HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0701 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM
9A*
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City
Council
FROM:
Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works
�.,.
DATE:
June 22, 1992 (Meeting of 7 -1 -92)
;f
199 �-
SUBJECT:
Consider a Resolution Revising the Fees
for ACTT
Public Works and City Engineering Services
gy, . C l�s
OVERVIEW
This presents for adoption a resolution to increase the Public
Works and Engineering fees.
BACKGROUND
1. The current Public Works and Engineering fees were adopted by
Resolution No. 84 -119 in July of 1984.
2. Last April the City Council first considered a proposal to
increase these fees. The matter was referred to the City
Council Budget & Finance Committee for review and
recommendation.
3. Noting the lack of adequate cost history data to support the
fees initially proposed, the Committee recommended the adoption
of an interim fee structure based on the fees adopted by the
County of Ventura in September of 1991. This revised fee
structure is significantly less than the fees first proposed.
On May 20, the City Council considered the Committee's
recommendation. No action was taken.
4. On May 28, staff met with Dee Boysen of the Building Industry
Association (BIA) to discuss the proposed fees. The views of
the B.I.A. are discussed below.
5. On June 3, the City Council considered written and oral
testimony from the B.I.A. The City Council continued action on
the proposed fee increase to July 1 to allow the Budget &
Finance Committee to meet with the B.I.A. and the Chamber of
Commerce. Attempts to schedule this meeting were unsuccessful.
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Engineering Fees
July 1, 1992
Page 2
DISCUSSION
A. Inadeauate Fee Structure
There have been no adjustments to the City's Public Works and
Engineering Fees since 1984. Since that date normal
inflationary factors have increased the cost of most goods and
services. The costs associated with providing engineering
services have been subject to those inflationary forces. to
addition, such services have been subject to a growing number
of government mandates and technological changes. As a result,
the fee structures used by other governmental agencies have had
to increase significantly over those charged eight years ago.
This increase has been necessary in order to provide the higher
level of effort and skill now required in this field.
B. Resolution
Attached is a draft Resolution (Exhibit 1) to repeal the
existing fee resolution and adopt a new fee structure. Exhibit
"A" of the resolution sets forth revised Encroachment Permit
Fees. Exhibit "B" sets forth subdivision map and improvement
plan checking and inspection fees.
C. Comparison
Also attac
number of
following
• City of
• County
• City of
• City of
• City of
• City of
• City of
hed is a Chart (Exhibit 2) comparing the fees of a
agencies. This chart compares the fees from the
agencies:
Moorpark (current
of Ventura;
Agoura Hills;
Thousand Oaks;
Camarillo;
Simi Valley; and
Oxnard.
D. Fee Adjustment
& proposed);
It is generally agreed that the Public Works and Engineering
fees should be increased. The matter in question is the amount
of the increase. The attached draft Resolution (Exhibit 1)
sets forth a fee structure based on similar fees adopted by the
County of Ventura in September of 1991. For reference the
City's present fees are shown next to each proposed fee in
Engineering Fees __-
July 1, 1992
Page 3
parentheses. Adoption of the County's fees would be comparable
to the action taken by the City Council in 1984. The City's
present fees are based on the 1984 County fee structure.
There has been discussion of the use of another basis for the
proposed fee increase. Other models include the averaging of
the fees from the agencies surveyed and a flat increase based
on the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). A second
Fee Comparison Chart,(Exhibit 3) has been prepared to show the
relationship between the City's existing fee structure and a)
the fee increase previously recommended by the Budget & Finance
Committee, b) the fees structure adopted by the County of
Ventura and c) a fee structure based upon the increase in the
Consumer Price Index.
E. B. I. A.
Ms. Dee Boysen of Building Industry Association (BIA) has met
with both the staff and the City Council Budget & Finance
Committee. Attached is a letter from Ms. Boysen (Exhibit 4)
setting forth some of the concerns of the BIA. Ms. Boysen
agrees that the present Engineering fee structure is lower than
those used by other agencies and is in need of adjustment.
However, Ms. Boysen objects to the adoption of the County's fee
structure. She has suggested that the fees be based upon
actual cost data. In that this information is not readily
available, she has suggested an interim increase based on the
increase in the CPI or the Construction Cost Index. She has
also requested that consideration be given to development
incentives, especially those related to housing for low and
moderate income families.
F. Actual Cost Qata
As discussed above, it would be best to base the subject fees
on the actual cost of providing the service. Unfortunately,
data on actual cost is not readily available. It has been
suggested that the City consider retaining the services of a
qualified financial consultant to compile such information and
establish a mechanism for maintaining and updating this data
over time.
Engineering Fees
July 1, 1992
Page 4
G. City Overhead
Only seventy per cent (70%) of the Engineering Fees collected
go the pay for the direct costs of the consultant engineering
services. Thirty per cent (300) of the fees are retained by
the City to off -set City overhead expenses. This percentage
figure is supported by information recently compiled by a
financial consultant for the establishment of Planning Fees.
The various elements of City Overhead costs include the
administrative costs incurred by the City Manager's Office, the
Public Works Department, the Community Development Department
and the Finance and Accounting Division. It also covers a
portion of the fixed departmental and City wide fixed overhead
expenses. The proposed cost study would define these overhead
costs in more specific detail.
H. Geological and Soils Review
The City has recently adopted a new Building & Safety Fee
Schedule which refers to the Engineering fee schedule for the
collection of fees for Geological and Geotechnical engineering
review. The proposed fee schedule sets forth such fees in
Section 4 of Exhibit "B" of the Resolution.
I. Periodic Review
The subject fees should be reviewed on a regular basis. The
attached resolution proposes that staff submit an annual report
to the City Council on the adequacy of the subject fee
structure.
J. Summary
As mentioned above, staff has developed a chart (Exhibit 3)
comparing the previously recommended fee structure (Column 'C')
to a fee structure based on the change in the CPI (Column 'B').
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the fee structure
originally proposed by the Budget and Finance Committee (Column
'C'). In the event the City Council desires to reduce the fees
to an amount equal to the increase in the CPI (Column 'B') or
some other figure, it is recommended that this reduction only
apply to the Plan Checking and Inspection fees (Exhibit "B of
the Resolution) which more directly impact the building
industry.
Engineering Fees
July 1, 1992
Page 5
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Exhibit 1) rescinding
Resolution No. 84 -119 and adopting a new interim fee
structure for Public Works and Engineering Services based on
the present fee structure of the County of Ventura.
2. Direct staff to solicit proposals from qualified Consultants
for the preparation of Engineering Fee Cost Study and, based
on said study, bring back before the City Council
recommendations pertaining to further changes to said fees.
wp5l�rpt�engfMd
Exhibit i
(Page 1 of 11)
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A REVISED FEE
SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THE
MOORPARK CITY CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC WORKS
AND CITY ENGINEERING AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 84 -119 PERTAINING THERETO
WHEREAS, State law and the Moorpark City Code require the
performance of certain plan review, inspection and other services
by the Public Works Director and City Engineer for the purpose of
safeguarding the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Moorpark adopted
Resolution No. 84 -119 providing for the collection of certain fees
to allow the cost of such services to be borne by the users and
beneficiaries of same; and,
WHEREAS, the fee schedules for these services must be revised
from time to time to assure adequate recovery of all costs
associated with rendering such services; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered written
evidence and oral testimony pertaining a possible increase in said
fees at a public hearing scheduled in accordance with the
provisions of Section 66016 of the Government Code and convened on
May 6, 1992, and May 20, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That fees for encroachment permits shall be as set
forth in Exhibit ^A" attached hereto.
SECTION 2. That fees for processing of land division ap-
plications and related improvement plans shall be as set forth in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
Exhibit 1
(Page 2 of 11)
RESOLUTION 92-
PAGE 2
SECTION 3. That resolution number 84 -119 relating to fees for
land use and development services is hereby rescinded upon the
effective date of this Resolution provided, however, if it is
determined that the rates, fees and charges set forth herein are
wholly or partially invalid by virtue of any statutory or
constitutional provisions, then the repeal of resolution 84 --119
and adoption of this resolution as to any such rate, fee or charge
is void.
SECTION 4. That the fees established in this resolution do not
exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is imposed.
SECTION 5. The Public Works Director shall report to the City
Council on the cost of development services and the adequacy of the
fee schedule to recover these costs and shall make such report
during the second quarter of each calendar year.
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days
from the date of adoption in accordance with the provisions of
Section 66017 of the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause this resolution and its certifi-
cation to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Moorpark.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of 1992.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
Exhibit 1
(Page 6 of 11)
Exhibit 'A'
PAGE 4
VI. EMERGENCY "CALL OUTS"
Charges for emergency "call outs" shall be paid at the overtime rate, plus City overhead, for the
positions responding for the time of the "call out" (Saturday, Sunday, Holiday, etc.). The charge for
any emergency "call out" shall be based upon a minimum time of four hours per employee used, regardless
of the actual length of time of the "call out," for up to the first four hours used, and then at said
applicable hourly overtime rate, plus City overhead, for the actual number of hours worked. Emergency
"call outs" for the purposes of this resolution shall be defined as providing men and equipment called
to work at times when normal Public Works operations are secured.
VII. FEE EXEMPTION
As required, any Federal, State or local agency shall be exempt from the fees set forth herein, in
accordance with applicable State and /or Federal law.
VIII. TIME EXTENSION FEE '
PRESENT PRESENT
FEE FEE
For extension of each permit beyond the
expiration date. One (1) extension is allowed. 15.00 35.00
IX. GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW DEPOSIT
When the oniicies, guidelines and procedures of the City require geological or geotechnical
submissions, investigations, reports, or reviews, the applicant shall be required to pay an additional
fee based on the actual or anticipated actual cost of review services including City overhead.
X. OTHER
The fee for records search and other services for which no specific fee is otherwise specified shall
be the total cost to the City including City overhead as determined by the Director of Public Works.
Exhibit 1
(Page 7 of 11)
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF MOORPARK
SUBDIVISION FINAL PROCESSING FEE SCHEDULE
NOTE: IN EACH ITEM BELOW THE CURRENT FEE IS IN PARENTHESES BEFORE
THE PROPOSED FEE.
1. MAPS
a. Tract or Parcel Rap Issuance Fee: (25.00) 32.00
b. Final Xap. Parcel Map Check Fee: A Fixed Quality Control fee of ($1,220.00) $1,624.00 per map
plus ($24.50) $30.25 per lot for the first three zap checks and quality control only.
C. Additional Checks: Actual Costs including City overhead. A refundable deposit of ($340.00)
$497.00 per zap plus ($7.00) $11.50 per lot shall be required for the fourth and each
subsequent zap check.
d. General Provisions:
• Any alterations to the exterior boundary or redesign of any interior lots after the
initial zap check will be considered as a new submittal.
• All fees shall be'paid at the time of submitted.
• If the Actual Cost (including the City overhead) of zap checking exceeds the total
deposits, the developer shall pay the Actual Cost (including City overhead) to the
City.
• Actual Cost shall include: staff labor costs (plus City overhead) and /or contract
labor costs (plus City overhead), plus reizbursable expenses (i. e. blueprinting
reproduction, etc.).
2. PLAN CHECKS
a. Subdivision and Other Major Inprovezents: A fixed fee based upon the Fee Schedule set forth
in Section 5 of this Exhibit.
b. Subdivision and Other ifajor Improvement Plan Changes: An Improvement Plan Change Fee of 3%
of the estimate of costs of additional improvements including work for which a Grading Permit
must be obtained.
C. Revisions to Approved Tentative Subdivision Nap_ Any substantial revisions (i. e. street
alignments, pad sizes, pad elevation changes in excess of two feet) to approved tentative
subdivision zaps shall require City Council approval. A fee of $500.00, not including any
required planning fees, shall be required for any request for any such application of map
revision.
d. General Provisions:
• The number of plan checks covered by the above described fees shall be limited to
three. The third plan submittal shall be checked to confirm that said plan submittal
is correct and complete. Any additional plan checking efforts required to approve
said plans shall be subject to additional fees based upon Actual Cost plus City
overhead.
• All fees shall be paid at the time of submitted.
Exhibit 1
(Page 8 of 11)
Exhibit 'B'
Page 2
3.
4.
If the Actual Cost (including the City overhead) of map checking exceeds the total
deposits, the developer shall pay the Actual Cost (including City overhead) to the
City.
Actual Cost shall include: staff labor costs (plus City overhead) and /or contract
labor costs (plus City overhead), plus reimbursable expenses (i. e. blueprinting
reproduction, etc.).
INSPECTION
a. Subdivision and Other Kajor Improvement Construction Inspection• Actual Cost, including City
overhead. A refundable fee deposit shall be paid based upon the Fee Schedule set forth in
Section 5 of this Exhibit.
b. Subdivision Time Extension of larovenent Agreement: A ($300.00) $315.00 processing fee,
plus a refundable deposit of lot of the fee deposit made under 3a above. The Time Extension
deposit shall be collected for the purpose of off setting all costs associated with the
requested time extension. Any costs associated with a time extension shall not be charged to
the remaining portion of the inspection deposit. Upon completion and acceptance of the
improvements, any balance remaining after deducting the Actual Costs of inspection (including
City Overhead) shall be refunded to developer. In the event Actual Cost exceeds available
deposit funds, the developer shall pay balance due upon receipt of invoice therefor.
C. Deferred Construction Agreement: ($300.00) $315.00 fixed fee for processing this agreement.
d. Guarantee Period Inspection: Actual Cost, including City overhead. A fee deposit of
$1,000.00. Upon acceptance of improvements after guarantee period, any balance remaining after
deducting Actual Cost of inspection (including City overhead) shall be refunded to the
developer. In the event Actual Costs exceed the $1,000.00 deposit, developer shall pay the
balance due upon receipt of invoice therefor.
GEOLOGY AND SOIL ENGINEERING REVIEW
The fees set forth below shall be required for the review and processing of geology and soil
engineering reports by outside Wtechnical consultants, when and if such review is required by the
City Engineer as deterained by City or State guidelines:
Geotechnical oGe loan
Single lot $1600.00 $1600.00
2 -6 lot subdivision $2100.00 $2100.00
7 -50 lot subdivision $3000.00 $3000.00
Subdivision over 50 lots $3000.00 $3000.00
- for each lot over 50 $ 200.00 $ 200.00
Special submittal, investigations, reports, or reviews will require deposits based on the actual or
anticipated actual cost including City overhead. The above fees will cover one review and one follow -
up review. Fees for additional reviews are to paid on a actual time basis plus City overhead.
Exhibit 1
(Page 9 of 11)
Exhibit 'B'
Page 3
5.
6.
FEE SCHEDULE
The following schedule shall be used to calculate the Nap Checking Fee (Paragraph lb), the Plan
Checking Fee (Paragraph 2a) and the Inspection Fee Deposit (Paragraphs 3a). Said fee schedule is based
upon the estimate of improvement costs.
Improvement Costs (Si
PLAN CHECK
Deposit fSl
0 - 999
(300)
420.00
FEES
1,000 - 9,999
(300)
420.00 + 151
of cost over 1,000
10,000 - 49,999
(1,650)
1,770.00 + lot
of cost over 10,000
50,000 - 99,999
(5,650)
5,770.00 +
5t of cost over 50,000
100,000 - 999,999
(8,150)
8,270.00 +
2t of cost over 100,000
1,000,000 and over
(26,150)
26,270.00 +
11 of cost over 1,000,000
GRADING PERMIT
AND PLAN
CHECKING
FEE SCHEDULE
QUANTITY
PLAN CHECK
INSPECTION
_CUBIC
YARDS
FEES (S)
FEES
($)
TOTAL
50 or less
(28.00) 44.00
(30.00)
59.00
103.00
51 -
100
(43.00) 67.00
(45.00)
88.00
155.00
101 -
200
(63.00) 99.00
(65.00)
128.00
227.00
201 -
300
(82.00) 130.00
(85.00)
168.00
298.00
301 -
400
(102.00) 161.00
(105.00)
208.00
369.00
401 -
500
(122.00) 191.00
(125.00)
248.00
439.00
501 -
600
(141.00) 221.00
(145.00)
288.00
509.00
601 -
700
(161.00) 253.00
(165.00)
328.00
581.00
701 -
800
(182.00) 287.00
(185.00)
368.00
655.00
801 -
900
(202.00) 318.00
(2(000 -1
408.00
726.00
901 -
1,000
(213.00) 334.00
(225.00)
448.00
782.00
1,001 -
2,000
(213.00) 334.00
(242.00)
481.00
815.00
2,001 -
3,000
(213.00) 334.00
(259.00)
514.00
848,00
3,001 -
4,000
(213.00) 334.00
(276.00)
547.00
881.00
4,001 -
5,000
(213.00) 334.00
(293.00)
580.00
914.00
5,001 -
6,000
(213.00) 334.00
(310.00)
613.00
947.00
6,001 -
7,000
(213.00) 334.00
(327.00)
646.00
988.00
7,001 -
8,000
(213.00) 334.00
(344.00)
679.00
1,013.00
8,001 -
9,000
(213.00) 334.00
(361.00)
712.00
1,046.00
9,001 -
10,000
(213.00) 334.00
(378.00)
745.00
1,079.00
10,001 -
20,000
(228.00) 357.00
(445.00)
896.00
1,253.00
20,001 -
30,000
(243.00) 380.00
(530.00)
1,047.00
1,427.00
30,001 -
40,000
(258.00) 403.00
(606.00)
1,198.00
1,601.00
40,001 -
50,000
(273.00) 426.00
(682.00)
1,349.00
1,775.00
50,001 -
60,000
(288.00) 449.00
(758.00)
1,500.00
1,949.00
60,001 -
70,000
(303.00) 472.00
(834.00)
1,651.00
2,123.00
70,001 -
80,000
(318.00) 495.00
(910.00)
1,802.00
2,297.00
80,001 -
90,E
(333.00) 518.00
(986.00)
1,953.00
2,471.00
90,001 -
100,000
(348.00) 541.00
(1,062.00)
2,104.00
2,645.00
100,001 OR ABOVE
Note b
Note B
Exhibit 1
(Page 10 of 11)
Exhibit 'B'
Page 4
6. GRADING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECKING FEE SCHEDULE (Cont.)
N tes: A = $541.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $14.00 for each additional
10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
B = $2,104.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $85.00 for each additional
10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
7. ADDITIONAL GRADING PLAN CHECKING / INSPECTION FEES
a. Time Extension Fee:. ($75.00) 135.00 time extension fee will he required for each time
extension of up to six months.
b. Change Order Fee.: ($75.00)
1) Minor (Staff Review Only): An additional plan checking and /or inspection fee, as
required, based upon the amount of earth subject to the proposed change, calculated
per the fee schedules set forth in Section 6 of this Exhibit.
2) Major (City Council Action Required): An additional submittal fee of $500.00, plus
an additional grading plan checking and inspection fee, based upon the amount of earth
subject to the proposed change, calculated per the fee schedules set forth in Section
6 of this Exhibit.
C. Exception for Subdivisions and Other Major Improvements.
Grading Permit and Plan Check fees do not apply to subdivisions and other major improvements,
inasmuch as the actual costs of plan checking and inspection have been included in the firm
plan checking and construction inspection fees.
d. Illegal Grading Fees
200$ of the applicable Grading Permit fee, plus City overhead, will be charged for any grading
project undertaken without a grading permit that is in violation of the Grading Ordinance.
PARIS —hANB— B£ Bd` eATi 8N
bests- iscnrred- in- preeess }nq- the - park - }end- Bedieat3en- req�rirements
($150.00)
8. CERTIFICATES
Issuance of Certificate of Compliance
($250.00)
Deleted
$420.00 per parcel (fixed fee)
Exhibit 1
(Page 11 of 11)
Exhibit 'B'
Page 5
9. OTHER
The fee for records search and other services for which no specific fee is otherwise sFecified shall
be the total cost to the City including City overhead of any tine spent retrieving said records as
determined by the Director of Public Works. Time shall be in 1/4 hour increments at the then.
applicable hourly rate(s).
10. APPEAL FEE
any appeal of a decision of the City Engineer regarding the interpretation or application of the City's
Engineering Standards or this fee schedule shall be accompanied by a deposit of $500.00. The amount
of the appeal Fee shall be actual cost plus City overhead.
ENG & PW FEE COMPARISON
May -92
Eng & PW fee comparison
Page 1
r�
x
r•
o'
r•
rt
N
('Rev. June -92)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
VENTURA
THOUSAND
*AGOURA
MOORPARK
MOORPARK
OXNARD
SIMI
CAMARILLO
COUNTY
OAKS
HILLS
FOR MAP CHECK OF A 60
LOT FINAL MAP
$3,471
$2,690
$3,510
$3,580
$4,196
$3,471
$4,094
$4,475
COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY
PERMIT
$185
$35
$123
$90
$167
$185
$25+
$60
$45 /HR
PERMIT FOR 500 L.F.
OF CURB AND GUTTER
$310
$35
$214
$315
$67
$310
$25+
$675
$45 /HR
REVIEW OF SOILS REPORT
$1,600
NA
NA
$300
$300+
NA
NA
ACTUAL
(CONSULTANT)
CONSUL. COST
CONSUL. COST
PERMIT TO DEPOSIT
MATERIAL INSTREET(POOL)
$110
$35
$123
$45
$117
$110
$50
$70
GRADING INSPECTION FOR
150,000 CUBIC YARDS
$2,529
$1,275
$935
$2,198
$700
$2,529
$1,975
$3,630
PLAN CHECK $500,000
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
$16,270
$16,150
$16,250
$10,000
$6,500
$16,270
$16,250
$12,150
Eng & PW fee comparison
Page 1
r�
x
r•
o'
r•
rt
N
Exhibit 3
Engineering Fee Co®parison
Page 3
-------------
A =__
- - - - --
__=
--------
B =__
- - - - --
__= C
--------
=__
- - - - --
__=
----------------
D
-------------------
-------- - - - - --
Fee Increase
-------- - - - - --
Prior
----------------
Current
Present Fees
Based on CPI
Recommendation
Ventura
Co. Fees
Category of Service
--------------------------- - - - - --
---------------------------------
-------------
Ref No
---- - - - -
---- - - - -
- - - - --
Amount
-- - - - - - --
-- - --- - --
--------
% +
- - - --
- - --
- - - - --
Amount
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
--------
% +
- - - --
- - - --
- - - - --
Amount
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
---------------
% +
- - - -- ---
- - - -- ---
-
Amount
- - - - --
- - - - --
5. Fee Schedule
Improvement Cost
0 - 999
1 -4
300
37%
411
420
1,000 - 9,999
1 -4
300
37%
411
483
10,000 - 49,999
1 -4
1,650
37%
2,261
1,770
50,000 - 99,999
1 -4
5,650
37%
7,741
(r6
%
5,770
100,000 - 999,999
1 -4
8,150
37%
11,166
%
8,270
1,000,000 6 Over
1 -4
26,150
37%
35,826
%
26,270
6. Grading Permit Fees
Plan Checking
Cubic Yards
50 - or less
2 -1
28
37%
38
57%
44
57%
44
51 - 100
2 -1
43
37%
59
56%
67
56%
67
101 - 200
2 -1
63
37%
86
57%
99
57%
99
201 - 300
2 -1
82
37%
112
59%
130
59%
130
301 - 400
2 -1
102
371
140
58%
161
58%
161
401 - 500
2 -1
122
37%
167
57%
191
57%
191
501 - 600
2 -1
141
37%
193
57%
221
57%
221
601 - 700
2 -1
161
37%
221
57%
253
57%
253
701 - 800
2 -1
182
37%
249
58%
287
58%
287
801 - 900
2-1
202
37%
277
57%
318
57%
318
901 - 1,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57*
334
1,001 - 2,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57;
334
2,001 - 3,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
3,001 - 4,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
4,001 - 5,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
5,001 - 6,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
6,001 - 7,000
2 -1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
7,001 - 8,000
2-1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
8,001 - 9,000
2 -1
213
371
292
57%
334
57%
334
9,001 - 10,000
2-1
213
37%
292
57%
334
57%
334
10,001 - 20,000
2 -1
228
37%
312
57%
357
57%
357
20,001 - 30,000
2 -1
243
37%
333
56%
380
56%
380
30,001 - 40,000
2-1
258
37%
353
56%
403
56%
403
40,001 - 50,000
2 -1
273
37%
374
56%
426
56%
426
50,001 - 60,000
2 -1
288
37%
395
56%
449
56%
449
60,001 - 70,000
2 -1
303
37%
415
56%
472
56%
472
70,001 - 80,000
2 -1
318
371
436
56%
495
56%
495
80,001 - 90,000
2 -1
333
37%
456
56%
518
56%
518
90,001 - 100,000
2 -1
348
37%
477
55%
541
55%
541
100,000+
Exhibit 3
Engineering Fee Comparison 9unt �
Notes:
A; Actual Cost Plus City Overbeud
D: Sep Section 5
C: 38 of the Cost of Itprovements
D: Fee based onOapplied to Scbedulein Section
D ===
==
C ~==
=~~
D ==
Fee Increase
Prior
Current
Present Fees
---------------
Based
---------
on CPI
Recommendation
Ventura
Co' Fes
Category of Service
======~==============
Ref No
========
Amount
=~=====
+
===
Amount
=====
-------
0 +
====
Amount
=====
---- -------
+
=====
1mont
=======
Inspection
_______________________
Cubic Yards
50 - or less
3-1
30
37%
41
97%
59
97%
5�
51 - lOO
3-1
45
37%
63
96%
88
96%
92
101 - 200
2-1
65
]?%
89
97%
128
971
12!
201 - 300
3-1
85
27%
116
98&
168
98%
16!
301 - 400
2-1
105
270
144
98%
308
98%
M
401 - 500
2-1
125
37%
171
98%
348
981
24!
501 - 600
2-1
145
J?%
199
99%
388
99%
2 K
601 - 700
2-1
165
37%
226
99%
338
991
32-1
701 - 800
2-1
185
37%
253
998
368
991
36!
801 - 900
2-1
205
370
381
99%
408
901
40[
901 - 1'000
2-1
225
37%
308
99%
448
991
441
1,001 - 2,000
2-1
2*2
970
232
990
481
991
4L
2,001 - ],OOO
3-1
259
378
355
98%
514
981
514
3,001 ~ 4,000
%-1
276
37%
378
980
547
9*1
54-
4,001 - 5,000
2-1
293
37%
401
988
580
981
5K
5,001 - 6,000
2-1
210
370
425
98&
613
981
6E
6,001 - 7,000
3-1
327
370
448
98%
646
981
64i
7,001 - 8,000
2-1
344
370
471
970
679
871
67-L
8,001 - 9,000
%-1
361
37%
495
97%
712
971
M
9/001 - 10,000
2-1
370
37%
518
97%
745
97%
745
10.001 - 20,000
3-1
445
27%
610
101%
896
1010
81K
'�-�l - 30,000
3-1
530
37%
726
98#
1047
98%
lw-
]8,0O1 - 40,000
3-1
606
370
830
98%
1198
981
ll9!
40,001 - 50,000
3-1
683
37%
934
98#
1349
981
134t
50,001 - 64,000
2-1
758
37%
1,038
980
1500
98X
150}
60,001 - 78,000
3-1
834
370
1,143
98%
1651
981
165:
70,001 - 80,008
3-1
910
37%
1/247
98%
1802
981
18U
80,001 - 90'000
3-1
986
37%
1,351
98#
1953
981
195,
90,001 - 800,000
2-1
lOG%
370
1,455
98&
2104
98%
3114
100,000+
7. Additional Grading Fees
a. The %ftznszoua
2-3
75
370
103
80A
135
'i'
b. CbauW Order Fee
Minor
2-4
75
370
183
'D/
Major
75
37%
103
600 f 'D/
d, Illegal Grading
0oou
Notes:
A; Actual Cost Plus City Overbeud
D: Sep Section 5
C: 38 of the Cost of Itprovements
D: Fee based onOapplied to Scbedulein Section
GREATER LOS ANGELES / VENTURA REGION
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
23801 Calabasas Road, +1004 • Calabasas, CA 91302
(818) 591 -2001 • (805) 659 -4745 • FAX (818) 591 -0072
June 3, 1992
Mayor Lawrason and Councilmembers
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Honorable Mayor Lawrason:
RE: Agenda Item 9A., Revising Public Works /Engineering Fees
Exhibit 4
(Page 1 of 2)
We would like to thank the Council for acting on our request
to allow the BIA time to meet with City staff on the proposed fee
increase. Unfortunately, staff's explanation as to how the
proposed fees were devised does not meet with our acceptance, and
so we must go on record as opposing the increase.
Our main concern is the fundamental basis for the fees. We feel
that it is inappropriate to simply accept another jurisdiction's
fees as representative of Moorpark's effort to provide for full -
cost recovery for the services provided. The County's fees are
based on contract hourly rates for the agency providing the
service, and the specific overhead costs associated with that
service are added to that fee.
Without knowing the City's actual cost to provide the service, it
is not possible for Moorpark to "recover" its costs appropriately.
Please understand that the BIA recognizes the City's need to adjust
the fees from the levels enacted eight years ago and would support
some interim level of increase until a study can be performed to
determine the actual service costs. Our main interest is insuring
some accountability for the fees that our being requested, and we
feel it only prudent for the City to expect the same.
While our objections to the fees are of a general rather than
specific nature, we would like to point out that we do not feel the
staff report's analysis of a 1130 -50% increase" in the fees is an
accurate reflection of what is being proposed. In our analysis, we
found fees ranging from a nominal increase to an increase of 7860.
Increases of this size, at the very least warrant careful scrutiny.
Exhibit 4
(Page 2 of 2)
Mayor Lawrason
6/3/92
page 2
Further, we realize that some builders have benefitted from lower
fees over the past few years, however, we do not believe it is
appropriate for the next builders in line to absorb the impact of
eight years of neglect in reviewing these fees. We appreciate
Councilman Wozniak's recommendation for a phase -in schedule and
would respectfully concur with that recommendation. We also
support staff's recommendation for annual review of the fees, so
that the impact is less onerous to future builders.
Finally, we would also hope that the Council will recognize its own
goals for the provision of affordable housing within Moorpark and
carefully consider the impact of the proposed fees. We would
support some leniency in policy where affordable housing is
involved.
Thank you for you consideration of our concerns. It is our
understanding that staff is prepared to ask for an additional
continuance so that these issues may be addressed by the budget and
finance committee in a meeting with industry representatives. We
would be happy to work with Council and staff towards that end and
elaborate on the aforementioned concerns in such a meeting.
Sincerely,
1
Dee Boysen
Executive Officer
cc: Councilmembers
Steve Rueny, City Manager
Ken Gilbert, Dir. Public Works
Exhibit 3
Engineering Fee Comparison
Pace 2
A=__
__=
B =__
__=
C =__
__=
D
Fee Increase
Prior
Current
Present
Fees
Based on CPI
Recommendation
1len__ra
Co. Fees
---
Category of Service
---------------
Ref No
Amount
-------
$ +
- - - - --
Amount
--------
$ ;
- - - - --
Amount
---------------
1 -
Amount
IV. Movie / TV Filming
1. Application
Without Engineering Review
3 -IV -1
10
371
�l 4j
2501
35
2,KL
35
With Engineering Review
10
371
14
6501
75
65C -11
75
2. Peroit
3 -IV -2
100
'A' - "" 7
`A'
400ti
500
3. Inspection
3 -IV -3
'A'
'A'
'A'
V. Extraordinary Costs
3 -V
'A'
'A'
'A'
'A'
VI. Evergency Call Outs
3-VI
,A,
,A,
,A,
,A,
VII. Exeiptions
3 -VII
VIII. Tiie Extentions
3 -VIII
15
371
21
1331
35
1331
35
Ix. Geology
N/A
'A'
'A'
X. Other
N/A
'A'
'A'
Exhibit 'B':
PLAN CSECRI C & INSPECTION
1. Map Checking
a. Tract / Parcel Nap Issuance
1 -1 a
25
371
34
281
32
2EA
31.50
b. Final Nap Checking Fees
Fixed Fee
1 -1 b
1,220
371
1,671
331
1,624
331
1,624.00
Plus per lot fee of:
25
371
34
231
30
231
30.25
c. Additional Checks
'A'
'A'
'A'
,A,
2. Plan Checking
a. Subdivision
1 -2 a
'B'
372
'B'
'B'
'B'
b. Changes
1 -2 b
'C'
371
0
'C'
c. Revisions to Tentative Naps
N/A
371
0
500
N/?
3. Inspection
a. Subdivision / Other Inprvants
1 -3 a
'A'
371
ERR
'B'
'B'
b. Subdivision Tile Extensions
1 -3 b
300
371
411
51
315
51
315.00
c. Deferred Constr Agreeient
1 -3 c
300
371
411
51
315
FA
315.00
d. Guarantee Period
N/A
1,000
1,000
1,000.00
4. Geology / Soils Review
1 lot
N/A
1,600
1,600
N/A
2 - 6 lots
N/A
2,100
2,100
NIL
7 - 50 lots
N/A
3,000
3,000
N/A
Over 50
N/A
3,000
3,000
N13
Plus per lot
200
200
N;I
Exhibit 1
(Page 3 of 11)
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF MOORPARK
ENCROACHMENT FEE SCHEDULE
PRESENT
PROPOSED
FEE
FEE
I. GENERAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
1. ?pplication
/Issuance Fee
Without Engineering Review
10.00
With Engineering Review _ _
25.00
�SsCQ' 50.00
2. Permit /Inspection Fees: Permit fees shall be collected in addition to the issuance fee _as
follows:
a.
Construction of curb, gutter
and /or sidewalk.
'7�:6A• $a'� v
• Less than 100 linear feet
25.00
• sore than 100 linear feet
25.00•�Q,
S� . O C}
* Plus $0.50 per linear foot over 100.
b.
Construction of residential
driveway (each opening).
25.00
75.w sp . UV
c.
Construction of Commercial
driveway teach opening).
25.00
T99.64 SO • v V
d.
Use of City right -of -way for
access to private property
(swimming pools, equipment
25.00
a • 0 U
access, etc.)
TrA9•
e.-
xajor tree trimming, tree
removal, stump removal.
25.00
.y�AB 541. 0 0
f.
Ipproved landscaping
25.00
75.* s D
g.
Surveying and traffic
counting (per year)
50.00
125.00
h.
aiscellaneous construction
and /or use of City road
60-00
right-of-way.
25.00
45 W
annual blanket permit
100.00
200.00
Exhibit 1
(Page 4 of 11)
Exhibit 'A'
Page 2
Excavations exceeding 5,000 linear feet 150.00 350.00
plus 0.05 plus 0.10
over 5,000. In ft.
Any additional costs related to the review of soils reports and /or shoring plans required for
trench depths in excess of five feet shall be subject to additional charges sufficient to cover
actual costs plus City overhead.
3. annual blanket permit for utility trenches
not exceeding two feet in width and sixty
feet in length, dug at a right a09le to the
centerline of the road, or an excavation not
exceeding thirty square feet in area 100.00
200.00
Each excavation permitted
under blanket permit 15.00 36.00
PRESENT
PROPOSED
FEE
FEE
i. Placing and /or relocation
of power or telephone poles
(blanket permit per year)
100.00
200.00
Each permit for pole placement
and /or relocation
15.00
35.00
j: -- Hand }inq - end- �endinq -€snit
eentelt�ts -ee- shears -e€
tke- rend - filer -ycnr�
100.00
Deleted
II. EXCAVATION PERMITS
1. Application/Issuance Fee:
without engineering review
10.00
-COO
With engineering review
25.00
'K:90— sv. . C-0
2. Pernit /Inspection Fees for excavations shall be collected in addition to the issuance
fee as follows:
100 linear feet or less
50.00
150.00
101 to 1,000 linear feet
75.00
200.00
1,001 to 3,000 linear feet
100.00
250.00
3,001 to 5,000 linear feet
150.00
350.00
Excavations exceeding 5,000 linear feet 150.00 350.00
plus 0.05 plus 0.10
over 5,000. In ft.
Any additional costs related to the review of soils reports and /or shoring plans required for
trench depths in excess of five feet shall be subject to additional charges sufficient to cover
actual costs plus City overhead.
3. annual blanket permit for utility trenches
not exceeding two feet in width and sixty
feet in length, dug at a right a09le to the
centerline of the road, or an excavation not
exceeding thirty square feet in area 100.00
200.00
Each excavation permitted
under blanket permit 15.00 36.00
Exhibit 'A'
Page 3
PRESENT
FEE
III. TRANSPORTATION PERMITS
Permit Fee:
Exhibit 1
(Page 5 of 11)
PROPOSED
FEE
�: k�plicalian-flsseanee -Pee-
Wihhent- Engineering - Review 10.00 Deleted 0
With- bgineering- Review 25.00 Deleted 5>
1. Permit Fee: Truck or tractor and load exceeding
legal width, legal length, legal height and/
or legal weight as per State of California
Vehicle Code (per vehicle per trip) 10.00 15.00 <<-
2. Annual Blanket Permit: Truck or tractor and load,
maxima width 12 feet, maxima height (loaded)
16 feet, maxim total length 75 feet, weight not
to exceed purple loading (per vehicle per year) 50.00 200.00 0[4-
3. Additional Charges: Special services necessitated
by unusually large or heavy loads requiring
engineering investigations, or other services. N/A Actual Cost Plus d lL
City overhead
IV. MOVIE AND TELEVISION_FILMING
1. Application /Issuance Fee:
Without Engineering Review 10.00 35.00
With Engineering review 10.00 75.00
2. Permit Fee: A filming fee shall be charged for
each day 24 hours) or partial day 100.00 Actual Cost Plus
City overhead
3. Inspection Fee: The City may require that
an inspector be present during filming on
City public roads. The permittee shall pay
to the City the actual costs of providing
the inspector. Actual Cost Plus Actual Cost Plus
City Overhead City Overhead
V. EXTRAORDINARY INSPECTION COSTS AND CHARGES FOR CITY LABOR
r•UV1W "
Extraordinary costs and charges for inspection labor and materials due City shall be charged on the
basis of actual cost plus City overhead. Extraordinary costs and charges for City inspection labor and
materials shall be defined for purposes of this resolution as any costs or charges incurred by City
resulting from pernittee's failure to comply with all applicable permit conditions, ordinances and
statutes.
L_
Exhibit 3
Engineering Fee Comparison
Page 1
B =__
__= C
=__
__=
D
Fee Increase
Prior
Current
Present Fees
------------- - - - - --
Based
--------
on CPI
Recommendation
Ventura
Co. Fees
Category of Service
Ref No
Amount
$ +
- - - - --
Amount
-------- - - - - --
$ + Amount
---------------
$ +
-
Amount
Exhibit 'A': PERMITS
I. Encroachment Permits
1. Application
S
Without Engineering Review
3 -I -1
10
37%
14
250%
35
250%
35
With Engineering Review
2
37%
34
200%
75
200%
75
2. Permit /Inspection
a. Curb /(utter
Less than 100 ft
3-I -2a
373
34
200%
75
200%
75
More than 100 ft
3 -I -2a
25
373
34
200%
75
200%
75
b. Res. Driveway
3 -I -2b
25 `
37%
34
200%
75
200%
75
c. Use of City ROW [Access]
3 -I -2d
25
373
34
500%
150
500%
150
d. Commercial driveway
3 -I-2c
2
37%
34
200%
75
200%
75
e. Tree removal
3 -I -2e
25
5,'
373
34
200%
75
200%
75
f. Approved Landscaping
3 -I -2f
2
373
34
200%
75
200%
75
g. Surveying / traffic counts
3 -I -2g
rin
373
69
150%
125
150%
125
h. Use of City ROW [Constr]
3 -I -2h
25
373
34
200%
75
200%
75
i. Power Pole: Annual Blanket
3 -I -2h
373
137
100%
200
1003
200
Power Pole: Each Pole
3 -I-2h
15
373
21
133$
35
133%
35
j. Loading of Frait
3 -I -2j
100
0
0
II. Excavation Permits
1. Application
Without Engineering Review
3 -II-1
0
��
373
14
250$
35
250%
35
With Engineering Review
3 -II -1
373
34
2003
75
200%
75
2. Permit /Inspection
100 if or less
3-II -2
50
373
69
2003
150
2003
150
101 if - 1,000 if
3 -II -2
75
373
103
167%
200
167%
200
1001 If - 3,000 if
3 -II -2
100
373
137
1503
250
150%
250
3001 if - 5,000 if
3 -II -2
150
373
206
133%
350
133%
350
5,000 if +
3 -II -2
150 +
373
206
1333
350 +
1333
350
3. Annual Permits: Utilities
Blanket
3 -II -3
100
373
137
1003
200
1003
200
Each Excavation
3 -II -3
15
373
21
140%
36
140$
36
III. Transportaion Permits
4 r Ap@ iea"-
With Cagineffiag Review-
1. Permit
3 -III -1
10
373
14
50$
15
503
15
2. Annual Blanket Permit
3- III -2
50
37%
69
300%
200
(� 3003
200
3. Additional Charges
- --
IAI
'A'
,A,
BIA
GREATER LOS ANGELES ! VENTURA REGION
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
24005 Ventura Blvd., #102 • Calabasas, CA 91302
(818) 591 -2001 • (805) 659 -4745 • FAX (818) 591 -0072
July 1, 1992
Mayor Lawrason and Councilmembers
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: Agenda Item 9A, Revising Fees for Public Works and Engineering
Services_
Honorable Mayor.Lawrason:
We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue as
we were generally dismayed with the staff's recommendation to adopt
the fee structure originally proposed by the budget & finance
committee.
While the staff report makes
appropriate basis for the fee,
best to base the subject fees
service," the report does not
retain a financial consultant
fees in the future.
mention of BIA's concern for the
and staff concurs that "it would be
on the actual cost of providing the
make recommendation for the City to
to insure the accountability of the
Though BIA fundamentally does not support fee increases, we agreed,
in good faith, to an interim fee increase of CPI provided the City
would move towards a more accountable method of deriving fees. Our
objective was to allow for a reasonable fee increase in those areas
where it is reasonable to increase the fee. The Plan Checking fees
that are based on the Improvement Costs Fee Schedule (Exhibit 3,
page 3, 5.) are example of an area where an increase is not
reasonable, since the fees are already in line with current
standards as is demonstrated by the County's limited increase in
the fee.
In addition, we also agreed to help fund a study to determine the
actual costs of services, with the caveat that the building
industry's share of the cost would be included in the new fee and
spread across all projects and that staff work earnestly with us to
streamline the permitting process.
-f *,a NAHR and the CBIA
W
Mayor Lawrason
7/1/92
page 2
It was our intent that the interim fee would truly serve in the
"interim" -and that a study would be done, time- certain, to allow
the City to move forward with an appropriate fee structure. In any
event, we consider the fees, as recommended, a hardship for the
building industry to suddenly absorb an eight year lag in the
system. At the very least, we had hoped the staff would have
provided a phase -in schedule, as was requested by Councilmember
Wozniak. For the above reasons, we cannot support the fee
recommendation before you this evening.
In addition, though moderate and low - income housing projects are
listed as a concern in the staff report, there is no recommendation
for allowances for these special types of projects. We strongly
urge the Council to recognize the difficulty of providing housing
that meets the affordability needs of the community by allowing for
some leniency in the proposed fee structure.
Finally, we had hoped to meet with the budget and finance committee
to explore these and other concerns. Unfortunately schedule
conflicts have pre - empted those endeavors. We are still interested
and willing to engage in a productive exercise of this nature, if
the Council sees fit to further consider our concerns and
recommendations.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. In light of
the many concerns referenced above, we respectfully urge you to
reconsider the staff recommendation before you this evening.
Sincerely,
J�
v
Dee Boysen
Executive Officer
cc: Councilmembers
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Ken Gilbert, Dir. Public Works