The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0512.092• ""'C. ~: '. -~-.. "." ~ • • , 0 '-~ .. " '; ,~.,- ," 15 November IZ, 199, HONORABLE CITf COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Full Cost Recovery Program: Ttmpora.n:....P.Lofessi Q.!lA.L11 anner) Kembers of the Coun~il~ Re.Q.Qrt in Bf'"jef T~i 5 report recorrrnends CHy Council approval of a budget amendment ordinante to fl.ln:d the hiring of temporary professiona1 planners, who would assist in processing Planning Di¥ision app1ications during periods when several major full cost recovery projects are in process. Use of temporary professional planners would assure maintenance of current custQrner serv{c:e level s for all Plannir.g D;~isiDn applicants. funding for the temporary planner(s) would be fully offset by full cost recovery application fee re\len~es. Without assistance, normal time lines for pennit processing "ill be diffitult to achieve and customer service jeopardized. or staff resourcp.s would need to be shifttd from the Comprehensive Plan update, delaying that project. Background In an attachment to a June 2, 1992 report to t~e finance Committee on appropriate levels of service in the Plann~ng Division (see Attachment 2, frem CMR:2B3:92 of 6/2/92), the following items were Gis-cussed: 1/ types. of projects targeted for full cost recovery fees in the FY 1992-93 and 1993-94 budgets; 2) reasons for the full cost recovery fee schedule; and 3) an explanation of how ~;gh levels of service could be provided through U5e of s.upplemental professional staff. during periods when major full cost recovery project applications also were being processed. Th1s attachment further pointed out that with the forthcoming commitment to update the Comprehensive Plan, it wDuld no longer be possible to borrow Plan~ing Division staff assigned other programs, e,g., the Comprehensive Plan, without impacting the time frame for c.ompleting the Division's major work program. Current Status of. Full Cost Reco .... ery Prpj.ects Currently. the Planning Division has received fees frO'll four full cost recover~ projects: J) the Stanfcrd West project and EIR, 2) t~~ Sand Htll C~R:SI2:92 "- o Road e.xtens~on and Shopping Center expansion E"lR, 3) He Tamarack Cou.rt resident~11 hotel PC lene change project, and 4) a zone change for a hotel (H) C"verlay for the Creeksfde 111" on £1 Camino Real. In addition, the Planning Division expects to receive app1ications from two fui1 cost recovery prnjE'cts in the week of November 9, 1992. lot line adjustment and minor zone changE and Comprehen:;; \Ie Pl an amendm~nt r~quests for sites at 620-640 Page 101111 R~:lad and 2650 £1 Camino Real. The Starlford West project and Sand Hill ~oad E1R alone are expected to :'"equire at least )QO percent of a Senlor Planner's (Planning Division) tfme for the next year and a half. As i result of this major project being precessed concurrently .ith the Compreherrsi· .. e Pian, the normal operations of the Planning Division ~ould othe~ise be severely delayed. The solut;o~ proposed w1tn the 1993-94 Budget and Fee Schedule, that was endorsed earlier by Council, ~as to hire temporary professional project planners using !O~ pErcent cost recovery fees in order to assure ~ontinued high leyels of cJstomer service for a1l Planning Di~;sion app1ications and related projects. Rp-colT'ru!nded Budoet and Options for Hir;~Lq lemrarary Planners Staff estimates that current and expect~d full cost recovery projects being processed over the next six months will require the h-iri"9 of a minimum of a three-Quarters time professional planner for this six month time frame, and we may need to process another Budget Amendme~t Ordi~ance before six months have expired. {Two planners a1so could be hired whose total time wDulJ equa1 the equ.;\la.lent !Jf a. three-quarter tiille staff person.} 1'he te(l;,porary planner or pla~ners will be assigned to the less complicated applications, such as the Cree.side Inn zone change and the lot line adjustment at 620-640 Page Mil1 Road. and to underfill for planning applications which would normally be the responsibility of the Senio~ P1an~e( now handl~ng the more demandin9 Stanford West ind Sand Hill Road projects. C~rrtnt fees for experi~nced professional planners aV€rdge $60.00 per hour without benefits. lherefore. funds for such a professional planner(s) for a sfx month period would amount to $46,800. T~ese funds wou1d be entirely reimbursed to the C;ty from current and expected full cost recovery projects. Three options are available for hiring a temporary planner. They are I) exec.util'l.g a contract with a fjrm (.Ir individu3.l consistent with the City's request for proposal proceB (RFP). 2) ~:iring professional personnel through a ti!mpor.ry employment age~cy? or 3) recrL..oitirlg ard hiring a professional ~1~nner ~$ ~ temporary employee. Staff endorses t~e last option because 1) this ~irlng procedure is most cost effective in terms of fee~ {no overhead). 2) it provides fli!xibility to use such plan~ers only when Planning Division workload requires supplemental staff in order to maintain high service levels, and 3) it requires min~ma1 resources ifi hlring and administering such perso"nt!l. }~mmjry and ConclYsion The City Council previously appro ... ed. as part of the Municipal Fee Schedule, tnt! concept for full cost recovery fees for major pl anning projects. The: CMR:512:92 11/12/91 Page 1 • • --'-~-'-'''''-_ .. .~ ~ I. -.. ') Finance Committee, in its revie_ of the department budg~t~ and the Poiicy and Sery~ces CDmlittee~ in a d:SCll$~ior1 of the ARB process, 3150 dis-cussed the importance of maintaining high ser~ice levels in tl,e precessing of all Phnning DiY~s1(}n applications and re1ated projects. including during periods when m~j~~ f!o'11 ccst rzcoveij' projects cculd otllerw, se djmini sh staff resources. Hiring outside professional planning personnel during pericds of peak workloads has been used effectively by other Bay Area cities jnc1uding Sunny~ale •• aTnut (reeK, 30u!h San Francisco, Belmont and Los Altos. Such a process is responsive to application fluctuations, assures continued levels of c~stomer service and i! cost effective. Staff recomme~ds Council approval of th~ attacned budget amendme~t ordinance in the amount of $46,800 and C~uncil authoriZation to hire professional planners on a temporary basis, to work on bott! full cost recovery pl"ojects and projects that oth~rwise would he deferred because regu1ar salaried planners are assigned to full cost recovery projects. Staff expects to return to Council with budget amendment ordinances to fund supplemental professional personnel during periods when allocation of regular staff for full cost recovery projects diminish resources fnr other ongoing projects. Examples of projects which "'ave been publ ;::1y reported as pending and which would require additional resources include the potentiil Palo Alta Medical foundatinn relocation to Urban lane and any prnject at one of the two Hyatt hotel sites on El Camino Real. BecoIIITIf!ndat1on Staff reconmends thilt Council approve t!1e attached budget arnendmer1t ordi nallce in the amount of $46 ,800 to fund the hiring of one or more supplemental prof~ss1onal planners whil~ Stanford West and other major full cost recovery projects are being processed by Plann~ng Division staff. RiZ:~lY ;ubrnitted, ~£ORG~ I~ Assistant Planning Official \u,~~ J~LEMING r Interim City Kanager Attachment: BAO KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Di rector of Phnni ng and Co~unity En~ironment Attahment 2 from CMR:28l:91 Municipal Fee Schedule. pages 11-15 C~R:512':92 11/12/92 I): I.C!IIrl.'::Oo'1tcost ,cmr PagE: 3 ---,------' ------.. ---- t r ORD!NANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AME"'-DING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FO~ THE PLANNING DIVISION OF ~~E DEPARTMENT OF PLA}'NING AND COMM1..TNITY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE HIRING OF TEMPORARY PLANNERS WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of sectiop 12 of k~ticle JII of the Charter of the city of Palo Alto, the council on June 22, 1992 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1992-1993; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division regularly provides timely and responsive permit processing to its customersj ar.d WHEREAS, several major cost recovery projects are in process; WHEREAS, use of temporary professional planners ~ould assure maintenance of current Cl.lstomer service levels for all permit applioants; WHEREAS, funding for the temporary planner(s) would be fully offset by application fee revenues; NOW~ THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTIO~ The sum of forty six thousand and eight hundred dollars ($46~800) is hereby appropriated to contr-act Services in the Planning Division of the Planning and Community Environment Depa~tment. Application Fee Income is co~respondingly increased and there is no impact on reserves. gc:;rI9._~ The Council of the city of Palo Alto hereby fin..!s that the enactment of this ordinance is ~ot a project under ~he California Environmental Qua Ii ty Act and, therefore, no environmen tal i~~act assessment is necessa~y. SECTION 3. Municipal Code, adoption~ As provided in Section 2~D4.J75 of the Palo Alto this ordinance shall become effective upon . • INTRODUCED AND P~SSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: A'l'TEST: city Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr~ Asst. city Attorney 1\PPROVED: city Manager Director of Flnance Director of Planning and community Environment A!-'PROVED: Mayor , ATTACHMENT 2 fLANNING PEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDUI/E CHANGES AND EFFECT ON APpr,.I~NTS In response to city Council dir~ction, statf has adj\J.sted the fee schedule tor all planning applic~ticns with the overall goal of 70 percent cost recovery. Prior to the 1990-92 budget cycle., the Planning: Division had recoverE>d fees at approximately 40 percent cost r~cov~ry, and increased to approximately 49 percent for 1991- 92. Many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area, since the adoption of Proposition 13., collect fees on a 100 percent cost recovery basis f04 most, and in some cases all, planninq entitlements. The strategy used in developing the fee schedule was, rather than usinq an "'across the board-adjustment, to de.. so with sensitivity to applications with the least to gain from the entitlement. Therefore, single family variances, home improvement exceptions, minor Architectural Review Board (ARS) applications and sign approvals were adjusted closer to 50 to 60 percent co~t recovery4 These applications are usually for remodeling of single family residences and s1I1all businesses &.nd. statf believed that they could least afford the full cost of City processes. Also, substantially hiqher fees for these types of applications would encourage efforts to do work without city review and permits. Projects Where the applicant has relatively more to gain from the entitlement (i.e., 5ubdivisions, co~ercial variances, conditional use r2rmits, major ARB) were adjusted at or near 70 to 90 percent recoverY4 For these types of projects, the rlannin9 fees represent a relatively smaller proportion of the project costs, and in these instances, it was felt that the applicants are in need of less subsidy.. In a.ll cases, the majority of Planning fees are in-line 'With those ot other jurisdictions (Santa Clara, San Jose, Mountain View and Fremont) • The only applications for ~hich staff recommends 100 percent cost reco"\'ery at this time are: a) environmental impact reports bJ zone changes, both planned community and regular c} comprehensive plan amendments d) major site and design applications The6e applications are generally the type where the pcoperty owner has the most to gain from the entitlement. The reason fo~ this recommendation is twofold: 1) To keep customer service levels higr~ by allowing division responsiveness to permit activity, similar to that currently provided by the Building Division4 CMR:283:92 8 • , '.:' 2) , o " To eliminate the internal conflict for staff resources that now exists. bet\o'een tha t'oolO sides of the Planning Divisior., Development Monitoring and Special studies. Fir&t, in order to k~ep customer service levels verl~ high and to continue to meet current time lines for all applications, there is a need for flexibility in the number of Development Honi taring staff, to respond to the application 'Workload. CUrrently as a result ot 10.., permit activity, Development Monitoring staff are comprised of fivEi and one-half planners: i~e., one cour.ter technician t one-half-time single family plan checker, one AP..B planner, one planner, one senior planner, and the Zoning Adminis trator~ The Senior ARB planner is currently assigned to large Planned Community applications, including the pending Stanford housing project at 600-600 Sand Hill Road. This staff is responsi ble for processing all planninq entitl~ments through either the Zoninq Administrator, AP~, Planning Commission and City Council, or over the counter. Heret~fore, when several large applications have been received at once, staff have been internally reassigned from special Studies to nevelopment Monitoring, enlarging the Develop ment Monitoring 5taff to as high as eight and one-half planners intermittently over the past four years, at the expense of projects like the Urban Design Plan and other $pecial studies. with the upcoming commitment to the Comprehensive Plan, it will not be: possible to borrow statf without impacting the time frame for complet-inq that major work proqram. The other-option .for completing special assignments, utilized during the R-l Ordinance Amendm~l'lt process, is to let the time lines lengthen for application processing and/or to require overtime among staf.! mell1bers. This generally leads to dissatisfac tion from the development community and general public because the carryinq oosts for development projects increase with the amount of time necessary to process the planning entitlements. This statement is true tor-both the single-family remodeler ami the m.ajor commercial developer. HOl,.'ever, the state of California requires only that applications be acted on within six montt.s, consider-ably longer than our local co~itments to customer service have allowed. It is 'iriorth noting that tfie Planning Division has learned the hard ~ay that substantial overtime is not productive for staff in the long run and results in lover morale, pC'orer quality customer contact, and higher s-t:aff turn-over. The Building Divie>ion utilizes an ·outside· plan check firm to assist in ell.peditinq plan checks when our internal plan check process queues up. This allows the appli~ant to pay an additional expediting charge to "get around the queue·. Planning approvals cannot.be achieved through an outside plan check firm because they involve public process, however there are outside firms who provide supplementary staff services to public agencies. These agencies retain planners who can be hired on a temporary basis, for the duration of a planninq application~ Contract planners are CMR:2B3:92 9 effective only ~ith internal management and oversight, b~t it is yorth noting that two current City staff members ""ere formerly employees of a firm which performed similar ancillary staff ~unct1ons for the cities of Half Moon Say, Foster City, Los .... ltos Hills, Belmont, San Mateo., San Carlos, and many others. The :Planning Division also utiliz.ec ou.tside assistance to clear-up back~ogged single-family applications during the Urgency Ordinance deadline period irl 1989-90 .. With 100 percent CO!lt rscovery for the largest and most cDntrover"· sial applications, it can be assured that, should the City receive applications for several large projects beyond current estimates I outstripping our Development Monitorinq &taff resources, ~e could use fee revenue to allow the City to contract vith an outside firm to assist in application processing and keep our customer service commitlllent "While not affec·::.inq the Comprehensive Plan time lines. The 100 percent recov~ry scheme is inh~rently -fair" because staff keep track of their time and only bill for ~hat is dedicated to a specific application. In this ~ay, ·simple-applications pay less "While ~complex" projects pay more~ CMR, 283: 92 10 • .' ., ,:_-.c.,·:.'( .• ;~:~·N .. ~S'f.'-'. ":\\[,'l:1'l',I:' ~ ~ -",., ,:" --''''-'-'--~---" ... -----,-~.:.ut;.......L.. . .....: __ ! .'It'1"'" C' '-___ _ ,~ _. --'--.-------- Mr!.ICATIQN Architectural Rey;ew Minor Projo;t Major Project Preliminary Review Change to Approved Project Signs (new, replacement) Signs Erected Without Approval Signs (eKcepCion:'i) ErLvirQnmentaJ ImMel Asse:;sment (EIA) Regu!ar Mitigated Negatiye Declaration :fnliroomenlal lrol1m.RCWrt (ElEl 1.2LM.~~ Pl.ANNING DEPARTMENT FEES PLANNING DIVISION II 199!-92 /lEE $ 250,00 + Microfilm fee ! ,000,00 + EIA & Microfilm fee. 75/minor -300lmajor + Microfilm fee 300lminor -6OO/major + Microfilm fee 150,00 + Microfilm fee 300,00 + Microfilm fee 300,00 + Microfilm fo<: 300,00 1,250.00 4,000.00 minimum or 50% of City 005($, whichever i~ greater, with a maximum of $20,000.00 300.00 Im·g'! FIill $ 3 10.00+ Microfilm fcc+ Record Management Pee '~ 1,500.00 + EIA & Microfilm fee. ai',~ + Record Management p"" V lOOlminor -5OO/ ... jor + Microfilm r~ + R.ecord Managemt:nt Fee .JlOlminor -6OOlm'\ior + Microlilm fee + Re(Vrd Management Fee 310,00 + Microfilm fee + Record Mam.gemenl Fee 620.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Pee 620,00 + Microfilm f"" + Record Management Fee 500.00 1,300.00 4.000.00 depositplu, 100% co.t recovery 500.00 + Microfilm fee + kecord Management Fee ~I~ ~g '" " ~." .. r) ~ ir.3 "' .. ~ ~'" '" ~r;'J , '" ~w ~ '" " ~ n '" ~ ~ ro .. .' .' '.' I \. " ' "". .... ! . '," .,;,' , ~\~. Jf~": .... J/j,": , .,', " EVJI¥C HMIl'll'l41l!O!1.I'\" .-".~ f · '~', .:: .. ,iliA' . L~X~' ,~,~ ,. I I- PLANNING DEI'ARTMENT (.onllnued) PLANNING DIVISION Minor Suhdivision with Planning Direclor Approval Preliminary Map Parcel Map Minor fu!l!division with City Council Approval Preliminary Map & EtA Pees Parcel Map SJ!hdivi~.iQn {Five ~~ All subdivision propOSOi.:~ ~Q~ire EtA applications variance Tentative Map 0 -0.99 acre§ .................... . Tentative Map I . 1.99 acres""""""""."" Tentative Map 2·2.99 acres .. """" .. "." .... Tentative Ma., 3 -3.99 acres .................... . Tentative Map 4 -4.99 a(:re~ ............. " .... .. Tentative Map 5 -or more acrcs, ................ .. Final Map" ........... " ".,,,.,,.,, ... ,, .. , .... ". Residential Commercial and Manufacturing 1991·92 FEll 1222:2ll'Ell 850.00+E:A & Microfilm fcc, 1,250.00+E1A & Microfilm (<<9+ Record Management Fee 300,00 + Microfilm fee 500.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Fee 1,700.00+EIA & Microfilm fees 2,500.00 + ErA & Microfilm III (ees + Rcx:ord M.a.nagement FV 1,700.00 + Microfilm fee 1,700.00 + Microfilm fee + 2,500.00+EIA & Microfilm fee., 2,500.00+EIA & Microfilm (ees 2,500.00+ EIA & Microfilm fees 2,5()().00+ E1A & Microfilm fees 2,500.00+ ETA & Microfilm fees 2,5oo.00+EiA & Microfilm fees 400.00 675.00 + Microfilm fee 1,125,00 + Microfilm fee 12 Record Management Fee 4,000.00 4-ErA & Microfilm fee. + Record Management Fee 4,000.00 + EIA & Microfilm fee, + R=rd Management Fee 4,000.00 + EIA & Microfilm fa! + Record Management Fee 4,000.00 + EIA & Microfilm fees + Record Management Fee • 4,000.00 + RIA & Microfilm fee + Record Management Pee 4,000.00 4-E1A & Microfilm fees + Record Management Pee 1,700.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Fee 900.00 + Microfilm fee + Rt'COrd Management F"" 1,800.00 + Microfilm f"" + Record Management Pee '. " • ',-, " . -~"'fVlNG OE;PI\.Rn...-.. I'tANNIlVG OIVISI(}N""""T (~OIllI"""d) ~("n_., ' ~ ~ APPLICA. 7'fON ~1 RegUlar 're"'Pwary .. Minor -Afll./Q,. f.'amiJ Y Day Care 110 20"_ -me i>I!d u ~fliJ~ ~y C.,.. Cen"" l/egul;" 1'100/)0<1 C""''''.nity Zone Change lI1illor Change 10 PI;, nnet} ComrnUqity Zooe ~ Control Distr;ct 13 ~ IVI\. 35(),~ 1, Microfilm re.., 1, 12 5.00 Ell\. <t Microfilm fee. l(C,oo ... Microfillll fee 5[iO,~ +Mu,'Ofi1m foe 1(}~'00;'E1' ~. 'r' T\ ut. IV rCTQfitrn feeS' ~ 500,00 + Afiernfilm f.., -I RO:>;'d "".nag""'eOI Fee 3~~<I ~,AfU,""film roe -I·"·"~eot F.., I,BOO.~ + E1A J, • , , I.>,:'" -I-1!CCort) M~~":.. MICrofilm (~ ·'"",omen, Fee 100 00 ... '" I? . ""'e"'l;/", fee + 5~ ~~ M· ... ge""'''' J;;" II ' MICrOfiI", fee + 1 00 ~d Ma •• gemeol P"" 2,700,00"'E1A ~ M:' ""Ofilm f"". J Jlrv.. "" "'VV·VV of-l~:l; C. S'400'~+E1A 1\"""" -;. R"':,,/'jJ ~ Microfilm roe. '~m""1 J;;" r. '" ""Ie'on", 0" 2JO'OO+AI?B ~, .. , ~'''''''rOfilm """ 2,000.00 + E1A,AII8.(: lill\. ~ ... (lSI R"",.,.."", ... R .... ,C"'tilm fOes... "J 6: 000 7:;'td Af'""g~""'nl Pee ' . ... l~$ C"./ R"""", MiCl'Qfifm fee. ;. lir I\. ~ Afic"'film /' 'r .. '." ... l/"<'lrd M rt-s. , J S50,~ -I-M:' ~""ge"'e";,.;;,, kCCOTd.t... lCTrJ, It"l fOfos _;_ '~a·.gemen! Fee 3·000.~ -I-IIXI% C + fifl\,A.RIJ & •• ~.t R<>:ovo'Y R<>:Onf •• »",rOfilm r""",~ ""·"'ge"'en, Foe ) . , , , , '::r I I • PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) PLANNING DIVISION SUe and Design {contiOLle!!l Minor Change Minor Ch"nge -OS ZOJle Cmnnretlensjye PJ.n~~.ng~ (Outside of Annual Review) NoncnnfQrmtngj,J.!!t: Review Exception Demolition Permjts fo-LH.i.s1'H'k.B1!ili1i.!w. ~WQQ10~st':rvatjon 7..o0e Exceptioos ~Jll!lent Acreemellt Documents Planning Commission AJ;endas Planning Commission Minutes Tille \8, PAMC, Zoning Title 18, PAMC, Zooing. Suppiemen(. Map Sc..ales -200 scale zone map 400 scale zone map Complele 400 scale zone map J ,000 scale lone lTIap 600 scale lOne map 500 scale 1nnc map aerials 1991-92 eoo Im-g3 Fj!!l 250.00+ARB & Microfilm fee, 550.00 + Microflrn fee + Record Management Fee 400.00 + ARB & Microfilm fees 550,00 + Micmflm fee + Record Managemen: Pee 1,8oo,OO+EIII & Microfilm fees 3,000.00 + 100% COS( Recove_ + BIll & Microfil In fee + W Record Management Fee 250,00 + Microfilm fee 2,600.00 + Microfilm fee 1.450.00 + Microfilm fee 850,00 + EIA & Microfilm fee 5,800.00 14 15.oo/.nnu.1 25.00/ .. nu.[ 20.00 2.oolp'ge LSO/page 2.00 3.00 2,00 250.00 + Microfilm fee ~. Record Management Pee 2,600.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Managemenl Fee 1.450.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Fee 850,00 + EIA & Microfilm fee Microfilm fee + Record Mana.gemen( Fee 5,800.00 + 100% Cost ROOOVery. & Microfilm fee + Recottl Management Fee 30.00I.nnu.[ 50.oolonno.1 24.00 4.00lpage 4.00lpage 4.00/page 30,00 8.00 20.00 4.00 , ",' ":·.I'!~ . , >,; ". :'\: \, '. 'j, , ' '-. '. >' -' '" PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) PLANNING DIVISION Document, kQDtinuerl) Compre~ensive Plan J991-22 fEB NA Record Management Fee (Optical disk document retrieval) 0.00 ,Encroachment Permit Con!itructionrrrnffic Control Related Engineering Bicycle LociI!:LRmta! Renm' Fe. Refulldable Key Deposit Plu:kinth.rmill..~IOOQJl Construction/Maintenance Vehicles Emergency Repair Vehicles Parking Permits -Business Districts University Avenue Parking District All Lots E,cept Lot U Lot U Carpool Permit TRANSPORT A TlON DIVISION 60.00 5.00 per month 5.00 25.00/space per week 120,00/year ~LQlmru Per YeaI' $ 65.00 $200.00 37.50 100.00 Quarterly fee Quarterly fee 15 Im·23m 20.00 20.00/per file Trall'fcrred to Public Work5 5.00 per month 5.00 25.00/space per week '20.OOIy= ~LQwwr ~ $ 65,00 37.50 $200.00 100.00 ~ .'''1 •. ;J ,". ,:). " . 'j ! , , ~ , -':. ,