The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 1104 CC REG ITEM 08M21oz.m(a') MOORPARIJEM S. M. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 TO: The Honorable City Council (805 }129 -WV,ng ,-A I l - `f 199.:L AqON- FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Manager DATE: October 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Consider Revisions to the Land Use Development Fees, (Developer Fees) On January 23, 1991, the Council directed staff to return each year in order to consider revising City Land Use Development fees to be effective in January of each year. Therefore, in this report, staff is recommending that the Council set a date for public meeting and consider revisions to the City's land use development fees, (commonly referred to a "planning fees," "developer fees" or "entitlement fees ") in order to meet the Council's policy. Staff is proposing that Government Code 66016, th on November 18, 1992, so considered for revisions. fee rate will increase $75 /hour. Background pursuant to the procedures defined by e matter be scheduled for public meeting that the related fee resolution can be Based on a preliminary analysis, the new by approximately 3% from $73 /hour to Staff has analyzed the costs associated with the provision of providing planning services on an annual basis for past four years. Prior to this, the City's fee was $45 per hour, and had been at this rate for period of 4 years. In 1989, the revised fees experienced a jump from $45 an hour to $69 per hour. After this jump, the fees have increased modestly over the past two years from $71 per hour to the current rate of $73 per hour. In 1989, the City Council adopted a new methodology recommended by a consultant for evaluating direct and indirect City costs. This method is in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Circular A -87 which governs cost accounting principals for the federal government. It includes using a prior year adjustment when fees are set too high, and implements a "use allowance" for determining the depreciated value of fixed assets used by the City. The intention of the Council in developing this fee is to collect 100% of the City's associated costs. To encompass costs that the City was not recovering last year, three new fees were adopted to address these matters; 1) an initial plan review fee, 2) a preliminary environmental review fee and 3) a cost of living mobile PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember home rent increase review fee. Discussion This year's analysis (Attachment "A") will include a proposal for a few new fees and deposit amounts, but no new items or concerns related to the fee calculation methodology or budget applications. Fee Calculations Adjustments to this year's fee analysis includes a modest increase in costs associated with salaries and benefits, offset by lowered capital expenditures and City overhead. Direct Department Costs and Indirect Department Costs rose 7% and 16% respectively, but were offset by General Overhead Costs which have been reduced by 14 %. The share of Code Enforcement activities also changed from 20.84% last year to 23.43% this year. These costs are deducted from the total costs of the Department under the category of "Indirect Department - Costs." Prior year adjustments are generated by a need defined as the amount of the City's actual cost recovery for the year. Like last year, the cost of the Department of Community Development exceeded the amount of funds generated by the cost recovery plan, therefore, no prior year adjustments are being recommended by staff. Of the $73 per hour rate established in the Resolution, $26.28 of the rate is from the General Fund, (36 %). The City has had a practice of not returning this portion of the hourly rate to the General Fund. This can be viewed as a subsidy or contribution to the Community Development function for each hour of billable time, (whether its actually billed or not). A preliminary audit for fiscal year 1991/92, shows that approximately $153,000 was billed by the Department of Community Development. The Department costs are estimated to be $527,605 ($666,505 of Department costs less Code Enforcement costs). Actual billings ($153,000), equals only 29 %, of this total. The subsidy comes from not returning the $26.28 per hour portion to the General Fund and the Community Development Fund surplus. Consideration of New Fees and Deposit Amounts A preliminary review of the fee system has identified a need for some additional fees or increases to the City's deposit amounts. The fee schedule can be more clearly defined as well, which means that new rates may be listed on the fee schedule which already exist, but are not currently presented in the same consolidated format. The new fees for existing City policies to be listed on the schedule include a "Police Department Review" deposit amount of $300, and a City Attorney Review deposit amount of $2,500 (when 2 applicable). The per hour costs are established in sperate resolutions, and staff is proposing that these deposit amounts be added to the fee schedule to assist in the applicant's and staff's understanding of actual City costs for a project. Both fees are typically associated with planned developments, and the deposit amounts are based on recent developments of this nature. In terms of new fees, deposit estimates are being proposed to address the use of the City's traffic model, environmental reviews, and Specific Plans as follows: A) The proposed deposit amounts for a Specific Plan is $10,000 plus any additional costs, which is intended to replace the "Planned Community" deposit amount of $1,617 plus $16.17 per acre; B) The original environmental impact study deposit amounts are recommended to be modified by increasing the "Environmental Study Review" deposit from $730 to $1,250 and including Negative Declarations under this deposit amount; - C) When special consultants are required for an environmental study, the consultant's estimate will be used as a deposit figure, and the City will recover all costs plus 15% as stipulated by the current Resolution; D) The Traffic Model Use fee has not been tested, but staff is proposing to make this amount equal to the actual estimated cost of using the model, which will be a deposit amount based upon each applicant's need to use the model until a history can provide adequate information to develop this deposit amount. Staff is also proposing to list some of the contractual services to be included in the fee schedule which are currently implied. The Resolution states that the City will recover a contract service provider's cost plus 15 %. The fee schedule is proposing to list some of the typical applications such as hydrology studies and the review of geological studies. Staff is looking into the possibility of billing for time spent on information requests from the general public that require an abnormal amount of research and time in order to prepare responses, (which are occassionally requested in writing). These types of requests can occupy several hours of staff's time. Staff is still reviewing the feasibility of assigning a flat fee or deposit amount to account for this expense. Lastly, the Department of Community Development is requesting that a more common name be applied to the fee entitled "Administrative Clearance" by referring to it as a "Variance." "Revocation" is 3 being proposed to be deleted, as this fee amount has not been used since its inception in 1984. New fee concepts and deposit changes described in this report will be presented for a second time in detail by staff in the report to the Council for the public hearing proposed for November 18, 1992. Summary Changes to the fee schedule and deposit amounts are proposed by staff so that the planning activities and the cost of planning activities match the fee schedule. Under the current schedule, the Department has not been capable of recapturing all of the associated costs. By adopting new fees in November, the City will be able to implement the new fee schedule in mid January, 1993. A 60 day waiting period from the day the Council approves any of the proposed fee increases is required, pursuant to State law. .� Recommendation - That the City Council authorize staff to schedule a public meeting pursuant to government code 66016, for November 18, 1992, to consider revising the current rates for entitlement permit processing. Attachment: A) Fee Calculations 2 1 ATTACHMENT A 1992/93 LAND USE APPLICATION PROCESSING FEE RATE CALCULATIONS Item 1) Direct Department Costs 1992/93 A B Total Yr. Total Ned. Leave Position Salary Benefits Benefits Totals Dir. of Community Devel. 59,844 16,350 19.59% 91,120 Senior Planner 48,760 15,671 17.69% 75,829 Senior Planner 47,406 15,433 17.69% 73,955 Associate Planner 36,388 13,492 17.691 58,704 Assistant Planner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35,959 13,417 19.59% 59,049 Total 228,357 74,363 358,657 Item 2) Department Overhead, (Indirect Costs) 1991/92 City Applied ,- -.Item Costs Deductions Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Personnel (SEE TABLE) N/A 99,941 Maintenance and Operations 168,730 87,390 * 81,340 Capital (Deleted -see use allowance) Fixed Overhead (Deleted -see use allowance) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 181,281 * Deductions (Total M & 0 - Professional Services) * Code Enforcement Percentage of 23.43% Plus Professional Services 29-Oct -92 1 29-Oct -92 29- Oct -92 Total General Indirect Costs 218,210 Deductions 1) 808 Dep. City Clerk + Dep. City Clerk Ben., plus $5,500 for elections 2) Special Legal Services 3) Capital, (8600) + FO @ 608 + FO Ben + Act. Tech @ 608 + Act Tech Ben. +Act. Clrk @ 608+ Act Clrk. Ben 4) Capital + CDBG Salary, 20,700 + 608 Recept.+ 608 Rec. Ben 5) 642- Contr Srvcs, 645- Plan Chk, 646- Inspect 6) 1008 Assit. to the City Manager Position + Ben. .tea 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/92 Budgeted Total Deprec. Use 1989/90 Item Costs Assets Deduction Net Costs applied Total Costs City Council 27,250 0.02 0 27,250 368 9,810 City Manager 221,463 6) 64,859 156,604 20% 31,321 City Clerk 125,238 1) 36,158 89,080 368 32,069 City Attorney 103,000 2) 15,000 88,000 36% 31,680 City Treasurer 1,280 0 1,280 28% 358 Finance 134,372 3) 95,376 38,996 28% 10,919 Administrative Services 359,082 4) 74,965 284,117 28% 79,553 City Engineer 104,890 5) 74,890 30,000 758 22,500 Total General Indirect Costs 218,210 Deductions 1) 808 Dep. City Clerk + Dep. City Clerk Ben., plus $5,500 for elections 2) Special Legal Services 3) Capital, (8600) + FO @ 608 + FO Ben + Act. Tech @ 608 + Act Tech Ben. +Act. Clrk @ 608+ Act Clrk. Ben 4) Capital + CDBG Salary, 20,700 + 608 Recept.+ 608 Rec. Ben 5) 642- Contr Srvcs, 645- Plan Chk, 646- Inspect 6) 1008 Assit. to the City Manager Position + Ben. .tea 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/92 Total Deprec. Use 1989/90 1990/91 1991 /92 Assets Percentage Allowance Buildings and structures 850,146 66956 832924 1750026 0.02 35,001 Improve. other than Buildings 524,058 8816 436101 968975 0.07 67,828 Office Furniture And Equip. 254,630 116084 116794 487508 0.07 34,126 Other equipment 52,767 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58482 66255 177504 0.07 12,425 1,681,601 250,338 1,452,074 3,384,013 149,380 Allocation Total Employees 36 Department Employees which use City Hall * Less Code Enforcement Related Employees 6.25 Percent (6.25/36) 178 Use Allowance Attributable to Department (178 * $149,380) 25,934 2 29- Oct -92 3 SUKKkRIES Item 1, Direct Costs 358,657 Item 2, Indirect Costs 181,281 Item 3, General Overhead 218,210 Item 4, Use Allowance 25,934 Adjustment from Prior Year -------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Total Costs 784,082 Divided by Total Hours (2080 * 5 Positions) - 10400 RATE 75 PER HOUR 29- Oct -92 ATTACHMENT A 1992/93 Benefit Rate Tables D) INDIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS (Personnel, Item 2, Indirect Costs) CURRENT ANNUAL I to Appl. Hourly TITLE RATE RATE Fee Cost Rate Rate FINANCE OFFICER 3945 48760 30$ 14628 7.03 RECEPTIONIST 1639 21145 30$ 6344 3.05 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 2092 26394 201 5279 2.54 ACCOUNT CLERK 1992 24624 301 7387 3.55 ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN 2421 30924 30$ 9277 4.46 ADNIN SECRETARY 2196 27148 1001 27148 13.05 SECRETARY 1721 22069 251 5517 2.65 totals * Code Enforcement deduction charged directly for this position at 751 GROUP WORKERS TOTAL PD. INS COMP UNEMP. PERS MEDICARE BENEFITS 14.841 1.551 0.321 13.991 1.451 32.15% 33.40$ 1.551 0.73% 13.99% 1.451 51.12% 26.88% 1.55% 0.581 13.991 1.45% 44.451 28.77% 1.551 0.631 13.991 1.451 46.38$ 23.00 1.551 0.50% 13.991 1.451 40.531 26.15$ 1.551 0.57$ 13.991 1.451 43.711 32.03$ 1.55% 0.931 13.991 1.451 49.951 I� PERCENT APPLICABLE TO PLANNING Ben. Rate 23.43% LEAVE BENEFIT Plus Code Enf. TOTAL BENEFITS RATE Salary Deduction APPLIED 17.791 55.651 22769 5334 17435 17.79% 78.00% 11291 2645 8646 17.79% 70.151 8982 2104 6878 17.791 72.43% 12737 2984 9753 17.79% 65.521 15356 3598 11758 19.591 71.861 46657 10931 35726 17.791 ----------------------------- 76.621 9745 0 9745 117793 27597 99941 1992/93 Fee Rate Benefit Tables ATTACHMENT A 1992/93 Fee Rate Benefit Tables 10/29/92 A) DIRECT PERSONNEL COST "A" "B" "C" CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS CITY TOTAL TOTAL TITLE CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS COMP UNEMP COST PAID BENEFITS TITLE RATE RATE INS COMP UNEMP PERS MEDICARE BENEFITS TOTAL 50,557 C.E. TECHNICIAN CONN. DEV. DIR. 4987 59844 7472 924 154 8372 868 17790 77,634 SENIOR PLANNER 3945 48760 7236 753 154 6822 707 15671 64,431 SENIOR PLANNER 3757 47406 7228 732 154 6632 687 15433 62,839 ASSOCIATE PLANNER 2944 36388 7158 562 154 5091 528 13492 49,880 ASSISTANT PLANNER 2804 35959 7156 555 154 5031 521 13417 49,376 ................................................................................ 18437 228357 36250 3525 770 ............................... 31947 3311 75804 304161 Columns "A", "B" and "C" above are used in "Item 1) Direct Costs" 43030 ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN 2421 30924 7124 477 154 4326 448 12610 43,534 17.99% 51366 ADMIN SECRETARY 2196 B) CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL COST Community Development Personnel Allocation 523032 Code Enforcement Personnel Allocation 122539 Percentage of Community Development which is Code Enforcement 23.43% (75% of the Sectretary) C) INDIRECTLY RELATED STAFF POSITIONS 1992/93 TOTAL CURRENT ANNUAL GROUP WORKERS COST PAID TOTAL TITLE RATE RATE INS COMP UNEMP PERS MEDICARE BENEFITS TOTAL CODE ENF OFFICER 2804 35093 7150 2741 154 4910 509 15464 50,557 C.E. TECHNICIAN 2543 32354 7133 2527 154 4526 469 14810 47,164 SECRETARY (75% of Cost App 1291 16552 5301 256 154 2316 240 8266 24,818 ............................................................................ 6638 83999 19584 5524 462 ............................... 11751 1218 38540 122539 Community Development Personnel Allocation 523032 Code Enforcement Personnel Allocation 122539 Percentage of Community Development which is Code Enforcement 23.43% (75% of the Sectretary) C) INDIRECTLY RELATED STAFF POSITIONS 1992/93 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 3945 48760 7236 753 154 6822 707 15863 64,623 17.99% 76249 RECEPTIONIST 1639 21145 7062 326 154 2958 307 11297 32,442 17.99% 38278 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 2092 26394 7095 407 154 3693 383 11929 38,323 17.99% 45217 ACCOUNT CLERK 1992 24624 7084 380 154 3445 357 11845 36,469 17.99% 43030 ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN 2421 30924 7124 477 154 4326 448 12610 43,534 17.99% 51366 ADMIN SECRETARY 2196 27148 7100 419 154 3798 394 11865 39,013 19.59% 46655 ASSISTANT TO C.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3757 48664 7350 751 154 6808 706 16195 64,859 17.991 76527 - - - - -- FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING RATES FOR ALL TABLES ARE BELOW. "`ticare 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