HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 3, 1993 (70)os
d
CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Planning Commission Report of February 22, 1593
MEETING DATE: March 3, 1993
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
AGENDA ITEM RECOMMENDATION
a. Recommended that the City Council adopt the Cost Recovery Program for
Planning, Building Inspection and Code Enforcement with the following
modifications:
1. that under Code Enforcement the fee for the Second Compliance
Inspection be $100.00 and the fee for the Third Compliance
Inspection be $300.00;
2. that fees in excess of $500.00 go into effect over a two year
period;
3. that 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;
and
4. that the City Council consider changing actual costs when
project review exceeds fee charges by two times.
b. Information only. No action required.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following action was taken at the last regular
Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1993:
b. Set the following requests of Chris R. Keszler and Fred Baker for
Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m., Monday, March 8, 1993:
1. For a General Plan Amendment to redesignate a portion of the
parcel at 451 East Turner Road (ADN 015-230-28) from PR, Planned
Residential to NCC, Neighborhood/Community Commercial;
APPROVED.._
THOMAS A. PETERSON �xrcba caws
City Manager
CCP! AN4/ T XTD .01C cc_,
Planning Commission Repor, - February 22, 1993
March 3, 1993
Page two
2. to prezone a portion of the parcel at 451 East Turner Road (APN
015-230-28) C -S, Commercial Shopping; and
3. to certify the filing of a Negative Declaration by the Community
Development Director as adequate environmental documentation on
the above projects.
FUNDING: None required.
)1aes B. Schr der
munity Development Director
JBS/cg
CCPLAN4/TXTD.QIC
To: Members of Planning Commission
From: Assistant City Manager
Subj: Cost Recovery Program
Date: February 22, 1993
City Staff for some time has been concerned that our present fee for
service structure does not capture the costs of providing direct
services to the public.
A cost recovery plan has been prepared and the initial proposal has
been reviewed by the City Council. They, the City Council, requested
that before the actual fees were brought back to them they be reviewed
by the appropriate commission for comment.
Included is the council communication which will be presented to the
City Council. I look forward to the opportunitf to present this data
to you and answer any questions and/or concerns.
Respectfully,
Jerry L. Glenn
Assistant City Manager
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Assistant City Manager
Subj.- Cost Recovery Program
Date: March 3, 1993
RECOMMSNDATION: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. In order to do this
Council is requested to adopt the attached ordinance.
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 look 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 polity to set
fees at more or less than the cost of providing the service. There are
a number of factors which must be considere, 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.
Cost Recovery
1001
YO%
Bos
Toa
COMMUNITY
°O� (taxes)
60iI
40%
30% INDIVIDUAL
:o. (tees)
for
0%
COYYVNITT ![N�TIT FtASONAI !•N(IIT
C
For example: Police Patrol services
performed by patrol officers benefit
the community as . whole through
crime deterrence.
Accordingly, costs of service ar3
100V supported by taxes.
YOUTH ATHLETICS
lo"Cost Recovery
i•o.
•oa
sea
•oa COMMUNITY
•o'soa l�+nus)
a
'Oa IND'A'tDUAL
too
(less)
eoa
Olt
OOYMMMIV ae,e►e. ►rweeMAL •IMC►It
Shared benefit
By the :.ame 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
PUBL. — SAFETY, PATROL
Coat Recovery
100%[—
•oa /
soa
00%COMMUNITY
I(taxes)
INDIVIDUAL
(hes)
wwnt s•e•oeK wwtet
Conxmxllty fade,100% tax eupoortee
Youth programs benefit
participat=ng 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.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
Cost Recovery —
,ee+
wa
•c+
lot.
M.
COMMUNITY
(taxes)
so+
ao+
70%
INDIVIDUAL
too
.o.
(fees)
o+
COMMUNITY •rMrfil trg0•al •tMCrll
Benefit to builder, homeowners
2.ECONOMIC INCENTIVES: In some cases it may be desirable to use
fees 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.
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 resaarch and understanding. This resolution
should have a provision that w'11 raise these fees on an annual basis.
Every five years the basis of the tees 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 bee: reviewed by the Cc:mnunity
Development Director and the Planning Commission. The comments of the
Planning Commission is attached hereto.
The Community Development Department is charged with three distinct
functions which provide service to the citizens of the City of Lodi;
planning, building inspection and code enforcement. In the area of
planning there are activities which are beneficial to the community at
large and should therefore be paid for by the community at large.
These activities center around the area of long range and current
planning and zoning issues.
PLANNING
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 community; therefore, it is appropriate that
the cost of these services not cone 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 peison(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
$ S00
Rezone
11
$100
$ 608
$ 600
Lot Line Adjust.
22
0
$ 171
$ 175
Parcel Map
23
O
$ 290
$ 300
Tentative Map
13
$100
$ 536
$ 500
Prelim.Env. Asses.
75
$ 0
$ 46
$ 50
Negative Dec.
20
$ 50
$ 611
$ 600
EIR
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
$ 15
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. We 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 tho+,;n 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 unnec.;ssary 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.
CODE ENFORCEMENT
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 can 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:
Activity Cost
Complaint Received
1st Field Inspection
Admin.Processing
Compliance Inspection
2nd Compliance Inspection
3rd Compliance Inspection
Close File
$12
S48
$19
$50
$50
$50
$24
Recommended Fee
$ 0
$0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 50
$200
$ 0
By the same toren the same approach should be taken with abatement of
vehicles. However at the 2nd compliance inspection the City will
order the vehicle towed.
Activity Cost RecommendeQ Fee
Complaint Received $24 $ 0
Field Inspection $17 $ 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.
--