The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0405 CC REG ITEM 11JELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M ITEM •T STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: March 28, 1989 SUBJECT: Land Use Application Fees Currently, •the City is not recovering the cost of processing land use application permits as illustrated by this report. Staff has included background, research discussion, and proposed revisions for the fees and billing of hourly rates for the processing of land use applications. BACKGROUND On July 2, 1983, the City adopted County Code 8163-4.2 and 8220 which authorized the Community Development Department to collect land use application processing fees. In 1982, when the County adopted the above mentioned codes, they also adopted Resolution 222 which established a fees schedule for• land use applications. This fee schedule was adopted almost verbatim by City resolution 83-30 on September 7, 1983. These fee are still in effect. Resolution 83-31 was also adopted on September 7, 1983 and established a means by which the Community Development staff shall bill actual time spent on permit applications at $30.00 per hour. In August of 1984, the City Manager submitted a report to Council documenting a need for a $15.00 increase in the real time billing amount (Attachment A). The Community Development Department cost was calculated by subtracting holiday and vacation hours as well as deducting 2 hours per day for "non -chargeable" time, (such as meetings, breaks and travel). Out of a total possible hours of 2080 per year per employee, a net time for permit processing was based on 1.452 hours per employee. From these calculations, a rate of $45.00 per hour was established by Resolution 84-1.30 on September 5, 1984. 'This rate is still in effect. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 FEES/CHRONI PJR:DS1•:CM:DR:crl March 31, 1989 page 2 Resolution 84-130 repealed Resolution 83-31 by increasing the rate per hour, for actual billing costs, and added sections 2 and 3. Section 2 pertains to contract services for application processing adding 10% to the actual cost of the contract service for administration. Section 3 provides for all revenue exceeding costs to be used to reduce hourly rates in subsequent years. Resolutions 84-130 and 83-30 are the current provisions by which the City collects fees for land use application processing. nTSrIISSTnN Current operational costs relating to land use application processing are exceeding the amount of fees collected by the City. The consumer price index,(CPI), increase over the last five years provides one indication of how the City's costs for service have increased. Consumer Price Index The consumer price index for the greater Los Angeles area, based on all consumable items, has increased from 97.1 in 1982, to 122.1 in 1988, (or 25.48%). It is estimated that 1989 will increase another 4.6% making a total increase of 30.08% since 1983. In calculating the impact of the CPI on the hourly rate for Community Development, staff used the percent increases from 1984-1989. The CPI ranged from 3.2% in 1986 to 4.6% in 1989. The accrued increase over the last five years indicates an $11.89 increase will be required to match the cost of the service. This adjusted rate would equal $56.89 per hour for staff time. Budget Analysis Over the past five years, the City has experienced a significant increase in staff time for permit processing and review of conditions of approval, overhead and salary costs. There are a number of ways to analyze billing rates in addition to using CPI increases or updating the method used in 1984 with current expenditure levels. Another method is to take the direct salary and benefit costs for the five positions available for processing (Director of Community Development, Senior Planners, Associate Planners, and Planning Technician) and then add department and City overhead factors. Regardless of the method used it appears that the rate needs to be adjusted to between $57 and $60+ dollars per hour. Additional information will be provided to the Council prior to the April 19, 1989 meeting. The Council should also be aware that AB 3180 places further requirements on the tracking of environmental conditions. This will increase the amount of hours spent on approved applications of land use. FFFC/ri4PnNT P.iP-nCT•rm-nP-rr1 March 31, 1989 page 3 Fee Resolution for Processing Land Development Permit The fee resolution establishes permit fees based on the cost per hour averaged for each application. The County has revised Ordinance No. 222 several times since Moorpark adopted this schedule. The last revision was in 1987, and the total increase from 1982 - 1989 is 28%. In order to recover the proposed increased hourly rate for staff time, it is necessary to also adjust the fee schedule. The 1987 County report represents a compromise between the County and the Building Industry Association. The Building Industry Association accepted a 10% across the board increase, and the removal of the 150% billing limit for some permit applications (Attachment "C"). The hourly rate for the cost of County staff time increased 36%. Staff is proposing a modest increase in fees of 30% as shown in Attachment "D". Additionally, staff is proposing that the 150% cap for all permits applications be removed and that the recovery of administering contracts be increased from 10% to 15%. Currently staff spends a significant amount of time on Zone Clearance processing at no cost to the developer, staff is recommending that the resolution be amended to include an actual time expended charge not to exceed the original application fee for this service. As you are probably aware, in addition to insuring City planning conditions are met, City staff coordinates and acts as a clearing house for condition compliance with the City Engineering and other public agencies prior to zone clearance, occupancy and surety releases. Lastly, the City has no mechanism for charging for zone maps, therefore staff has added #21 to Resolution 84-130, allowing staff to recover costs for this purpose. These revisions will allow the City to recover costs incurred in processing applications for land developments in Moorpark.. As a reminder the City's contract for City Engineering services provides that they receive 25% of the fee. This is based on the current fee schedule and cap of 150% of the original deposit. This will need to be modified to reflect any change in the current fee schedule. SUMMARY Land Development Processing fees have not been revised since adopted by the City in 1983. Additionally, the hourly rate for real time billing has not been adjusted since 1984. By analyzing the Consumer Price Index and the budget allocations for these services staff has justified increasing the hourly rate as well as the Land Development application fees. A review of Moorpark's history indicates that the City has been very lenient in imposing fees, and should increase fees to current levels, adjust fees no less than every 2 years, and implement the Zone Clearance processing fee. PFFC/rwPnNT P.iQ.ngT-rm-nQ-r-rl March 31, 1989 page 4 Recommendation Set April 19, 1989 for the public meeting and notify interested parties pursuant to applicable law for the proposed following actions: 1. To adjust the real time cost accounting rate in Section 1 of Resolution 84-130; 2. Adjust Section 2 of Resolution 84-130 for Contract Planning from 10% to 15%; 3. Adjust Land Use application processing fees in Resolution 83-30 by increasing all fees by 30%; 4. Add a fee for real time cost accounting for zone change processing services as number 10.A of Resolution 84-130; 5. Add a fee for actual costs chargeable for zoning maps as No. 21 of Resolution 84-130; 6. Other changes as determined by the City Council. Attachments: A - 1984 Staff Report B - 1987 County Staff Report C - Proposed Revisions to Resolution 83-30 MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City CounciI Meeting of ' S .198 ACTIOfi4: 1 By FFFC/rwDnKIT P.iD-n'ZT-rm-nR•r-rl A T T A C H M E N T A 0 0 1 [Z"P A: R I K_ �f)f)N1001WAItIC AV1INUE ;, 701.M00(tI AItIC.CA f):TO21 M E M O R A N D U M- TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager. CI'tT"CO U NC I L LETA YANCY-SUTTON • MAYOR ALOERT PRIETO MAYOR PRO TEM ROOERT 6EAULIEU CLINT HARPER. Ph- O- JERRY STRAUGHAN DATE: August 3.1, 1984 SUBJECT: -Planning Staff -Rates Chargeable to Projects BACKGROUND INFORMATION As outlined.iri:the attachment., it is estimated that $132,310.00 is attributed to. the an function_" This 'includes .the budgeted amounts for the .io.ns. the equivalent ofr55goof*one Planning Associate posations; clerical position, 25% of the. city Manager and City Clerk City Departments,-an6 25s of -:the molthalsoly eincludetainer sfl0$eof-certain Attorney. and. Cif_y..Engineer_- . general. overhead items., "such --as "audit and insurance costs_ This "aggregated estz^ate of $132,_310.00s then divided by the available hours of 1,452 each. --.for the "_two fl..-timThPl"nunber po.-sitioris -to. arrive at the hourly. cost - of `t$45.00 holidays of hours - is - arrived at by deducting out for- va for nona.char,�able hours -p Y B- and an average of two .(.2.)- items, such as staff meetings, conferences and travel time to meetings, etc_ It should be pointed out that these are estimates_ The City would theoretically recoup 100� of its conlprojects_f all ofif, the 2,904 hours are charged to to current planning back more than the for some -reason, the City were to recoup planning services, estimated or -actual cost of providing the pa means seof. reduced it must be returned in subsequent years by fee - planners to process submittals, they If the City uses contract p plus 10% for City -over - •would be charged at the actual cost, p head purposes_ RECOr-IMEIND I) ACTION :: ,lut i�nt I":c)• 84- �`) - I'�:;in<3 Fcc f<>r I'lrtnttin<I SI_rtff. 1 I 501 F'I;I2 19II 4 / 85 ht�0�'`I I;1) f3_ I r'I..ANNING COSTS __ 2 to $ to Budget planni Amount planning 1 CITY COUNCIL $ 1,045 50% $ 523 Copy Machine Charges 2. CITY MANAGER 25% $11,000 $44,000 5% 676 Salary 13,000 Clerical Salary:. 2,086 Benefits (76% x 25% 10,272 20.3% 25 (24$ x � .5% 100 25% 19 Phone 75 25g 25� 469 Books Conferences , Dues & Meeting` 11875 3,162 _ 25% 791 Mileage 3. CITY CLERK i $26,732-25%.' $ 6,683 Salaries. -&.' Benefits - 1,900 25% 475 1,000 Phone 4,000 25 175* Of rice .-Supplies. 700 2.5.E 523 Postage Machine Charges 2,090 2,000 25� 25$ 500 Copy. Legal.Notices .. 10% S 1,460 $14,600 4_ FINANCE, TREASURER 5. CITY ATTORNEY 25� $ 4,500 $18,000 _-- Retainer 4,800 Extra Time 1,800 'Phone 6_ NON -DEPARTMENTAL 50% $ 523 $ 1,045 395 Copy Machine Charges 3',948 10% 783 Memberships 7,832 10% 1 5 Insurance 3,350 -�,30 50��, ,67 330 ti•rorkc,-s' Com��lu r 10`1, 1 .r'� uri i. t_ 2,500 s - ContinuedNANNING_COS`L'S PER 1`)84/t35 1�DOPTt;p I3UDCL�L t3uclget 7; to $ L1� amount Planning Planz�in 7 _ PLANNING Salaries Salaries; Benefits Phone Office Supplies Postage Copy Machine Charges printing Professional Services Conferences Memberships Special*Department Expense g. 'ENGINEERING Retainer TOTAL $66,500 100% $ G 6 , 5 0 0 7,S30 100% 7,530 10,351 100% 1'0,351 900 100% 900 300 100% 300 200 100% 200 1,045 100% 1,045 1,000 100% 1,000 70,000_ -0 --- - -0 1,225 1,225 .100% 100 .100% .100' 3,300 .-0- -0- $24,60.0 25% $ 6,150 $132,310 8 RESOLUTION NO. 84-________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, FIXI-NG REAL TIME COST ACCOUNTING FEES FOR PLANNING STAFF WHEREAS, the City of Moorpark provides planning services; and WHEREAS, the cost of this service will be off -set by fees which accompany land -use entitlement requests; and WHEREAS., City planning staff costs are charged against fees, based onreal time cost accounting; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF.THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CLAIFORNIA,:.DOES RESOLVE - AS FOLLOWS: ti SECTION 1. That the City Plannatgasreal timeshall costbill accountingme spent on land use applications rate of_$45.00 per hour_. SECTION 2: Contract Planning-- staff shall be billed at cost, plus ten per cent.(10%)• SECTION 3_ Pursuant :to.. Government Code Section 54992(a), if the fees in Section.No..l above create revenues in excess of actual. costs, those. revenues shah used to reduce-ho be urly rate in subsequent years. SECTION:.4_..:That this resolution shall be effective and operative as of Julv 1, 1984. PASSED AND.ADOPTED this 5th day of September, 1984. ATTEST: City Clerk (SEAL) Mayor of'the City of. Moorpark, California x MOORPARK 70O N100ILI'AltlC AVENUL•: I'_ U. 110X 701. IN 100I WA it K . CA 03021 1 (805) 620-680.1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nia1I Fritz, Community Development Director DATE: July 13, 1984 SUBJECT: Planning_Staff Rates Chargeable to Projects. CITY COUNCIL LETA YANCY•SUTTON MAYOR ALE3ERT PRIETO MAYOR PRO TEM ROE3ERT REAULIEU CLINT HARPER. Ph. O. JERRY STRAUGHAN PROPOSED ACTION: Revise the _hourly rate charged for City planning. services.. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Last: year your CounHl.established an -hourly rate. -for the Director of Community Development. at $30 per hour.. -That rate only took into, cons id.eration'expenses then. being experienced by the City. After reviewing the projected costs, involved wit h'.plahning services f-oz'the current fiscal year, -it is recommended that a composite hourly rate of $55.00.-per hour be established. The same rate would be charged ..for the Associate Planner as for the Director of Community Development by averaging the. salary .costs of these two positions. This will simplify accounting procedures by having only a single billing rate.. This same billing rate would also be used for Contract planning staff: SUGGESTED MOTION: Adopt the attached resolution establishing a..real.time cost accounting fee for processing land use applications. NF:ddb attachment ALBERT PRIETO Mayor JAMES D. WEAK Mayor Pro Torn THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmomber DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY-SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer M()C)RPA, Rk{ M E M O R A N D U M ST XN 'City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney NIALL FRITZ Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police TO: TUE HONO CITY COUNCIL FROM: NIALL FRI DIRECPOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMalr DATE: MAY 6, 1985 SUBJECT:, PLANNING STAFF .RATES Q GAB TO PRDJFCTS Background Information In the Council' s review of this _ matter last summer, concerns were expressed by the Building Industry Association representative that an overcharging may occur 11 if more than 1,452-hours per planner are., in fact, billed. During: the first eight months of this fiscal year our records indicate approximate- .1y one�third of the available billing hours. were; . in fact; billed on planning projects_ The reniiai.rider of the available hours have been spent on other duties arx3 assigraments such as rent control, geperal administration, attendance .of meetings, public information, code enforcement, and.administration.of approved projects_ It should be noted that following the adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 1985-86, the charge rate will be reviewed and.revised as necessary. This matter should be before your Council in July. Staff will also be reviewing.the fee schedules and making recommendations on any changes which appear necessary. For.further background information, attached is a copy of a memorandum identifying haw costs were allocated to the.planuiing function to determine the hourly change rate. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark. California 93021 itt05) `i2`.) GfiEi� Administrative Office Supplies Insurance Membership Dues Workman's Comp. Telephone Audit City Manager Salary Benefits Clerical Books/Publications Conferences/Mtgs Mileage City Clerk Finance City Attorney City Engineer Summary DCM.893245 ATTACHMENT B BUDGET ANALYSIS March 28, 1.989 8,100 135,000 75,000 5,558 7,500 10,000 55,760 15,915 25,104 150 2,200 3,500 57,654 57,552 18,000 26,400 Administration City Manager Other Departments 25% 10% 10% 50% 25% 10% 25% 20.3% 5% 25% 25% 25% 25% 10% 25% 25% $ 9,779.00 $19,888.45 $31,268.70 $60,936.15 $ 2,025.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,779.00 $ 1,815.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 9,779.00 $13,940.00 $ 3,230.75 $ 1,255.20 $ 37.50 $ 550.00 $ 875.00 $19,888.45 $14,413.50 $ 5,755.20 $ 4,500.00 $ 6,600.00 $31,268.70 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SALARY AND BENEFIT COSTS Y � l l l�1 inn �� nnn .. . �n1n�, i� nee ,•l / . l�nn�no �� . . �nlnns�inlnlnner� i�nnnneolennnnnm �nnonn nnno� . l�nnnnn�l� �� i�11111�i�11111�i�n1elE�m �11e n i MEnIn�i�nnnnn�i�n�nnn�i�nnnnn��n�� i .. , �l�ne��n -• l�nnan� •, i�n��ne.. i�nnn�n ., i�n�nnn •. �aco�n . �I� l�lnnllli®11n11ll�nlnnl�l�lnlll�l,illin■ Innlnl� 1i . .. .. i�lip. OPEN nnn�omien11eomlNe�ee�r�l�n9Rolm PINNIM 1,III ME Mimi 111 Nil 1n111�1�1n1nn■ 111111 !®Roonoe�i�nn�o. Milen1non 1111111111111110. 01111 Hours (Excluding:'the Senior Planner -positions) Total Hours. -Per Year: Total Possible per position 2,080 Less ten days for vacation 80 Less .ten days for holidays 80 Less non -permit time (2 hours per day) 520` Hours used for calculation 1,400 Multiply by four positions X4 TOTAL 5,600- Senior Planner Hours: Long Range planner 30% of time (30% of 1,920)= 526 Short Range planner 90% of time (90% of 1,920)= 1,728 TOTAL-2,304. 1,920 is calculated by deducting for vacation and holidays TOTAL HOURS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING 7,904 per year Cost Analysis per hour for land use permit application processing: Cost for Planning $3291594.04 Overhead & Other Dept. $ 60,936.15 Total Costs $390,530.19 Divide by Total Hours 7,904 Cost per hour $ 49.41 CPI analysis since the $45.00 fee was implemented 1984 4.5% $ 2.03 1985 4.6% $ 2.07 1986 3.2% $ 1.62 1987 4.3% $ 1.94 1988 4.6% $ 2.07 1989 4.8% 2.16 Total per hour $61.30 DCM.893245 $11.89 13 ATTACHMENT C RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY. count vEntura Victor Husbands y Agency Director September 1, 1987 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009 Subject: Proposed Amendments. to Resolution 222 Incorporating Revisions to the Land Development Permit Processing Fee and Deposit Schedule - Report Back From July 7, 1987 Agenda RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt changes to Resolution 222. (Exhibit "A"), or provide appropriate direction to staff. STATEMENT OF MATTER FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: On July 7, 1987, staff recommended certain revisions .to the fee resolution for processing land development permits. Your Board approved the bulk of these changes. Also, your Board directed staff to meet with the Building Industry Association to discuss the recommended change of removing the 150% billing limit for all variable rate permits and, if possible, develop a different alternative(s). On August 11, 1987,• staff met with the Building Industry Association, including Paul Tryon, Executive Director, and Phil Vein. At this meeting, the Building Industry Association representatives proposed a compromise position that would remove the 150% billing limit for only the following permit types: Zoning Changes, Conditional Use Permits, Major Modifications, Tentative Parcel Maps, Land Conservation Act Cancellations, and Coastal Residential Planned Development Permits. Additionally, the representatives recommended an across-the-board 10% increase in all permit categories, be they deposit or fixed fee. Staff has analyzed the financial impact of these ,proposals upon the previous year's unrecovered cost. For that year, it appears that the selective removal of the 150% billing limit would have resulted in the recovery of approximately $66,000 of last year's $88,000 unrecovered cost. The 10% increase would have had a minimal impact. Additionally, the industry representatives recommended that, if adopted, the impacts of these changes on the fiscal situation be reviewed at the end of one year for other possible recommendations and changes. Staff has amended the existing Resolution 222 to incorporate the BIA recommendations should your Board determine that is an acceptable proposal (see Exhibit "A"). If adopted, it would take effect in sixty (60) days. Should your Board determine that total cost recovery is more appropriate, staff would return within two weeks with another amendment to Resolution 222, incorporating the original concept of the across-the-board removal of the billing limit. 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 CITY OF MOORN'Ryk /4j!!1;0 Board of Supervisors September 1, 1987 (Agenda) Page 2 This item has been reviewed by the Offices of County Counsel, Auditor/Controller, and Chief Administrative Officer. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Steve Riley, Manager, Administrative Services Division, at ext. 2482. lJ Victor R. usband L Director VRH:lca BSH872 Attachment Exhibit "A" - Resolution 222 Incorporating BIA Proposed Revisions BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 222 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEE DEPOSITS EFFECTIVE November 1, 1987 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING CHARGES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF VENTURA COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE. FOLLOWING REAL TIME BILLING PROGRAM. VENTURA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEE DEPOSIT SCHEDULE EXEMPTIONS No filing fee need accompany applications for any of the following uses or. activities: 1. Activities sponsored by nonprofit organizations, such as. Scouts, 4-H Clubs, and Little Leagues, which are solely youth -oriented. 2. Any application or appeal filed by any County officer, employee, board or commission on behalf of the County of Ventura. 3. Applications for Family Day Care Facilities (6 or'fewer children) per Health & Safety Code 1597.45. EXPLANATION OF COSY RECOVERY PROGRAM TXpe of Billing " The County's cost recovery program requires the submittal of applicable fee(s) or deposits stated in this 'schedule. There are three major types of charging mechanisms: 1. Pre -submittal Review Fee: A pre -submittal review application deposit fee may be required (see ItemNo. 10 on page 3). Under this mechanism, final costs of conducting a pre -submittal review process will be computed upon actual time expended by all County staff, without a billing limit. Should final costs be less than the deposit amount, a refund or credit is issued to the applicant. Should final costs exceed the deposit fee, the applicant is billed for the balance. 2. Nonrefundable Fee: A nonrefundable fee is a one time fee of a specified amount (flat fee), which is intended to cover the average cost of processing that type of permit or administrative action. Once submitted, a flat fee cannot be refunded should an application be withdrawn. Also, no additional charges will be billed by the County should the cost of processing exceed the specified amount. 3. Deposit With Billing Limit: Under this charging mechanism, final cost of processing is computed upon actual time expended by all County staff (based upon the hourly rates established to recover costs), but not to exceed the deposit plus 50%. Should final costs not exceed the deposit fee, the unused Portion is refunded to the applicant. Should final costs exceed the deposit fee, the zpplicart is billed for the balance up to the 50b above the initial deposit. All deposit fees will have this billing limitation unless otherwise noted. 4. Deposit Without Billing Limit: Same as 3, except applicant will be billed for total balance that exceeds deposit. Uses Not Listed .'here a proposed land use or application is not clearly identified in this Schedule, the Planning Director shall review the characteristics of the proposed use or requested service, and determine which of the uses listed in this Schedule is equivalent to that proposed. Said use or application shall then use that charging type for a filing fee or deposit. BILLING PROCEDURE Who Reviews Entitlement Applications? The following agencies and departments are normally involved in the review of land development. entitlements. Public Works Agency, Environmental Health Division, Air Pollution Control District, Fire Department, Sheriff's Department and Planning Division. When Are Fees/Deposits Du The Ventura County Ordinance Code requires that applications cannot be accepted for processing unless they are accompanied by the fees/deposits specified in this schedule. Standard Billing Reviewing agencies and departments are required 'to maintain time -keeping records during the processing of entitlements. Once a decision is rendered regarding the entitlement or the application is withdrawn or closed out prior to a decision, the case is closed and total processing. costs are calculated by the Administrative Services Division within the Resource Management Agency (RMA). If costs exceed the deposit, Administrative Services will bill, the applicant for these costs up to the billing limit, if applicable. If total costs are less than the deposit, a refund will be issued. Incremental Billing Processing costs related. to. large or complex projects; i.e., General Plan Amendments, natural resource developments and environmental impact reports, generally exceed the fee..deposit. Due to the nature of these projects,. total costs could be considerable. Incremental billing eliminates the burden of a large balance due at the end of processing a case. The applicant may request, of the County may require, that incremental billing be initiated for a particular project. Following the initial 30�day -review period of an application, reviewing agencies and departments will submit time -keeping records to RMA Administrative Services. Those*agencies or departments that continue to process the' application will submit monthly time sheets until a decision is rendered regarding the entitlement, or until the entitlement is withdrawn or closed out. Administrative Services will monitor total charges on a monthly basis. If prior to a decision on a case, the costs exceed the deposit,. a bill will be sent to the applicant for the current monthly balance until the project is completed. Charges are due and payable within 30 days of billing. If billed fees and charges are not paid within 30 days of billing, a penalty charge of 5% of the unpaid balance will be added to the balance due. Each month thereafter, an interest charge of 2% of the unpaid balance will be added and compounded until the bill is paid in full. If, in the course of processing an application, the applicable billed fees and charges have not been paid, the County may, after a hearing, DENY such application based on the applicant's failure to pay said fees -and charges. MISCELLANEOUS ENTITLEMENTS OR SERVICES ZONING CLEARANCE a. Residential, Ojai Valley $55 plus $2 per additional lot/unit (nonrefundable) b• All other 2. TREE PERMIT a• 9'ot requiring field inspection b. Requiring field inspection and/or landscape consultant evaluation $28 plus $2 per additional lot/unit (nonrefundable) $28 nonrefundable $55 deposit with no billing limit 3. VARIANCE 4. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE 5.. EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (non -Coastal only) 6. LAND CONSERVATION ACT CONTRACT AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES a. Application for LCA b. Application for tentative cancellation on portion or entire contract C. Time extention for approved tentative cancellation d. Final certificate of cancellation for increment or entire contract e. Portion non -renewal notice f. Entire non -renewal notice g. Simultaneous rescission and re-entering new contract 7. MOBILE HOME RENT REVIEW APPLICATION a. Allowable b. Discretionary 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION 9. PHOTO COPIES 8�" x 11" and 8' x 14" 11" x 17" $1100 deposit $385 deposit $385 deposit $770 deposit. $770 deposit: with no billing limit $770 deposit $770 deposit $770 deposit $220 nonrefundable $330 deposit $500 deposit with no billing limit $1100 deposit with no billing limit $500 ,deposit .with no billing limit $.50 for lst,page + $.25 per each additional page $1.06 for 1st page + $,75 per each additional page up to nine pages + $.50 per each additional page there- after 10. PRE -SUBMITTAL REVIEW Applications for Conditional Use Permits under fee.schedule No. 23 described herein, where the Planning Director determines that the project is one which is unique, rarely applied for, and in need of extraordinary staff involvement to assist the applicant in assembling appropriate entitlement application materials, shall be preceeded by the submission of a pre -submittal review application and the deposit of a pre -submittal review fee. The deposit fee for this review shall be the same as. that collected for the subject entitlement. At the time an application is submitted for the entitlement, the unused portion of the pre -submittal review deposit fee shall be applied to the entitlement deposit fee. Upon conclusion of the pre -submittal process, and should a filing not result within 120 days and unused monies remain, a refund shall be issued to the applicant. Should final costs exceed the deposit fee upon conclusion of the presubmittal process, the applicant will be billed for the balance. 11. STREET NAME CHANGE $880 deposit 12. CONDITION COMPLIANCE CHECK $220 nonrefundable (For condition checks prior to recordation of a Final Map, Parcel Map or Parcel Map Waiver and prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a CUP or PD). /9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGES 13. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT $1265 deposit with no billing limit (includes Coastal Plan Amendment, textual changes, Zone Changes, 'etc. as described in Sec. 8184-2) 14. CoSWMP AMENDMENT $1265 deposit with no billing limit 15. PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE $1265 deposit with no billing limit 16. ZONE CHANGE $1050 deposit with no billing limit* *May be reduced by 50% if General 'Tentative Tract Map, Parcel Plan or Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Map, PMW and/or Planned Development filed concurrently. Permit is SUBDIVISIONS 17. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP $2300 deposit 18. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP $1760 deposit with no billing limit 19. PARCEL MAP WAIVER a. Lot Line Adjustments $385 nonrefundable b. Large Lot Subdivision $1760 deposit C. Lot Elimination.Subdivision $385,nonrefundab-le d. Mergers '$385 nonrefundab•l-e 20. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE $1000 deposit 21. PARCEL MAP REVERSION TO ACREAGE nonrefundable n , onrefundable DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 22. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Planning Director Planning Commission a. Residential- $635 deposit with no $1265 deposit billing limit (Coastal) b. Day care (7 or more) $635 deposit N/A C. Commercial/Industrial $1265 deposit Institutional and/or $1760 deposit other uses- e d. Agriculture & accessory $770 deposit (Coastal) uses thereto defer deposit (if deferred) e. Grading and brush $385 deposit N/A removal- (Coastal) f. Recycling facilities $3850 deposit N/A and center *If a Planned Development Permit application is filed concurrently with a Tentative Tract Map or Parcel Map, the deposit fee for the Planned Development Permit shall be reduced by 50%. 23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Planning Director Planning Commission a• Residential and $635 deposit with no $1050bills deposit with no accessory uses billing limit billing limit thereto b• Agricultural and $770 deposit with no $1050 deposit with no accessory uses billing limit thereto billing limit C. Commercial/Industrial $1265 deposit with no $1760 deposit with no Institutional, Public billing limit billing limit Uses, and other (Coastal: Includes non -County initiated public works projects, parking lots and non - County initiated recreational uses) d. Mobile home park N/A $1265 deposit with no billing limit e. Recreational vehicle N/A park $1265 deposit with no billing limit f. Oil and gas exploration/ $1760 deposit with no $2530 deposit With production (includes billing limit no billing limit pipelines and transmission lines in Coastal Zone only) g• Natural resource $1100 deposit with no $3850 deposit with development including billing limit, no billing limit mining, borrow area or gravel quarries and accessory processes h. Waste treatment -'and N/A disposal $3850 deposit with no billing limit '°If resource development is less than 9 months in duration NOTE: The Planning Director may defer any decision .on a Planned Development. Permit or Conditional Use Permit_ application to the Planning Commission any time prior to 30 days after the close of the administrative hearing. If a deferral occurs with Items 23d or 24b, the Planning Commission billing limit will apply. deposit and MODIFICATIONS REVOCATIONS AND APPEALS TO ENTITLEMENTS 24. MODIFICATION APPLICATION a. Major 80% of specified fee for type of entitlement, with no billing limit b. Minor 20% of specified fee for type of entitlement or $385 deposit, whichever is greater C. Permit Adjustment $110 nonrefundable 25. REVOCATION APPLICATION 50% of specified fee for type of entitlement 26. APPEALS* related to $660 deposit per appeal entitlements or Planning Director determinations 27. COASTAL APPEALS (applies No fee only to appeals on "appealable" projects) *If any appeal is upheld, the appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant. If an appeal is denied, the appellant is billed for the balance up to 50% above the initial deposit. At the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, the fee for any entitlement appeal may be waived for any local city governmental body upon written request by the City Council of said city. 28 29 30 31 ENFORCEMENT OR COMPLIANCE RELATED ACTIONS VIOLATION PENALTY An amount equal to double the specified fee for' required entitlement but not to exceed fee plus $1100 (nonrefundable) APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF NON -CONFORMITY RELEASE FROM NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE AMORTIZATION EXTENSION REQUEST $385 deposit $85 nonrefundable $385 deposit ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 32. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT $2530 deposit with no billing limit 33. ADDENDUM, SUPPLEMENT OR $1265 deposit with n So billing limit SUBSEQUENT EIR 34. SPECIAL CONSULTANTS Total Used in initial studiesconsultant's prepay .ment or acceptable bond of consultant s estimated cost or preparation of Mitigated Negative Declarations 35. APPEALS-` related to •type $660 deposit per a eal or adequacy of environmental PP documents ',If any appeal is upheld, the appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant. If an appeal is denied., the appellant is billed fo.r the. balance up to 50% above the initial deposit. At the discretion of' the Board of Supervisors the fee for any environmental document appeal may be waived for any local City governmental body upon• written request by the City. City Council of said THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION 'was duly and regularly adopted, by the Board of Supervisors of the County. of Ventura, California on the lst day of September, 1987; and rescinds the previous July 7, 1987 Resolution. Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: RICHARD D. DEAN, County Clerk, County of Ventura, State of California and ex-officio clerk of the Board of Supervisors thereof Deputy Clerk KH:bb/H302 r ATTACHMENT D C 11'Y COl1114,C l l., CITY Of- N001WAI'K , STATE. OF CALI FORN I A RESOLUTION NO.83-30 RI:SGi,r1'I TON ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE OF LAND D1:Vl: [.OPMENT PIZEL 1 M I NARY PROCESSING FEE DEPOSITS EFFECTIVE SLzrmMBEER 7, 1983 IfEiZEBY RESOLVED THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING CHARGES UNDER THE AUTVORITY OF VENTURA COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE SECTIONS 8163-4.2 and 8220, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF MOORPARK ON JULY 2, 1983, - FEES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING REAL, TIME BILLING PROGRAM: CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE PERMIT TYPEFEE DEPOSIT 30% Proposed Increase 1. PLAIMIED DEVELOPMENT ' a. Mobilehome Park - $1,000.00 (base) + $5.00 per pad $1,300 + 6.50 per pad b. Commercial $1,100.00 $1,430 C. Residential-,��* $1,000.00 (base) + $5.00 per $1,300 + 6.50 per dwelling unit unit 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN $1,200.00 $1,560 3. CONDITIONAL USE AND.OPtN SPACE USE PERMIT a. Residential and accessory $ 800.00 $1,040 uses thereto b. Agricultural and accessory $1,100.00 $1,430 uses thereto C. Commercial/Industrial/ $1,400.00 $1,820 Institutional uses d. Oil Drilling and Production $1,900.00 $2,470 The Real Time billing program will require Lhe deposit of Lite stated in this resolution. Final cost of. processing a , ication will be tedted�upon actual time expended (based Lite hourly rates established to rec 11, costs) but steal exceed Lite deposit fee by more Lhan fifty (SO) percen as oLllerwise indicated herein. If final cost is less th:ui th • posit C. • eivcd, Lite unused portion of Lite d,•I)n:;it f,-o sl,:,l1 refunded to tI„ ,I)!11ic:,nt in:11 co-:1- I. mere tll:ln III(- L:, l :+nrr ':11.f 1 1 L,' I):+V':11, 1 r h _ �:! I(hill .:. . , .I f 1 fly (`)0) Irr•, r-I.111. of t !I, ,j,•In,': � 1 f • , I .. .. ili ..i 1'1.n 111•"f 1!. "/,-1,11 J111•'ll� .f 1. ,j I ..� ;I 1'. �• I �-,,:,• III .. � ..:1 �'. i,,.�.,.�,)I,I...'nt 11,•frllt �:1,.111 I„• r.•du,rd ')U';!,. (00, 00 $3,900 f `3,00(1-00 $3,900 14 70 N 1' C I I A %,'G E 2,().00 $1,625 S. I , ENIATIVE SUBDIVISION NAPS 3. Tentative Tract flap $1,800.00 (base) + $21340 + 45.50 lot or unit $35.00 per lot or iiriiL per . b. Tentative Parcel flap, $1,400.00 (base) + $1,820 + 65.00 Parcel flap Waiver or $50.00 per lot or unit per lot or unit Conditional Certificate of Compliance C. Time extension -6f approved 50% of current. deposit fee No Change tentative tract map d. Time extension..Of-approved 50% of current deposit fee No Change tentative parcel map e. Parcel map reversion to $ 300.00 (non-refundable) $ 390 acreage f- Lot line adjustments $ 250.00 (non-refundable) $ 325 6- VARIANCE $ 0050.00 $1,105 7. MAJOR MODIFICATION. 80% of current deposit fee No Limit 8- HINOR MODIFICATION 00% of current deposit fee or $ 260 limit $200.00 whichever is greater 9. ADMINISTRATIVE CLEARANCE $ 200.00 (non-refundable) $ 260 10- ZONE CLEARANCE 20-00 1 $2.00 per !ddiLioli-31 $ 26 + 2.60 lot/unit (non-refundable) per lot or unit 10.a Zone Clearance Processing $ No previous fee $ Actual time**.* Final cost of processing will. be computed j1poli actual Lillie CXj)C'fldCd (based upon the hourly rates established to cover all costs)_ If f'i 11 ' --I cost.i'; less than the deposit fee received, Lite portion of the deposit fee sliall. be refunded to the applicant. if filial cost, is more Lila„ the deposit fee received, Lite balance shall be payable by the applicant. On any "Lone Changeapplication filed concurrently with a '1ClL.jLiVV 11ACt 11311 .-Ind/or Resident j.11 Planned I)eveloptuctit permiL, tile dVj)():_-i1" f(.'(' for t1,r Z( ***not to exceed the final original application fee. M AIII 12. REVOCATION 13. VIOLATION PENALTY *. 14. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS a. Environmental Impact Report-` b. Environmental Impact Report Addendum c_ Special Consultants 15. LAND CONSERVATION At3'. CONTRACT - AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES a. Applications b. Cancellation c_ Portion Non-Renewa•1 16. SIGN PERMIT 17. LANDSCAPE PLAN REVI]iW AND INSPECTION:, 18. GENERAL PLAN AHENDUENTS 19 _ PLANNED COHHLTNITY-,- 20_ XEROX COPIES 8' x 11" and 8' .. 14" 11" x 17" 2`>',•t, (If current flclwsiL IC(' or $300.00 whieheccr is l;rcat.cr 50%„ of cnrrcnt (Icpo::it fee 100% of currenL deposit fee, not to cxcccd $500.00 (non- refundable) Aq $ 390 limit No change $ 650 limit $2,000.00 deposit $2,600 $1,000.00 deposit $1,300 Total prepayment of consultant's 15% for staff tim( estimated cost, or acceptable bond_ $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 20.00 (non-refundable) $ 200.00 deposit $1,000.00 (base) + $5.00 .per acre $1,000.00 (base) + $10.00 per acre $0.50 for ist,page + 0.25 per each additional page $1.00 for 1st page + 0.75 per each additional page up to nine pages + $0.50 per each additional page thereafter 21. Zoning Maps $ No previous charge ---In :Jddit.ion Lo hermit deposit- fee_ 1'in:11 Aw'! ,J1 :111 be coullnJtc'd lyofl Actu:el 1_1111,• I•zlu•nd'•d (h.'I::ed tip„n II,. h"Il l 1 r•.:1 :,fl l I ::Il, d I cl u•,, I rcl :t ::) . I! t i na 1 t i 11';. ., i 1:.: 1: 1 1 'I''11. 1'. 1 1 1 � � 1 ��( �• 1 �•�1'll , I III' 17!Iil'. 1�'ll I . �ii ,1 1 :I,' ,1'';��1'. I 1 I , e .il.,ll 1, I''1u;.. •1 t.i 11,. ,lii,li�.,lll 11 11n.,1 �. ;I t'. ,.nt. .!...;I I. •�� :it I:".i $1,040 $1,040 $1,040 $ 26 $ 260 $1,300 + 6.50 per acre $1,300 + 13.00 per acre No change "At cost