Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 1118 CC REG ITEM 09AITEM 9• MOORPARK A 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (80 )' 529 -6864 MEMORANDUM By TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Manager DATE: November 12, 1992, (for the 11/18/92 Meeting) SUBJECT: Consider Revisions to the City's Land Use Development Fees Pursuant to Council direction on November 4, 1992, staff is presenting proposed revisions to the City's Land Use Development Fee Resolution, number 92 -833. Summary The following report recommends that the City Council revise the City's Land Use Development Fees, ( "planning fees "), by increasing the hourly rate of planning staff from $73 per hour to $75 per hour, adjusting the deposit amounts accordingly, and to consider the addition of new fees and /or deposit amounts. The revised draft resolution is presented in Attachment "A." This report is intended to complete the public meeting process for the revisions to development related fees defined by Section 66016 of the State of California's Government Code. This code stipulates that the new fee rates would not be in effect until 60 days following Council approval. If approved on November 18, the revised fees would be effective beginning Monday, January 18, 1993. Background Staff's November 4, 1992, report to Council presented the preliminary proposed revisions to the City's planning fees. In this proposal it was shown that by applying the approved method (or formula) for developing a real time cost accounting of the City's processing costs associated with planning fees, there was a $2 per hour increase to the existing hourly rate of $73 per hour. Staff also reported that there is a need to consider additional fee and or deposit amounts, and make some other minor adjustments to the fee schedule. PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printed On Recycled Paper Honorable City Council November 12. 1992 Page 2 Discussion Staff has no additional information to report regarding the fee calculations. An additional review of the application of the cost recovery formula has confirmed that no further revisions to the preliminary report of November 4 are needed. New Fees and Deposit Adjustments The draft resolution, (Attachment "A"), also includes a draft fee schedule which reflects those changes proposed by staff on November 4. New deposits on the schedule include the "Specific Plan" replacing the "Planned Community" deposit amount of $1,617 with a $10,000 deposit. As proposed, the "Specific Plan" deposit and fee amount will be used to recover all City costs and therefore be exempt from having a cap. The Environmental Review has been adjusted to include a Negative Declaration and has been changed from a deposit amount of $730 to $1,250. Special studies involving consultants will have deposit amounts based on the consultant's (or City contractor's) anticipated expenditures, plus 15% for City overhead, and include hydrology studies, review of geological studies and environmental impact reports. The traffic model use fee is also based on the scope of work anticipated by City staff and the City's contractor based on the nature of each application. The "Administrative Clearance" fee has been clarified (rather than deleted as originally proposed November 4), by adding in parenthesis "(Minor Variance)" after the original title, to distinguish simple administrative variances (or "clearances ") from those required to go before the Council for approval, as defined in the Zoning Code. The "Revocation Fee" has been removed. Staff has not been able to adequately identify the costs needed to establish a fee or deposit for extraordinary public information requests, (as mentioned in the November 4 report to Council). Staff began to define this service as a cost in March of this year, and one to two years of tracking is recommended (by the City's consultant in 1989) to be completed in order to establish an adequate sample to be used when calculating averages for the demonstration of the need for this fee or deposit. This is not intended to charge for routine information requests that can usually be responded to in a short period of time. It would be the type of request that ties up the time of the staff person routinely assigned to the counter to such an extent that another staff person is required to come to the counter or answer phone calls in order to provide timely attention to other public inquiries. Honorable City Council November 12, 1992 Page 3 At this time, staff is proposing that the City not formally consider such a fee, until the next fee revision, where adequate time studies can clearly demonstrate the need for a fee or deposit to cover the cost of lengthy requests and /or those that require extensive research of files or creation of special reports. In the interim if an unusually burdensome public information request is made, the Director is still able to apply the section of the fee schedule referred to as "Other" which equals 100% of the cost of the service. Staff would only resort to this method of cost recovery in extreme cases, and with prior approval by the individual making the request before we proceeded with any work. Recommendation That the City Council adopt Resolution 92- 293 as presented in Attachment "A ", thereby rescinding Resolution 92 -833, to become effective January 18, 1993. Attachment "A" Draft Land Use Development Fee Resolution and Schedule November 12, 1992 A: \FIREPOWER 3