SUBSIDY*
SUBSIDY FEE RECOM FEE
ANf1EXATION
6
$100.00
$1,190.50
11,587.34
$1,984.17
$1,864.17
$2.000.00
(115.83)
DEV PLAN REVIEW
10
0.00
980.78
1,307.68
1,634.60
1,634.60
1.650.00
(15.40)
GENERAL PLAN AMEND
6
100.00
654.10
$12.14
1,090.17
990.17
1,100.00
(9.83)
HEZONEIPREZONE
11
100.00
365.13
486.64
608.55
508.65
650.00
(41.45)
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
22
0.00
102.87
137.16
171.45
171.45
175.00
(3.55)
PARCEL MAP
23
0.00
173.90
231.86
289.83
289.83
300.00
(10.17)
TENTAnvE SUB MAP
13
100.00
321.69
426.92
636.15
436.15
550.00
(13.85)
PHEIIM ENV ASSESSMNT
75
0.00
27.86
37.14
46.43
46.43
50.00
(3.57)
NLGAIIVE DECLAHAI'N
20
50.00
366.96
489,28
611.60
561.60
600.00
11.60
3
0.00
1,345.00
1.794.14
2,242.67
2.242.67
2.200.00
42.67
MITIOAilON MONITRNO
15
0.00
349.00
465.34
681.67
581.67
0.00
581.67
DES REVIEW -SPARC
19
0.00
524.72
699.62
874.53
874.53
875.00
(0.47)
LANDSCAPE PLN REVIEW
20
0.00
112.88
150.48
188.10
188.10
175.00
13.10
USE PERMIT
15
50.00
30LOO
402.T8
$03.47
453.47
500.00
3.47
VATIANCE
20
25.00
208.38
277.84
347.30
322.30
350.00
I 2.70
__ _
IOfAE OCC PERMIT
294
0.00
13.57
18.10
22.62
22.62
25.00
(2.38)
CONING -Pt AN CHECK
700
0.00
9.97
13.29
16.61
16.61
15.00
1.61
:DBGADMIN
1
25.453.20
33,937.60
42.422.00
42,422.00
42.422.00
.ONG RANGE PLANNING
1
6.181.20
8.241.60
10,302.00
10.302.00
10.302.00
PUBUCSVCS COUNTER 1
1
22,516.80
30022.40
37,528.00
37528.00
37,52800
SECTION IV
BUILDING INSPECTION
The Building Inspection program is responsible for plan checking and inspection services for
new and existing remodeled construction. The Building division coordinates all plan reviews
for all departments involved in the regulation of private development activities. Total costs of
the division, including all support services from other departments, are $395,401. Total
revenues equal $366,634 leaving a general fund subsidy of $28,767 or 7.2%.
ECONOMIC AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
1. ElasticftX - Building inspection fees tend to be extremely inelastic. Construction
projects cannot be started or completed without the appropriate approvals. Applicants
have already extended funds for plans, designs, consultants, etc. (not to mention getting
Planning department approval), and will pay the going rate.
2. Subsidy - In our experience, cities do not consciously subsidize building regulation
activities. In fact, many building regulation departments have experienced a fee revenue
surplus over the past few years due to heightened construction volume.
The nature of the activity, however, is that revenue is generally received before all
expenses are incurred. A true revenue/expense balance is difficult to assess. When a
"temporary" surplus has occurred, we recommend that no immediate action be taken until
a valid trend can be determined. At the extreme, excess revenues could be placed in a
special fund for the next economic downturn. If, for whatever reasons, revenues
continue to exceed costs, fees should be lowered. In fiscal year 1990/91, Lodi's building
revenue did not exceed cost.
3. Economic Incentives - Building regulation fees can be set lower than full, or even
direct, cost to encourage growth, or raised to full cost to discourage growth.
4. Competition - As an extension of a community's development responsibility, there is no
direct competition within the jurisdiction that would inhibit the setting of fees to whatever
level is desired.
27,
ANALYSIS AND RECOINI ENDATIONS
The Building division is currently collecting 7% less revenue than it is expending on services.
The subsidy, or "loss," results from citywide overhead and other departmental support costs.
City staff feels that the division is currently under -charging for most permit and plan check
activities. Currently, the Building division is using the 1988 Uniform Building Code. However,
in July of this year the State will adopt the new 1991 UBC and this division should begin
charging on this basis. This may eliminate some of the subsidy currently experienced by this
department. However, if the City desires a 100% recovery level there may be the necessity of
raising or implementing fees even after the adoption of the updated Uniform Building Code.
It is recommended that the following fees developed in other departments be added to the
building permits and collected in the issuance procedure:
Certification of Occupancy $35
Fire Sprinkler Plans $50
Fire Sprinkler hydro $35
Hood and Ducts $45
The additional revenue to the City would be 55,895: however, the revenue is included in other
sections of the report.
28
w
0
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
REVENUE REVENUE
REVENUE ® ® 60% OF 19 60% OF
BUILDING INSPECTION CURRENr FEE FULL Cosr Fuu cosy
Ital propram Information
REVENUE REMAINING INCREASED
® 100% OF CURRENT REVENUE ® SUBSIDY® REVENUE
FUtt. COST $UBSIDY RECOM FEE RECOM FEE RECOM FEE
1 BUILDING INSPECTION $366.634 $237.241 $316.321 $395.401 $26.767 $395.401 so 526.767
( Department Totals $366.634 $237.241 $316.321 $395.401 $26.767 $395.401 so $26.767
% Of Full Cost 92.72% 60.00% 60.00% 100.00% 7.26% 100.00% 0.00% 7.28%
User Fee Totals :366.634 $237.241 $316.21 $395.401 $24,701 $395.401 so 626.767
% of User Fee Cost 92.72% 60.00% 60.00% 100.00% 7.261% 100.00% 0.001A 7.26%
Nota: At saeoa�mandod toes, Iota! ►wenus wig Increase by: 0.00%
a