Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0205 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM 9A. MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT . 7C�ii9�F1Q2�-�I�RNIA C: - n ^.I Meefing 199,E A IIV Gy t� TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: January 31, 1992 (CC meeting of 2/5/92) SUBJECT: FEE INCREASE AND SERVICES ADJUSTMENT FOR BUILDING & SAFETY SERVICES — ADDENDUM REPORT I. Background This matter was introduced to the City council at the regular meeting of December 18, 1991. At that time staff requested that the matter be continued to the Council's January 8, 1992 meeting. Prior to continuing the matter; the Council discussed the proposed two -tier valuation method and requested additional information from staff. On January 8, 1992 staff returned to the Council with only a report regarding the matter of Building and Safety fee revisions. The recommendations regarding a level of service had not at that time reached a resolution with the Budget and Finance Committee. within the January 8, 1992 staff report was information regarding a survey of communities pertaining to a multi -level tier valuation of building permits. Also staff had amended the characteristics listing which ranked "good" vs. "custom" values. At the January 8, 1992 meeting the Council received a request from Mr. Paul Tryon, Building Industry Association to continue this matter until the regular meeting of February 5, 1992. At this time staff has a meeting set with Mr. Tryon for January 29, 1992 to discuss this matter. The Council took action to continue this subject until February 5, 1992. C:_ -01 - i 1 - 91 (5:1 6pm) C:\WP51\PJR`B &S2 -5.CC PAULO, LAWRASCN JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayw Mayor Pro Tem Cwncilmember Councilmember Councilmember The Honorable City Council January 29, 1992 Page -2- II. Discussion a. Fee Increase - Building & Safety Services The matter of Building & Safety fee increases is included within the January 8, 1992 staff report to Council (see attachment). The only issue not addressed in that report is some consideration for a pre -plan check review fee. This additional fee is being suggested as a means by which the level of service charges can be kept to a minimum where a project has the potential to absorb a lot of fact finding data collection by an individual or firm prior to the submittal of a construction drawings. A similar fee is being proposed by the Community Development Department in the form of a pre - entitlement application review. This fee would be imposed at the discretion of the Building Official where it would be anticipated that time spent with an individual or firm would take longer than a typical inquirer. b. Service Level - The Building and Safety service provider has reduced staffing of the Building and Safety program in response to the downturn in building activity. These reductions in staffing have reduced the average monthly cost of the Building and Safety program by approximately forty -three percent. Average costs for service through May 1990 was $25,000 per month. From April 1990 through February 1991 the average monthly cost of Building and Safety services was $15,000. From March 1991 through October 1991 the average cost is about $13,000. The average costs include both plan check and inspection plus any extra costs that have been billed against the "cap ". Such as the fireplace shroud and substandard building matters. Savings are also being experienced because City Engineering is being provided by the same provider and certain personnel and overhead costs are being shared by both programs. These savings are demonstrated by Attachment No. 2. However, the building activity level has reduced to a level where the average monthly fees collected will not necessarily support the program as was previously anticipated in the contract with the service provider. Currently, the contract with the service provider requires that the program be provided with a public service counter open eight hours a day, five days a week and a next day inspection guarantee. CRL-01 -31-92 (5:16pm) C:\WP5 1 \PJR\B&S2-5. CC The Honorable City Council January 29, 1992 Page -3- It should be noted that inasmuch as the Building and Safety contractor is providing engineering services; the engineering contract requires that an office be open eight hours a day, five days a week. Building and Safety and City Engineering share the same office and some of the coordination and support activities which are accomplished by the same person. Some clerical, counter, minor plan check and quasi - administrative functions for both departments can be accomplished by one person. C. Options - After reviewing this matter it was determined that options were characterized as being of two types. The first centered on how to retain the existing service -- -- - level and the second at what level was a "minimum" service acceptable. To consider the first option there needs to be an understanding that the current level of permit revenue is not sufficient to carry the service without a subsidy from the Community Development Fund or General Fund. Caution should be noted on the use of such funds inasmuch as they are not unlimited and reductions from such will reduce future options for other programs and services provided by such funds. The current 91/92 Budget does not provide the ability for the City to sustain such an activity for any length of time. The second option is a consideration towards a minimum level of service as follows: i. Counter Hours The current contract requires that the inspector be available in the office a minimum of two hours per day. The Building and Safety office is currently staffed by a building inspector and a clerical person. Consider a reduction of the inspector at the counter freeing up this position to do inspection. Under a proposed reduction of service level; the inspector would be available to the public two hours each of the two days per week. Note that the inspector would more than likely be in the office and not completely unavailable during the week. CRL- 01- 31- 92(5:16pM)C:\WP51\PJR\B &52 -5.CC The Honorable City Council January 29, 1992 Page -4- No change to office hours is considered inasmuch as this must remain open under the City Engineering contract. As a matter of fairness the clerk's responsibilities could be split with the primary counter person between the two offices. ii. Inspection Hours Currently the Building and Safety office retains an inspector for eight hours, five days a week. Consideration could be made to retaining an inspector for only four hours per day, five days a week. With the integration of the City Engineers office this same inspector should be made available to accomplish those tasks. Currently inspection service has been averaging 5.7 yours per day. An on -going review will be necessary to determine if the minimum four hours will not cause a backlog of inspection time. iii. Clerk /Permit Technician Hours With the integration of Building and Safety and city engineering services this position could be supported by a 50/50 share in the cost of this position. iv. Building Official Hours With the reduction in work load it would be expected that the amount of time needed for administration should be reduced. With this reduced level of service there may not be the ability to guarantee next day inspection service. Consideration should be made in adjusting this matter also. The above is a suggested absolute minimum level of service which this office could provide. There are opportunities to consider various options between current service levels and this minimum level. However, it should be recognized that even the suggested minimum level of service may require some form of subsidy from the Community Development Fund or General Fund to support the service. This cost could be not to exceed a certain amount per month if no revenue is generated to support the service. In other words, should the cap or carryover pool be insufficient to provide the necessary minimal level of service during any month; the City would need to supplement the service based upon an agreed amount. The Honorable City Council January 29, 1992 Page -5- The minimum level of service limitation amount would be in operation only when the level of Building and Safety activity falls below a reasonable revenue income from the issuance of permits and plan check reviews. To insure a more timely accountability; this program will require weekly reports regarding costs, hours spent and service provided to the Director of Community Development. III. Staff Recommendation A. That the City Council concur with the need to: 1. Increase to Building and Safety fees; 2. Establish new fees regarding geology and soils reviews and pre -plan check review. 3. A two -tier range of valuations for residential construction;- 4. And the establishment of a valuation surcharge for complex foundation systems; and 5. That the Council approve the draft resolution regarding an increase in Building and Safety fees with the addition of a pre plan check review fee not to exceed a three hour charge based upon the inspection's rate. B. That the City Council consider the establishment of a minimum level of Building and Safety services and direct staff as deemed appropriate. CRL- 01- 31- 92(5:16pm)C:\WP5I\PJR\B&S2 -5.CC (7 02/05/92 16:28 a 818 591 0072 GLA`U BIP P.01 r GREATER LOS ANGELES - VENTURA COUNTIES REGION BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. B 23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 1004 Calabasas, California 91302 Direct Prone (818) 591 -2001 / FAX Phone (818) 591 -x072 FAX COVER SHEET Oct- �MpOR .� O�SW p�- EPS�SNOwN g�V erY NS ATTENTION: Administration In CRY of Moorpark COMPANY: CITY OF MOORPARK FROM: Dee Boysen, Executive Officer SUBJECT: FAX NUMBER: 805 529 8270 PAGES TO FOLLOW. I DATE: 2/5/92 TIME: 7j CALL Elaine IF FAX PAG S NOT RECEIVED OR UNREADABLE MESSAGE: - PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE AS FOLLOWS: .. ff mory yr ,. 0aggeLiffAr (/ V .•...w.v.. v nruvn ti w 1%UUhtbbLU. ANN) MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION TIUtT IS PR IVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL. AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. UNALITHOFVMD DISSEIv MTK)N IS PROHIBITED. PLEASE CALL THE NUMBER ABOVE VATH ANY QUESTIONS. B &' Check when FAX Is compieled. 02/05z92 16:24 $ 818 `_?I 0872 .n Bill GREATER LOS ANGELES / VENTURA REGION Building Industry Association of Southern California, I-c. 23801 Calabasas Road, x'1004 • Calaboscs. CA (818) 591 -2001 • (805) 659 -4745 • FAX (W) 591 -CC7: February 5, 1992 City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Attn: The Honorable Paul Lawrascn, Mayor Councilmembers GLA`V BIa P.02 RE: AGENDA ITEM 9A - Proposed Adjustment to Building & Safety Fees Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed amendment of the building and safety fee schedule. We had hoped to provide verbal comments and tc query the staff at tonight's hearing. Unfortunately, competing schedules require our attendance elsewhere. Therefore, we will endeavor to make our points known in this correspondence and respectfully request that staff address our questions for council consideration in our absence. 1. It is our understanding, after lengthy discussion with city staff, and specifically the Building official, that the recommendation for a two -tier fee system for "good" and "very good" quality construction is intended to differentiate between tract design (good) and custom design (very good) . Therefore, residential tracts, because of repetitious use of a plan, which constitutes time savings in building plan check, will qualify for the lower $71.80 fee. We would request that more definitive language be adopted to clearly illustrate that differentiation in categories. 2. With respect to our concern over the arbitrary criteria by which the Building Official determines that an individual product is "very good" /custom, we were assured that a product would have to have a "preponderance" of the characteristics in the "very good" column. We would request then that a qualifying statemer.,:� including the word "preponderance" be included in the body of the schedule. ki Affillate of Itb'lW 1B W)d the C81A C,-R C� 'Q7 +C•-,- Gam( �a7 f 01/51/92 16:26 8 818 591 8072 6LA'V BIF P.01 GREATER LOS ANGELES - VENTURA COUNTIES REGION BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. ' 23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 1004 Calabasas, Californla 91302 Direct Phone (818) 591 -2001 / FAX Phone (818) 591 -0072 AX COVER HEET ATTENTION: AA._ . A� A, A/. w COMPANY: FROM: SUBJE( FAX NUMBER: %y�,s 'j T " ;j Ab PAGES TO FOLLOW: DATE: �� TIME: T/d CALL IF FAX PAGES NOT RECEIVED OR UNREADABLE l/- Lev"' V ..nwn II IS AVORESSED, AND MAY —a INFORMATION THAT IS PRIAEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPUCABLE UNAUTHORIZED DSSSEMINATION IS PROHIatTED. PLEASE CALL THE NUMBER ABOVE WITH ANY QUESTIONS, 6W Check v4mn FAX Is Compned 01/31/92 16828 E 818 591 0672 GLA`U 0IA P.02 i n BIA GREATER LOS ANGELES / VENTURA REGION Building Industry Association of Southern Callfornla. Inc. 23801 Calabasas Road, #1004 • Calabasas, CA 91302 (818) 591 -2001 • (805) 659 -4745 • FAX (818) 591 -0072 January 31, 1992 Pat Richards Director of Community Development 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Mr. Richards: RE: Building & Safety Services Fee Adjustment Thank you for taking the time to discuss the proposed adjustments in the Building & Safety Fee Schedule. The information exchange was very helpful in clarifying the Building & Safety proposal, however, we still have some questions regarding methodology and substantiation that we hope will be addressed in information we are awaiting from staff. Briefly, we understand the intent of a*two-tiered valuation structure for residential development, but the differentiation in the criteria between the two categories of "good" and "very good" }products is unclear. Apparently, there is no "rule of thumb ", but it is completely up to the building official as to whether a project falls into either category. Moreover, there is no allowance for a "very good" tract to show time savings for additional plan checks. Hopefully the ICBO information that is being forwarded will clarify these issues. In addition, the valuation table in Exhibit "A" of the proposed ordinance shows extreme variances in the amount of increase from the current to proposed level. We hope to be able to substantiate these variances with documentation from staff. An Atfillote of the NAHB and the CBIA 01/31/92 16:29 Richards /Moorpark 1/31/92 page 2 Z 010 591 0072 GLR`V BIA P.03 We understand that the Building and Safety Services is receiving reduced income as a result of reduced construction activity, but we question why we are being penalised for that reduction in revenue. Certain adjustments, like the establishment of the Geology and Soils Review Fees, are valuable, and the increased service can be directly tied to new development. However, other adjustments should be shared equally among all users, specifically the need to maintain window operating hours if, in fact, the majority of Building & Safety's staff time is spent on work other than new residential development. Thank you for your assistance and your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to resolving these issues in a mutually beneficial manner. Sincerely, Aeeoy en/ Executiiver cc: Mayor Paul Lawrason Councilmembers: Bernardo Perez, John Wozniak, Roy Talley Mayor Pro Tem: Scott Montgomery City Manager: Steve Rueny City Engineer: Charlie Abbott