The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0108 CC SPC ITEM 08KI MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 M E M O R A N D U M "OORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Co Cil MeeTing of 199_2 - ACTION: (_/,M AA x-11.0 A TO: The Honorable City Council jam/ FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Management Analyst DATE: December 27, 1991 (/ SUBJECT: Consider Setting Public Hearing Date for Revisions to the City's Land Use Development Resolution SUMMARY Pursuant to Council direction on January 23, 1991, staff is recommending that the Council set a date for a public meeting and consider revisions to the City's land use development fees, ( "entitlement fees" or "planning fees "). Staff has proposed that, pursuant the procedures defined by Government Code 66016, the matter be scheduled for a public meeting February 5, 1992, so that the related fee resolution can be considered for revisions. Based on a preliminary analysis, staff estimates that the new fee rate will increase 3% from the current rate of $71 dollars per hour to $73 dollars per hour. BACKGROUND Staff has analyzed the costs associated with the provision of providing planning services on an annual basis for the past three years. The planning fee cost has increased from $45 per hour to $71 per hour during that time period. Prior to the development of last year's hourly fee rate, a methodology was developed by a consultant and subsequently, the Council endorsed its use. The methodology allows the City to easily make revisions each year. The consultant's methodology is based on generally accepted cost accounting principles for government entities. It incorporates the standards set forth for cost recovery principles specified by OMB Circular A -87, contains a factor for capital depreciation in the "Use Allowance," and allows for "Prior Year Adjustments" to be considered in order to PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Cnunrilmemher Planning Fees December 27, 1991 arrive at a reasonable rate of cost recovery. The intent is to achieve a recovery rate of 100% of the cost of these services. DISCUSSION This year's analysis includes two factors not considered before; 1) prior year adjustments, and 2) the consideration of new fees, procedures and /or deposit amounts. Changes in the City's budget between fiscal year 1990/91 and fiscal year 1992/93 have also been taken into consideration. Budget Considerations Calculations used to recover the City's costs for processing land use entitlement permits are based on the City's adopted budget, a determination of overhead, indirect costs and deduction of unrelated departmental costs. Four cost categories are used: 1) directly related expenses, or the cost of specifically related staff positions; 2) indirect, or department costs for Community Development; 3) general overhead, or support costs of other City departments, and; 4) use allowance, or fixed asset costs associated with the related functions. These categories are totalled, then divided by the number of staff hours spent on land use entitlement permit processing. This year, after the creation of the Public Works Department, the City was able to spread certain fixed overhead costs thus reducing the cost of these items to the Department of Community Development. The personnel costs of the Finance Department, (Finance Officer and Account Clerk) and the receptionist each fell from 40% to 30% in Community Development. The Account Technician position was added to the personnel charges and billed at 30% rate to Community Development. The personnel costs are calculated by using tables as presented in Attachment "B." Each position is analyzed developing benefit rates (which include leave benefits as well as City health insurance costs). These tables allow the City to make appropriate deductions. Prior Year Adjustments Prior year adjustments are used to measure the difference between budget figures used in developing the prior year's fee rate, and the actual costs. A general analysis was developed in order to test the current fee rate against the actual expenditures for the year, in order to assure that the City is achieving a reasonable rate of cost recovery. N Planning Fees December 27, 1991 The primary method used to measure the fee rate's adequacy is accomplished by taking total actual cost (estimated to be $754,500), divided by total billable staff hours. The hours used in the "Rate Determination" portion of the fee calculation accounts for the five positions directly related to the cost of the fee, or 2080 total possible hours * 5 positions = 10,400 hours. The City has not billed 10,400 hours during the fiscal year, but the expenses have been incurred, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the City has not recovered 100% of its cost, (pursuant to Government Code 66014, "fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service for which the fee is charged "). Therefore, based on the fact that the City did not recover more than the expenses in the Department, a reasonable rate of recovery is being achieved, and no prior year adjustments are required for this year. Possible Changes to the Fee Schedule Because the rate of cost recovery is lower than the costs associated with entitlement permit process, and in consideration of Council's intent to recover 100% of the cost of issuing planning fees, staff has reviewed its procedures and is evaluating new fee categories, procedures and deposit amounts as follows: 1) Preliminary Review Fee (Proposed deposit amount of $730) A "Preliminary Review Fee" for the initial review of an entitlement application would be a new fee designed to allow the City to be compensated for approximately 10 to 12 hours per entitlement submittal which can be spent with a developer, prior to the submission of a formal application. Currently, staff time is spent with an applicant prior to a deposit being received, and no costs are billed to the developer during this time. Two methods for implementation of this fee are common throughout the County; 1) establishment of a "criteria" to define the initiation of when the fee is charged and for what type of permit application it would be applicable for, and; 2 ) the option of providing a "choice" to the applicant to pay the preliminary fee, or proceed directly into the entitlement permit process. The fee is not mandatory whether the "choice" or the "criteria" methods are used. Staff proposes that rather than developing a complex criteria for determining when the rate applies to a project, that a 3 Planning Fees December 27, 1991 more simple format be implemented allowing the developer to choose whether or not a preliminary fee for a specific project is worthy of the cost, or if the applicant should begin the entitlement process directly without paying the fee. The "choice" method helps to reduce the subjectivity that can be part of the "criteria" approach when determining when the fee rate begins, and presents the fee as an option, not as a mandatory requirement. The choice of paying the new fee or submitting the application will be recommended by staff to an applicant when more than one hour has been spent discussing a project prior to the submittal of an application, and it is apparent that submittal of an application is eminent. By limiting the free consultation to one hour, staff can be certain that this previously unclaimed portion of time is being fairly recuperated. If the applicant chooses to pay the preliminary review fee, the deposit would assume a procedure assuring the developer a two week response regarding the status of the initial application. 2) Initial Environmental Study Review Fee (Proposed deposit amount of $730) This fee has never been imposed by the City before, but because of the rapidly changing laws and related court cases applicable to this type of review, staff feels that the fee would help to recover these costs. A preliminary environmental study review fee would be added to the deposit amount of the actual specific type of environmental review required. This fee would be segregated from the other fees and help to identify the costs of providing this service. 3) Miscellaneous Fees A) "Cost of Living" Mobile Home Rent Increase Reviews (proposed flat fee of $219) The proposed new fee can help the City to compensate for the 3 hours of time spent on simple rent review applications, ( "cost of living "). This time is divided between the review of the data, and drafting of notice to the Council and property owners that the increase has been recommended as approved or not approved. B) Traffic Model Use Fee (proposed flat fee of $219) This fee will assist the City 4 in recuperating the cost Planning Fees December 27, 1991 incurred in establishing a traffic model for the City. These costs take into consideration the time needed to maintain the data, enter data, analyze the data and present the information in a usable format. Staff anticipates that using this model for City projects will reduce the demand on traffic engineer services and therefore, reduce the costs in this area of project review. Staff also expects that a small project will cost the same as a large project, and this matter will be evaluated after the end of the fiscal year. Other changes include a more "user friendly" format for the fee schedule, and the implementation of Section 8111 -3.9.4 of the City's zoning code which specifies that penalties for a late payment will be added to the existing bills when not paid when requested by staff. Staff looked at one other type of permit relative to the condition compliance inspections of environmental standards, (Cortese, AB 3180), imposed on City developments. This cost is currently being collected as part of the general "Condition Compliance" fee, but if the State and federal government continue to impose the enforcement of environmental regulations upon local government without funding for their administration, then new fees may have to be considered in the near future regarding environmental follow -up inspections. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize staff to schedule to a public meeting pursuant to Government Code 66016, for February 5, 1992, to consider revising the current rates for entitlement processing. Attachment A) Draft Fee Calculations B) Benefit Tables 5 ATTACHMENT A 1991 /92 LAND USE APPLICATION PROCESSING FEE RATE CALCULATIONS Item 1) Direct Department Costs These are Actual Salaries, Vacancies @ "C" level, Emply + 1 for Ben. 1991/92 A B (A +B) x C +1 Item Costs Deductions Total Yr. Total Med. Leave N/A Position --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Salary Benefits Benefits Totals --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dir. of Community Devel. 57,540 17,392 19.62% 89,634 Senior Planner 45,084 12,304 17.69% 67,540 Senior Planner 40,413 11,669 17.69% 61,295 Associate Planner 35,328 12,444 17.69% 56,223 Assistant Planner --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31,660 11,976 17.69% 51,355 Total 178,365 53,809 326,047 Item 2) Department Overhead, (Indirect Costs) 1991/92 Deductions- * 641 - Professional services and 20.29% of the Department Budget To account for the Code Enforcement Deduction from this cost (PAGE 6) City Applied Item Costs Deductions Amount Personnel (SEE TABLE) N/A 102,791 Maintenance and Operations 235,395 182,762 * 52,633 Capital (Deleted -see use allowance) Fixed Overhead ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Deleted -see use allowance) 155,424 Deductions- * 641 - Professional services and 20.29% of the Department Budget To account for the Code Enforcement Deduction from this cost (PAGE 6) ATTACHMENT A 1991 /92 LAND USE APPLICATION PROCESSING FEE RATE CALCULATIONS Total General Indirect Costs 251,961 Deductions 1) 80% Dep. City Clerk + Dep. City Clerk Ben., (no deduction for elections) 2) Special Legal Services 3) Capital, (5000) + FO @ 60% + FO Ben + Act. Tech @ 60% + Act Tech Ben. +Act. Clrk @ 60 %+ Act Clrk. Ben 4) Capital + CDBG Salary, 21,620 + 60% Recept.+ 60% Rec. Ben 5) 642- Contr Srvcs, 645- Plan Chk, 646- Inspect 6) 100% Assit. to the City Manager Position + Ben. Item 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/91 Budgeted Total Deprec. Use Item Costs Assets Deduction Net Costs % applied Total Costs City Council 27,300 0.02 0 27,300 36% 9,828 City Manager 222,623 6) 62,888 159,735 20% 31,947 City Clerk 120,989 1) 28,134 92,855 36% 33,428 City Attorney 113,000 2) 25,000 88,000 36% 31,680 City Treasurer 1,700 0 1,700 28% 476 Finance Officer 134,372 3) 86,471 47,901 28% 13,412 Administrative Services 544,186 4) 155,099 389,087 28% 108,944 City Engineer 170,800 5) 170,800 29,660 75% 22,245 Total General Indirect Costs 251,961 Deductions 1) 80% Dep. City Clerk + Dep. City Clerk Ben., (no deduction for elections) 2) Special Legal Services 3) Capital, (5000) + FO @ 60% + FO Ben + Act. Tech @ 60% + Act Tech Ben. +Act. Clrk @ 60 %+ Act Clrk. Ben 4) Capital + CDBG Salary, 21,620 + 60% Recept.+ 60% Rec. Ben 5) 642- Contr Srvcs, 645- Plan Chk, 646- Inspect 6) 100% Assit. to the City Manager Position + Ben. Item 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/91 Allocation Total Employees 28 Department Employees which use City Hall * Less Code Enforcemnt Related Employees 6.6 Percent (6.60/28) 24% Use Allowance Attributable to Department (24% * $89,831) 21,068 (PAGE 7) Total Deprec. Use 1989/90 1990 /91 Assets Percentage Allowance Buildings and structures 850,146 66956 917102 0.02 18,342 Improve. other than Buildings 524,058 8816 532874 0.07 37,301 Office Furniture And Equip. 254,630 116084 370714 0.07 25,950 Other equipment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52,767 58482 111249 0.07 7,787 1,681,601 250,338 1,931,939 89,381 Allocation Total Employees 28 Department Employees which use City Hall * Less Code Enforcemnt Related Employees 6.6 Percent (6.60/28) 24% Use Allowance Attributable to Department (24% * $89,831) 21,068 (PAGE 7) ATTACHMENT A 1991 /92 LAND USE APPLICATION PROCESSING FEE RATE CALCULATIONS Item 1, Direct Costs 326,047 Item 2, Indirect Costs 155,424 Item 3, General Overhead 251,961 Item 4, Use Allowance 21,068 Adjustment from Prior Year —Total Costs 754,500 Divided by Total Hours (2080 * 5 Positions) 10400 RATE 73 PER HOUR (PAGE 8) ATTACHMENT "B" 1991/92 Fee Rate Benefit Tables A) DIRECT PERSONNEL COST "A" "B" "C" CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS COST CITY TOTAL TITLE RATE CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS UNEMP PERS COST PAID TOTAL TITLE RATE RATE INS COMP UNEMP PERS MEDICARE BENEFITS TOTAL CONK. DEV. DIR. 4795 57540 7459 888 161 8050 834 18191 75,731 SENIOR PLANNER 3757 45084 4486 696 161 6307 654 15796 60,880 SENIOR PLANNER 3246 40413 4645 624 161 5654 586 14969 55,382 ASSOCIATE PLANNER 2944 35328 6283 545 161 4942 512 14069 49,397 ASSISTANT PLANNER 2543 31660 6438 489 161 4429 459 13420 45,080 ................................................................................ 17285 210025 29311 3242 805 ............................... 29382 3045 76445 286470 Columns "A", "B" and "C" above are used in "Item 1) Direct Costs" B) CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL COST Community Development Personnel Allocation 505922 Code Enforcement Personnel Allocation 102649 Percentage of Community Development which is Code Enforcement 20.29% (60% of the Sectretary, like last year's calculations) C) INDIRECTLY RELATED STAFF POSITIONS 1991/92 TOTAL CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS COST PAID TOTAL TITLE RATE RATE INS COMP UNEMP PERS MEDICARE BENEFITS TOTAL CODE ENF OFFICER 2543 30770 6430 2404 518 4305 446 15285 46,055 C.E. TECHNICIAN 1897 23618 6077 1845 410 3304 342 13548 37,166 SECRETARY (60% of Cost App 892 11108 2920 171 223 1554 161 8320 19,428 ............................................................................ 5332 65496 15427 4420 1150 ............................... 9163 950 37153 102649 Community Development Personnel Allocation 505922 Code Enforcement Personnel Allocation 102649 Percentage of Community Development which is Code Enforcement 20.29% (60% of the Sectretary, like last year's calculations) C) INDIRECTLY RELATED STAFF POSITIONS 1991/92 TOTAL BEN & LEAVE CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS PAID SALARY BENEFIT GRAND TITLE RATE RATE INS COMP UNEMP PERS MEDICARE BENEFITS TOTAL RATE TOTAL FINANCE OFFICER 3757 45460 2764 702 161 6360 659 15863 61,323 17.99% 72355 RECEPTIONIST 1639 19668 6252 304 161 2752 285 11297 30,965 17.99% 36536 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1897 23238 6386 359 161 3251 337 11929 35,167 17.99% 41494 ACCOUNT CLERK 1897 22764 6628 351 161 3185 330 11845 34,609 17.99% 40835 ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN 2197 27243 2698 421 161 3811 395 12610 39,853 17.99% 47022 ADMIN SECRETARY 2092 25104 6288 388 161 3512 364 11895 36,999 17.99% 43655 ASSISTANT TO C.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3578 46693 2801 721 161 6532 677 16195 62,888 17.99% 74202 - - - - -- FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING RATES FOR ALL TABLES ARE BELOW. ►�--- � care rate = 1.45% of Salary .p. Rate = 1.5% of the first $7,000 + 56.00 Worker's Comp. = (Salary * .0083)* 1.86 for administrative positions = (Salary * .042) *1.86 for Code Enforcement Retirement = 13.99 % (which includes employee and employer contributions) Health Insurance calculated based on Budget Figures (PAGE 9) ATTACHMENT "B" 1991/92 Fee Rate Benefit Tables D) INDIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS (Personnel, Item 2, Indirect Costs) PERCENT APPLICABLE TO PLANNING CURRENT ANNUAL % to Appl. Hourly RETIRE- GROUP WORKERS TOTAL PD. LEAVE BENEFIT Ben. Rate 20.29% Plus Code Enf. TOTAL TITLE RATE RATE Fee Cost Rate Rate MEDICARE INS COMP BENEFITS BENEFITS RATE Salary Deduction APPLIED FINANCE OFFICER 3757 45460 30% 13638 6.56 13.99% 6.08% 1.55% 34.89% 17.79% 58.89% 21670 4397 17273 RECEPTIONIST 1639 19668 30% 5900 2.84 13.99% 31.79% 1.55% 57.44% 17.79% 85.45% 10942 2220 8722 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1897 23238 20% 4648 2.23 13.99% 27.48% 1.55% 51.33% 17.79% 78.26% 8285 1681 6604 ACCOUNT CLERK 1897 22764 30% 6829 3.28 13.99% 29.11% 1.55% 52.03% 17.79% 79.08% 12230 2481 9748 ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN 2197 27243 30% 8173 3.93 13.99% 9.90% 1.55% 46.29% 17.79% 72.31% 14083 2857 11225 ADMIN SECRETARY 2092 25104 100% 25104 12.07 13.99% 25.05% 1.55% 47.38% 19.59% 76.26% 44247 8977 35270 SECRETARY--------- - - - - -- 1487 - - -- 18513- - 40% 7405 3.56 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13.99% 26.29% 1.55% 59.92% 17.79% 88.37% 13949 0 13949 totals - - - - -- - - - -- - --------------- 111456 22614 102791 * Code Enforcement deduction charged directly for this position at 60% (PAGE 10)