HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-05 City Council (2)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 5, 2002 CMR: 164:02
DEVELOPMENT CENTER COST RECOVERY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend
following actions with regards to the Development Center:
to the City Council the
¯raise the mandated cost recovery levels for Fire Department services from 75% to
100%;
¯confirm current mandated cost recovery levels for other departments; and
¯direct staff to submit adjusted fees with the 2002-03 budget to align each department
more closely with its mandated cost recovery level.
BACKGROUND
In September 1998, staff presented City Council with a report (CMR:368:98) outlinifig the
results of a space utilization study for a one-stop Development Center. The study
recommended that Council approve a lease agreement and additional funding for new
¯ space to be used. for a Development Center across the street from City Hall. The City
Council approved the additional funding and directed staff to follow up with an analysis
and recommendation for changes to fees to achieve full cost recovery for the Development
Center.
In February 1999, staffreported on the findings (CMR:135:99), including a detailed
analysis of costs and revenues associated with the Development Center; a discussion of the
calculation of citywide overhead costs; an examination of previous levels of cost recovery
mandated by the Council for services to be offered at the Development Center; and a
review of how other communities were managing their development-related services. In
addition, the report recommended that the City Council direct staff to:
CMR:164:02 Page 1 of 6
1.Implement fee increases as an interim measure to minimize the support required by the
General Fund to pay for the additional lease costs.
2.Undertake an update of a user fee study last performed in 1990 specifically for the fees
charged at the Development Center, and return to Council with recommendations for
revisions to cost recovery levels and fee adjustments.
3. Revisit the City’s cost recovery policies, and return with revis.ed cost recovery
proposals, along with an improved methodology for calculating cost recovery for the
Development Center.
In March 1999 (CMR:175:99) and April 1999 (CMR:199:99), staff recommended, and
Council approved, revisions to the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule to fully cover ongoing
costs associated with services provided.at the Development Center. To ensure the City’s
compliance with state law mandating cost recovery levels for certain fees, the City
contracted with a third party vendor, DMG Associates (now MAXIMUS), to do further
cost/revenue analysis relative to services provided at the Development Center.. The goal of
the study was to determine whether the approved fee increases would result in enough
revenue to both meet City policy regarding cost recovery levels and cover the increased
costs associated with the lease agreement.
DISCUSSION
The Development Center is composed of staff from four departments in the City: Planning
and Community Environment, Public Works, Fire, and Utilities. The Utilities staff is
excluded from the analysis in this report because it is supported by utility rates rather than
by the General Fund, and because the Utility. Department pays its pro-rated share of rent,
which has been accounted for in the analysis.
Current cost recovery levels were set by Council in 1990. That year, the Council adopted
staff’s recommendations regarding appropriate cost recovery levels for various types of
City services. These levels were developed after public hearings and committee .meetings.
The recovery levels recommended were based upon the type of service offered. Public
services (providing general benefit to the public) were set at zero cost recovery; individual
¯ services (providing benefits that accrue to those who consume them) were set at 100
percent cost recovery; and merit services (providing benefits for both the individual user
and the community at large) were set ranging from 1 to 99 percent cost recovery.
The current fee analysis of the fees, also performed by DMG-Maximus, was broken into
four separate categories:
A.Activities occurring at the Development Center that are specifically related to Building
Inspection and Plan Checking;
B.Other activities occurring at the Development Center;
C.Activities performed by off-site staff in support of Building Inspection and Plan
Checking activities at the Development Center; and
CMR: 164:02 Page 2 of 6
D.Activities performed by off-site staff in support of other activities occurring at the
Development Center.
It must be noted that all of category (A) activities above (Building Inspection and Plan
Checking) have a mandated 100% cost recovery level. That is, fees generated are required
to fully pay for the cost of these services. Similarly, all category (C) acti~cities-share that
100% mandated cost recovery level, since these personnel and overhead costs are part of
the cost of Development Center services.
Some of the activities in category (B) have a mandated cost recovery level of 100% (e.g.,
Public Works’ encroachment permits, street opening permits, and certificates of
compliance), while others have a mandated cost recovery, level of 0% (e.g., flood zone
inquiries handled by Public Works, and code enforcement handled by Planning). Category
(D) activities have the same mandated cost recovery levels as the specific Development
Center activities they support.
The DMG-MAXIMUS analysis focused on the 1999-00 fiscal year. Staff decided to
perform the analysis for the 2000-01 and 2001-02 fiscal years, to provide a multi-year
perspective to Council. The 2000-01 and 2001-02 analyses replicated the methodology
. used in the MAXIMUS analysis, with the following exception: for 2001-02, staff used
adjusted budget figures rather than actual full-year expenditures, since the latter were not
available.
The main conclusions of the analysis are:
1.The Planning Department’s Building Inspection and Plan Checking activities, as well as
its overall Development Center services, are generally at or above mandated cost
recovery levels (at an average level of 95% compared to 90% mandated levels).
2.All the Public Works Department’s Development Center services are below mandated
cost recovery levels (combined level of 22% versus 83% mandated levels); and
3. The Fire Department’s Development Center services are well above mandated cost
recovery levels (132% compared to 75% mandated levels).
4. Overall cost recovery levels meet mandated levels (89% versus 88% combined
mandated level).
The following summary sheet represents average recovery levels for the three fiscal years
analyzed:
CMR:164:02 Page 3 of 6
Planning
Public Works - onsite
offsite staff
Fire
Total
Development Center Cost Analysis
3-YEAR AVERAGE
Cost
$3,508,429
$113,693
$199,737
$309,981
$4,131,840
Building Inspection & Plan Checking Mandated
Actual Cost Cost
Recovery RecoveryReve n u e
$3,708,116
$o
$o
$418,744
$4,126,860
Subsidy
-$199,687
$113,693
$199,737
-$108,763
$4,980
105.7%
O.O%
O.O%
135.1%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
75.0%
98.1%
Planning
Public works
d evel op m t -r el at ed
non-developmt-relate
Fire
Total
Cost
$400,277
$155,409
$98,015
$0
$653,701
Other Development Center Services
Act ua! Cost
Revenue Subsidy Recovery
$0
$128,796
$0
$400,277
$26,613
$98,015
$0
$524,905
$0
$128,796
0.0%
82.9%
0.0%
19.7%
Mandated
Cost
Recovery
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
23.8%
Planning
Public Works
Fire
Total
All Development Center Services
Actual Cost
Cost Revenue Subsidy Recovery
$3,908,706
$566,854
$30.9,981
$4,785,541
$3,708,116
$128,796
$418,744
$4,255,657
$200,590
$438,058
-$108,763
$529,884
94.9%
22.7%
135.1%
88.9%
Mandated
Cost
Recovery
89.8%
82.7%
75.0%
88.0%
Public Works Department
The Public Works Department performs building permit plan checking activities in support
of the Planning Department. This support was initially to ensure that plans complied with
the former scope of the old grading and excavation ordinance. Public Works did not set a
fee for these activities because staff time spent on these activities was initially minor. Over
the last few years, however, the scope of Public Works’ building permit plan-checking
activities has grown extensively due to the following regulations and development of major
projects in the City:
CMR: 164:02 Page 4 of 6
¯Compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and the State Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program; ~
¯Compliance with the City’s 1999 Grading and Excavation Ordinance;
¯Revisions to the Special Flood Zone map and regulations;
¯Redevelopment of the Stanford Research Park. Checking plans for the .large and
complex office structures occupying up to 10-15 acres of land has proven time
consuming.
Public Works department fees need adjusting, to bring actual cost recovery levels closer to
100%. Staff will return with fee changes and new fees for the 2002-03 Municipal Fee
Schedule. It is anticipated that these fees will be a percentage of the assessed building
permit fee, modeled after the existing fee assessed by the Fire Department. In addition,
fees for permits currently issued by the Public Works Department will be re-evaluated to
bring their fees for other Development Center services closer to 100% cost recovery.
Staff anticipates that the overall impact of the relevant fee changes for 2002-03 will be a
revenue increase of between $250,000 and $350,000.
Planning and Community Environment Department
Fiscal year 2000-01 saw an unusual spike in both Planning Department and Fire
Department fee revenues. This was due to the unusually robust economic climate. In the
current fiscal year (2001-02), Planning has experienced continued high levels of permitting
activity and revenues, whereas the Fire Department has experienced a fall-off in activity.
This seems to be due to the fact that the Fire Department’s activities consist primarily of
reviewing plans for commercial and industrial occupancies -- which have tapered off due to
the economic downturn. In contrast, the Planning Department’s activities include both
residential and a broad range of commercial projects. Building permit revenues through
December 31, 2001 are 13% higher than the same period last year and 10% over budget.
Staff will be looking at lowering fees for Planning and Community Environment
Department services where current cost recovery levels exceed mandated levels.
Fire Department
Staff recommends that Council raise the mandated cost recovery levels for Fire Department
services from 75% to 100%..The 75% mandated recovery level seems to be an inadvertent
carryover of Hazardous Materials Program cost recovery levels. The Hazardous Materials
Program is an inspection and annual permitting program for facilities that use or store
hazardous materials, whereas Development Center projects are one-time permits that
generally do not involve hazardous materials. Hazardous Materials Program recovery
levels were set in the 1990 cost recovery process and do not relate to Development Center
services. The Fire Department’s Development Center services fit well within the realm of
CMR:164:02 Page 5 of 6
services benefiting, individual entities, and therefore requiring full cost recovery. Since
current cost recovery levels exceed 100%, the change would not involve raising fees.
Staff will be looking at lowering Fire Department fees for Development Center services
where current cost recovery levels exceed 100%.
RESOURCE IMPACT
For fiscal year 2001-02, there is no anticipated resource impact to the City resulting from
the recommendations in this report. For 2002-03, staff will present specific revenue
impacts when presenting proposed fee changes for Development Center services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The scope of this staff report is not a project under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Text of MAXIMUS report
Attachment B: Development Center Cost Analysis, 2000-02
PREPARED BY:
NANCY NAGEL
Senior Financial Analyst
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: ,,~
Director, A~ministrative Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
\EMILY HARRIS ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 164:02 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
COST RECOVERY STUDY FINDINGS
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY12002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Report Findings
Project Scope and Objectives
Backgrot~nd
Discussio~ of Services
Exhibit I- Staffing
Summarv of Findings
Exhibit II- Cost/Revenue Comparisons
Exhibit III - Man date d Cost Re co very L e vels
Methodolog~l
Recommendations
I
2
2
3
5
6
6
7
SECTION I
REPORT FINDINGS
A,IAXIWIUS, Inc. is a nation~,ide consulting firm offering a Mde arra~, of services for state and local
government. A sample of the services offered include." cost annie,sis, revenue enhancement studies,
execudve searches, performance measurement and management studies.
PROJECT SCOPE & OBJECTIVES
MAXIMUS was engaged bV the Citv of Palo Alto to conduct a revenue/cost studV related to services
provided at the citv’s Development Center. The scope of the project is defined bV the following
questions:
¯What ~[oes it cost.the citV to provide various development-related services?
¯What are current cost recoverV levels?
¯Are current revenues recovering the increase in rent costs incurred bV the citV as a result
of the move to the Development Center?
¯Are c~rrent cost recoverV levels meeting previouslV established citV policv?
MAXIMUS, with directionand coordination from the Administrative Services Department, performed
the following tasks in order to address these issues:
¯Interview departments that currentlV provide development-related user fee activities,
primarilV at the Development Center. :
¯Assess service costs with revenues currentlV received for these activities, and identifV anV
subsidies or over-recoveries.
¯IdentifV service areas where the citV migh~ increase (or decrease) fees based on the full
cost of services and. other economic or policV consid.erations.
The studV provides the CitV of Palo Alto with cost-of-service information that it can consider, together
with existing citV policv for fee-setting purposes. The result will be a d.ecrease in the general fund
subsidization of some services together with a corresponding increase in revenues. Other services maV
show a decrease in fees, thus decreasing the user fee revenues that go into the general fLmd.
This re’por~ summarizes oL~r findings and recommendations for cost recoverV for user fee activities
performed, at the Development Center. The Development Center houses staff from three functional
areas of the citv’s general fund: Construction Review (Planning & CommLmit¥ Environment Department),
Private Development (Public Works Department), and. Environmental & Safety Management (Fire
Department). The Development Center also houses staff funded bV the Utilities Department blot these
costs were excluded, from the analvsis becaL~se theV have a vetV minimal impact on the Development
Center costs and the Utilities Department has a direct allocation of their share of the rent.
BACKGROUND
In September ~998 citv staff presented CitV Council with a report (CMR:368:98), outlining the results
of a space utilization studV. The studV recommended that council approve a lease agreement and
additional funding for new space to be used for a one-stop Development Center across the street
from CitV Hall. The CitV Council approved the additional funding and directed staff to follow up with
an analvsis of the costs and revenues associated with the services provided at the Development
Center.
CMR:135:99 (Februarv ~999) reported on citV staff’s findings. This report provide(:[ detailed information
relative to costs and revenues, citvwide overhead, cost recoverV levels, and how other communities
are managing their development-related services. CMR:BS:99 recommended that the CitV Council
direct staff to:
Implement fee increases as an interim measure to minimize the support reqL~ired bV the
general fund to pav for the additional lease costs.
2. Undertake an update of a user fee studV last performed in i990.
3.Revisit the citv’s cost recoverV policies, and develop an improved methodologV for
calculating cost recoverl/,
FinallV, CMR:175:99 (March 1999) and CMR:199:99 (April 1999) recommend that council approve
revisions to the citv’s Municipal Fee Schedule.
The citV then contracted with MAXIMUS to do further cost/revenue analvsis, relative to services
provided at the Development Center. The goal of the studV was to determine whether the fee
increases proposed above would result in enough revenue to meet citV policV regarding cost
recoverV levels, as well as cover the increased costs associated with the lease agreement.
DISCUSSION OF SERVICES
The services provided at the Development Center revolve primarilV aroL~nd building inspection and
plan checking. Most of the staff housed at the Development Center is budgeted in the Construction
Review functional area of the Planning & CommunitV Environment Department (16 FTE, including 2 staff
dedicated to code enforcement). In addition, there are L5 Fire FTE and 3.5 Public Works FTE that
support the plan checking effort.
There are other services provided at the Development Center in addition to building inspection and
plan checking. For example, the citv’s code enforcement function (which is not mandated to recover
anv costs) is managed here. Also, 2.2 of the 3.5 Public Works FTE that are located at the Development
Center are actua[lV dedicated to other engineering services that are either non-fee generating, or
have fees collected elsewhere (e.g. street opening permits and grading permits).
And finallV, there is some Public Works staff that is not phvsicallv located at the Development Center
that provides direct support to the plan checking effort. The cost of these "offsite" services must be
considered in this analvsis.
The following chart lists the citV staff that provides all developmem-related services that are analvzed
in this studV. The positions are listed bV t~ctional area.
Exhibit I
Functional Area
6~4 Construction Review
Admin Zoning
Assoc Res Planner
Asst Bldg Official
B~ilding Inspector
Bldg Insp Specialist
Bldg/Plan Tech
Chief Bldg Official
Code Enf Officer
Manager Planning
Mgr Arborist
Otfice Spec
Planner
Plan Check, Engr
Staff SecretarV
S~pvr Bldg Insp
Total:
515 Private Development
Tech III
Tech III
Tech III
Tech III Temp Position
Engineer
Asst Engineer
Sr Engineer
S~pvsr l~sp & S~rveV
S~rvevor
Survevor Asst
Inspector
Total:
752 E~vironme’nial & SaferV M~t
Fire Marshal
Haz Mat Specialist
Haz Mat Inspector
Fire Inspector EMT
Total:
Grand Totals
Development Center
Insp & Plan Chk Other Services
0.05 o.o5
O.IO
0.72
2.43 o.~9
2.43 o.19
3a5
0.40
o.12 o.6~
0.05 0.05,
o.oo 0.25
0.50
on5 oao
2.85
0.40
0.63 OlO6
~3.98 ~.5o
0.35 0.65
0.45 0.55
0.40 0.60
o.Io o.4o
~.3o 2.20
o.15
0.80
0.25
0.30
~.5o 0.00
~6.78 3.70
Staff Housed Elsewhere
Insp & Plan Chk Other Services
0.35
0.35
0.20
0.05
o.95
O,OO O.OO
O.OO
0.95
0.65
0.65
0.80
0.95
1.OO
1.OO
1.OO
6.05
O.IO
0.20
2.10
2.40
8.45
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
There are two quesfions/policv issues that are driving this stuc~v:
Are the revenues that are collected at the Development Center recovering the incremental
costs associated with the lease pavment?
2. Is the comparison between revenues and costs meeting mandated cost recoverv levels?
Because there are costs for offsite staff that support the Development Center, and there are
Development Center costs for services that have revenues collected, elsewhere, there are no simple
answers to these questions. And although a single cost/revenue analysis was performed, the results
need. to be looked at in two different wavs.
Building It~spection and Plan Checking. As mentioned above, the primarV services provided at the
Development Center are building inspection and plan checking. Revenues for these services are
credited to Construction Review and Environmental & Saferv Management (Fire), and totaled
$4,089,754 in 1999/2ooo. Private Development (PL~blic Works), curre~tlv does not have a direct fee
charged for its contribution to the plan review effort.
The total cost of these services (including all overhead costs) is $4,060,297. CompaLring revenues to
costs yields a cost recoverv level of ~oo.73~o - averv slight over-recoverv of full cost. The cost
recover-V levels for each functional area range from o.og for Private Development, to io5.o7~o for
ConstruLction Review, to ~36.3og for Etw’ronme~tal & Saferv Management.
A summarV of building inspection and plan checking costs and revenues is displayed i~ the top box of
Exhibit II (page 5).
Other Development C_~c_es~ Constr~ction Review includes five major activitV areas, one of
which is condition monitoring (also described as code enforcement). This is a ~Ol~-fee generating
activitV and is kept separate from inspection and plan checking, for cost recoverv purposes.
Private Development staff provides both user fee services other than plan checking (e.g. street
opening permits, encroachment permits, and certificates of compliance) and ~og-fee services (e.g.
special events planning, flood zone inquiries, etc). User fee revenues are currentlv recovering
68.77~o of costs. Non-fee services have no associated revenues.
Environmental & SaferV Management staff provides no other Development Center services (other
than plan checking activitV, identified, in the top box of Exhibit II).
The total cost recoverV levee for other Development Center services is 16.|9~o. These costs and
revenues are displayed in the middle box of Exhibit II.
~L~gJ~O._.~te£~Sea-~Lces. The last box, at the bottom of Exhibit II, displavs the total
cost/revenue comparison for all Development Center services (includ.ing a small portio~ of Private
Development costs for staff housed, offsite). The total cost recoverv level is 89.59g. This is just over
the mandated, cost recoverv level of 88.25g. (Mandated cost recoverv levels will be discussed.
further on page 6 of this report)
Exhib#.H
Development Center Cost Analvsis
6~4 Constr Review
515 Private Develop
offsite staff
75z Envtal & Sftv Mgt
Total
6~4 Constr Review
55 Private Develop
fee-related
non-fee related
752 Envtal & SftV M£I
To~al
O)
Cost
Btdldin~ Inspection & Plan Checking
Revenu, e J Subsidv I Cost RecoverV
$3,48Z~,422 $3,66LI3o -$176,7o8 ~o5.o7%
$~37,363 $o $137,363 o.oo%
$1zz,,o38 $o $124,o38 o.oo%
$3~4,475 $428,624 -$114,149 136.3o%
$4,o6o,z97 $4,089,754 -$29,457 1oo.73%
Cost
Other Development Center Services
J Revenue J Su.bsidV J Cost RecoverV
$390,873 $o 3390,873 0.00%
$1ZJ~,gz~8
$8o,o6o
$99,683 $45,265 68.77Z
$O $80,O60 O.OO%
$99,683 $516,198
All Development Center Services
Mandated
Cost RecoverV
I00.00%
ioo.oo%
IOO.OO%
75.oo%
98.06%
Mandated
Cost RecoverV
0.00%
I00.00%
0.00%
6~4 Constr Review
515 Private Develop
752 Envtal & Sftv Mgt
Total
cost I Revenue I Subsidy I Cost RecoverV
$3,875,295 $3,661,13o $2~z,,|65 94.47%
$486,409 $99,683 $386,726 20.49%
$314,475 $428,624 -$114,149 136.3o%
$4,676,;78 $4,189,437 $486,741 89.59%
Mandated
Cost Recoverv
89.91%
83.54%i
75.00%
88.25%
Notes:
(~) - Btzilding inspection and plan checking costs for this functional area include 0.55 FTE that are housed
offsite (in Citv Hall or Building C).
(2) - This cost is for condition monitoring (i.e. code enforcement).
In summarV, the answers to the two questions asked at the beg nning of this section are:
Yes, the revenues collected at the Development Center are recovering the incremental costs ’
associated with the lease pavment. ~998/99 revenues for the Development Center were $,2,458,562.
In 1999/2ooo thev total $4,189A37 - an increase of $1,73o,875, which more than covers the lease
Pavment ($292,000).
Mandated cost recoverV levels are exceeded for some functional areas, and not being met in
others. Overall, current cost recoverV levels fall slightlV under mandated levels. Below is a
comparison of the mandated ~evels, 1999/2ooo levels, and. 1998/99 levels.
£xhibit ///
Function
Construction Review
- Insp & Plan Check
- Code Enforcement
Private Development
- Fee-Related
-Non-Fee
Envtal & SaferV M~t
Totals
Mandated Levels ~999/2ooo Levels
~o5%
o%
75%
88%
)998/99 Levels
0%
88%
62%
The citV has experienced significant improvements in cost recoverV levels for a varletV of reasons:
L Fee increases were implemented as a result of earlier CMR recommendations.
2.The BaV Area’s econom9 experienced unprecedented growth during the late ~99o’si
3.The booming economV resulted in rapid increases in the housing market.
When considering possible courses of action, it should be noted that the economV has suffered a
slowdown in the past two vears, and the housing market is following suit. Construction volume and
project valuation (used to calculate fees) are trending downward. Therefore, adjustments to fees
maV have a ~reater thananticipated impact.
METHODOLOGY
The user fee activitV costs developed in this studV were generated through a series of spreadsheets
and a proprietarV/VIAXIMUS computer model. The costing meth0dologq goes through the following
steps:
MAXIMUS, along with citV personnel develops time estimates within each functional.area
where fee- based services are provided. Based upon these estimates, a model of service
areas’is developed which is reviewed extensivelV with citv staff.
The model is then anah/zed for each service area. This includes development of direct labor,
benefits, and other operating costs, budgeted in each functional area (all based on
1999/2ooo actual expenditt~res).
CentrallV bt~dgeted costs such as citV administration, finance and data processing services
are allocated to the users o{ the services provided. (Please note that the citV prepared its
own cost allocation p{an for 1999/2ooo based on.a model established with MAXINIUS
assistance.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The cost analvsis summarized in this report, together with previouslV established policV r;egarding cost
recoverV levels, provides the citv’s decision-makers with the necessarV tools to determine whether
adiustments to fees are warranted. However, there are a nt~mber of possibilities to consider prior to
making anV adjustments. MAXINIUS offers the following suggestions and options for consideration:
Make no adjustments to the current fee schedules. When looking at the analvsis aI the highest
level - comparing total costs and revenues - the overall cost Fecoverv level is 9o% which meets
(and slightlV exceeds) the mandated level.
This would not have anV eifect on the general fund’s revenues.
Adopting this approach means that the citV must be comfortable with the idea that this high level
cost/revenue match-up satisfies the language identified in California Government Code sections
66o~2-66o24, setting for "Fees For Specific Purposes", "Procedures For Adopting Various Fees",
and provisions regarding "Protests, Legal Actions, And Audits." The langL~age in these sections
states that:
"...when a local agencV charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits;
bL~ilding inspections; building permits; filing and processing applications and petitions filed
with the local agencV formation commission...; ...; those fkes shall not exceed the estimated.
reasonable cost of provid/n~ the serv/ce for ~vh/ch the fees are char~ed,...." (emphasis
added)
Make adjustments to the current fee schedules, sL~ch that each functional area meets its mandated
cost FecoverV level. This would result in vetV slight decreases to Construction Review fees,
significant decFeases to Environmental & SaferV Management fees (the plan checking fee
and implementing a new plan checking fee for PFivate Development. Other fee-related services
provided bV the Private Development functiona[ area would also need to be increased (and one
fee would need to be decreased) in order to meet the ioo7~ cost recoverv mandate. Code
enforcement services pFovided bV Construction Review and non-fee related services provided bV
Private Development would remain completelV subsidized.
Overall, this would increase the general fund’s revenues bV $6,ooo.
MAXIMUS recommends the citV consider this option.
7
Make no adjustments {o anV of {he building inspection and plan checking activities (thus continL~ing
to have {he Fire fee essentiallV subsidize the Public Works services), blot adios{ {he other
engineering fees (street opening permits, encroachment permits, certificates of compliance) {o
meet {heir mal~da{ed levels,
This would increase the general fund’s revenlzes bV ’.i;45,ooo.
Again, adopting this approach, the citv must be comfortable with the cost/revenue match-L~p at the
building inspection and plaT~ checking total level, and not at the functional area level.
Adopt new mandated cost recoverV levels. /VIAX[MUS recommends that the_citV consider
increasing the level for Environmental & SaferV Management from 75~o up to ioo~o. Also, if the citV
chooses the first or third options, it will result in Private Development not meeting its mandated
cost recoverV level of ioo~o, and Environmental & SaferV Management will be exceeding its
mandate.
This woLdd have ~o effect on the general fund’s revenues.
ATTACHMENT B
Planning
Public Works-onsite
offsite
Fire
Total
Planning
Public Works
development-related
non-developt-related
Fire
Total
(2)
(4)
(5)
Development Center Cost Analysis, 2000-01
Building inspection & Plan Checking
Cost I Revenue I Subsidy
$3,351,798 $3,717,533 -$365,735
$103,374 $0 $103,374
$224,580 $0 $224,580
$305,776 $495,680 -$189,904
$3,985,528 $4,213,213 -$227,685
I Actual Cost
Recovery
110.9%
0.0%
162.1%
105.7%
Other Development Center Services
I
Cost Revenue I Subsidy
$446,622 $0 $446,622
Actual Cost
Recovery
0.0%
$160,467 $121,416 $39,051 75.7%
$108,401 $0 $108,401
$0 $0 $0
$715,490 $121,416 $594,074 17.0%
Mandated Cost
Recovery(3)
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
75.0%
98.1%
Mandated Cost
Recovery (3)
0.0%
10o.o%
o.0%
22.4%
Planning
Public Works
Fire
Total
Notes:
All Development Center Services
I I Actual Cost
Cost Revenue Subsidy Recovery
$3,798,420 $3,717,533 $80,887 97.9%
$596 822 $121,416 $475,406 20.3%
$305 776 $495,880 -$189,904 162.1%
$4,701,0t8 $4,334,629 $366,389 92.2%
(1) - Public Works costs include 0.55 FTE that are housed offsite (in City Hall or Building C).
(2) - This cost is for condition monitoring (i.e., code enforcement).
(3) - Total mandated cost recovery levels are weighted averages of individual departments’ mandated recovery levels
(4) - These services include encroachment permits, street work permits, and certificates of compliance.
(51 - These services include GIS System input, special events planning, flood zone inquiries, and general property questions.
Mandate(~ Cost
Recovery (3)
88.2%
81.8%
75.0%
86.6%
ATTACHMENTB
Development Center Cost Analysis 2001-02
Planning
Public Works - onsite
offsite staff
Fire
Total
Building Inspection & Plan Checking
I I I Actual C°stCostRevenueSubsidyRecovery
$3,689,057 $3,745,686 -$56,629 101.5%
$108,652 $0 $108,652 0.0%
$250,593 $0 $250,593 0.0%
$309,693 $331,928 -$22,235 107.2%
$4,357,995 $4,077,614 $280,381 93.6%
Planning
Public Works
developmt-related
non-developmt-i’elated
Fire "
Total
(2)
(4)
(5)
Other Development Center Services
I I
Actual Cost
Cost Revenue Subsidy Recovery
$363,332 $0 $363,332 0.0%
$168,641 $165,290 $3,351 98.0%
$113,896 $0 $113,896 0.0%
$0 $o $0 --
$645,869 $165,290 $480,579 25.6%
Planning
Public Works
Fire
Total
Notes:
All Development Center Services
Actual Cost
Cost Revenue Subsidy Recovery
$4,052,389 $3,745,686 $306,703 92.4%
$641,782 $165,290 $476,492 25.8%
$309,693 $331,928 -$22,235 107.2%
$5,003,864 $4,242,905 $760,959 84.8%
(1) - Public Works costs include 0.55 FTE that are housed offsite (in City Hall or Building C).
(2) - This cost is for condition monitoring (i.e., code enforcement). -
(3)- Total mandated cost recovery levels are weighted averages of individual departments’ mandated recovery levels
(4) - These service include encroachment permits, street work permits, and certificates of compliance.
(5) - These service include GIS System input, special events planning, flood zone inquiries, and general property questions.
Mandated Cost
Recovery (3)
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
75.0%
98.2%
Mandated Cost
. Recovery (3)
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
26.1%
Mandated Cost
Recovery (3)
91.0%
82.3%
75.0%
88.9%
2