The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0109 CC REG ITEM 09C MOORPARK ITEM EM r PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. L.:oR?ARK. CALIFORNIA °„ oq STEVEN KUENY Oily Co nc:I Mooting °°/"�� o Mayor g o,a` City Manager BERNARDO M. PEREZ of /7 1 1 APO, CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern , aA4 City Attorney SCOTT MONTGOMERY ACTION: It . _ ! ��',��;�VA PATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P. Councilmember n o . Director of .�d69.lt�t ,iC-/. e, JOHN E. WOZNIAK ��/ oo Community Development Councilmember By_ - S.Ci1 t,?-, o °� JOHN F. KNIPE LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Engineer City Clerk JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police MEMORANDUM RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Donald P. Reynolds, Jr. , Management Analyst DATE: January 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Consider Revisions to Planning Fees On December 19, 1990, the City Council authorized staff to pursue revisions to the City's planning fees by arranging for a public meeting to consider these revisions pursuant to Government Code 54992. Staff has taken the methodology provided by the City's consultant, and applied this method to the 1990/91 Budget and actual costs over the past six months. The changes from the 1989/90 Budget to the 1990/91 Budget have resulted in a 8 . 7% increase to the consultant's recommended fee for 1989/90 of $68 per hour, to a new fee of $74 per hour. The following report will summarize the differences between the 1989/90 Budget and the 1990/91 Budget, and its impact on the City's cost of processing planning permits. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a new resolution, (Attachment 1) , thereby revising the City' s planning fees from $65 per hour to $74 per hour, (to become effective January 1, 1991) , and allow staff to return to Council each year to consider revisions to the planning fee rate after budget adoption. Background In 1989, when the City last reviewed its. hourly rate for planning fees, City staff and representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the methods of the cost analysis in order to share an understanding of why the fees were increasing. The BIA and staff could not come to complete agreement on an acceptable methodology for calculating City costs, therefore, a $65 per hour fee was set, with the City agreeing to retain an outside consultant to develop a methodology. The City's consultant applied a methodology that is common to 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 FEE3 January 3, 1991 Page 2 government agencies, and is an application of the accepted cost accounting principles for the federal government. This methodology resulted in a recommended fee for 1989/90 of $68 per hour. On December 19, 1990, staff provided the consultant's report to the Council, which describes the differences between staff's original methodology and the consultant's approach to cost accounting and fee rate determination. On April 18, 1990, the City Council appropriated $10, 000 from the Community Development fund for the purposes of acquiring a consultant for this study. The total cost of these services is $9,686. 04. Discussion/Development of 1990/91 Fee Rate Applying the commonly accepted government cost accounting principles, staff has recreated the consultant's methodology by using the 1990/91 City Budget and accounting records to arrive at a fee based on 1990/91 costs, (Attachment "2") . Pursuant to these principles, the consultant recommends that staff review the role of City staff in order to evaluate the possible need for adjustments to the three main cost categories which includes the Direct Department Costs, the Indirect Department Costs and the General City Overhead. Direct and Indirect Cost categories reflect changes in the role of the Assistant Planner position, and the Code Enforcement activities, (Attachment "2") . All Code enforcement activities have been excluded from both cost categories, by subtracting the two positions and a percentage of the secretary position which supports this Department activity. The Assistant Planner position has been made a part of the Direct Cost Category, which has no significant impact on the overall fee calculation when compared to last year. The code enforcement deductions equal approximately $101, 000 taken from the total Community Development Department budget. The third category, General City Overhead, reflects changes relative to the to the 1990/91 budget. These changes (as shown in Attachment "3, " top portion) apply to following department deductions; City Manager, Finance and Administrative Services. The shift of the Assistant to the City Manager position from Administrative Services to the City Manager's office, excludes this position from general services which were provided to the Community Development Department in the prior year's budget, (such as City budget preparation) . By deducting these positions from the General City Overhead, the methodology avoids double counting, and the inclusion of unrelated positions in the fee calculation. FEE3 January 3, 1991 Page 3 The net result of the changes between fiscal years can be best illustrated by the last section entitled "Rate Determination. " Each cost category has been summarized in a comparison from last year to this year, in the bottom portion of Attachment "3 . " The fifth category in the rate determination, (Prior Year's Adjustment) , is not part of the 1989/90 fee rate or the 1990/91 fee rate because actual figures were used based on City expense records (please refer to the benefit rate determination tables in Attachment "2") . The next time fees are revised, the prior year's adjustment will reflect the differences between budgeted or projected items from the actual cost. Like past revisions to fee resolution, the percent increase to the hourly rate is applied to each specific fee described in the Fee Schedule, which is Attachment "1" to the resolution. Recent laws adopted by the State relating to land use development have been passed to the City for implementation (eg. , revisions to the Environmental Negative Declaration procedures) . These laws require more staff time for processing certain related permits, and may create a need for new fees on the schedule. Prior to implementing the next fee revision, staff will address the potential need to add additional fees to the schedule, or increase existing deposit amounts so that the cost of implementing these laws will not be incurred by the City, and can be collected more efficiently in one payment from the developer. On December 26, 1990, pursuant to Government Code 54992, staff provided the BIA and the Chamber of Commerce with a copy of the consultant's report and Attachment "2" of this report. It is staff 's recommendation to apply these rates to planning projects effective January 1, 1991. Staff also recommends an annual review of the fees during the second quarter of the fiscal year, (October - December) , with an effective date of January 1. This will allow time to review the prior years costs in connection with the City's annual audit. Recommendation That the City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution , thereby rescinding Resolution 89- 605, and establishing a new planning fee rate for the Department of Community Development of $74 per hour, effective January 1, 1991, and; 2) That the Council direct staff to revise these fees on an annual basis, beginning January 1, 1992 . FEES January 3, 1991 Page 4 Attachments 1) Resolution , establishing ne Planning Fee Rates for 1990/91 2) Staff's Calculations for the 1990/91 Planning Fee Rate 3) Two Tables Illustrating the Comparison of Costs Between Fiscal Years 6- ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 90- CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MOORPARK, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PROCESSING FEE DEPOSITS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1991, AND RECSINDING RESOLUTION 89-605 WHEREAS, the City of Moorpark provides planning services; and WHEREAS, the cost of this service will be offset by fees which accompany land use entitlement requests; and WHEREAS, Community development staff costs are charged against fees, based on real time cost accounting; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Community Development staff shall bill actual time spent on land use applications at a real time cost accounting rate of $74 .00 per hour. SECTION 2 . Contract Planning Staff shall be billed at cost, plus fifteen percent (15%) . SECTION 3 . That the schedule of Land Development Preliminary Processing Fee Deposits shall be as identified as those revised fees shown on Attachment "A" to this resolution. SECTION 4. That this resolution shall be effective January 1, 1991. SECTION 5. That Resolution No. 89-605; A RESOLUTION FIXING REAL TIME COST ACCOUNTING FEES FOR PLANNING STAFF AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PROCESSING FEE DEPOSITS; adopted July 19, 1989, is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1991. ATTEST Paul W. Lawrason Jr. , Mayor City of Moorpark Lillian E. Kellerman City Clerk ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SCHEDULE Revised, January 1, 1991 PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT * 1. Planned Development a. Mobile Home Park $1,570 (base) + $7.85 per pad b. Residential** $1, 570 (base) + $7.85 2 . Commercial Planned Development $1,727 3 . Industrial Planned Development $1, 884 4 . Conditional Use & Open Space Use Permit a. Residential and accessory uses thereto $1, 256 b. Agricultural and accessory uses thereto $1,727 c. Commercial/Industrial/ Institutional uses $2, 197 d. Oil Drilling and Production $2,986 e. Quarries and Mining** $4,709 f. Waste Disposal/Treatment $4, 709 5. Zone Chancre*** $1, 962 * Final cost of processing will be computed upon actual time expended, (based upon the established hourly rates) . If final cost is less than the deposit fee received, the unused portion of the deposit fee shall be refunded to the applicant. If final cost is more than the deposit fee received, the balance shall be payable by the applicant up to 75% of original deposit. If the cost of processing is expected to be more than the original deposit, plus 75% of said deposit, the City council may approve the collection of an additional deposit as they deem appropriate. ** If a Residential Planned Development application is filed concurrently with a Tentative Tract Map, the deposit fee for the Residential Planned Development permit shall be reduced by 50%. *** On any Zone Change application filed concurrently with a Tentative Tract Map and/or Residential Planned Development permit, the deposit fee for the zone change shall be reduced by 50%. CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT * 6. Tentative Tract Map a. Tentative Tract Map $2 , 825 (base) + $55. 00 per lot or unit b. Tentative Parcel Map, Parcel Map Waiver or Conditional Certificate of Compliance $2, 197 (base) + $78. 50 per lot or unit c. Time extension of approved tentative tract map 50% of current deposit fee d. Time extension of approved tentative parcel map 50% of current deposit fee e. Parcel map reversion to acreage $471 **** (non-refundable) f. Lot line adjustments $392 **** (non-refundable) 7 . Variance $1, 334 a. Existing single family residential $336 8 . Major Modification 80% of current fee deposit 9 . Minor Modification 20% of current fee deposit or $314 , whichever is greater 10. Administrative Clearance $314 **** (non-refundable) 11. Zone Clearance $31. 40 + $3 . 14 per additional lot/unit **** (Non-refundable) 12 . Appeals 25% of current deposit fee or $471, whichever is greater 13 . Revocation 50% of current deposit fee **** (non-refundable) **** A non-refundable fee is a one time fee of a specified amount (flat fee) , intended to account for the average cost of processing. Flat Fees cannot be refunded should the application be withdrawn. CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT * 14 . Violation Penalty ***** 100% of current deposit fee, not to exceed $785 **** (non-refundable) 15. Environmental Impact Reports a. Environmental Impact Report****** $3 , 139 b. Environmental Impact Report Supplement** $1, 570 c. Special Consultants Total prepayment of consultant's estimated cost, or acceptable bond . * * * * ( non - refundable) 16. Land Conservation Act Contract - Agricultural Preserves a. Applications $1,256 b. Cancellation $1, 256 c. Portion Non-Renewable $1, 256 17 . Sign Permit $31.40 18 . Landscape Plan Review & Inspection****** $545 19 . General Plan Amendments ****** $1, 570 (base) + $7. 85 per acre 20. Planned Community ****** $1, 570 (base) + $15. 70 per acre 21. Condition Compliance Review 100% of original filing fee **** A non-refundable fee is a one time fee of a specified amount (flat fee) , intended to account for the average cost of processing. Flat Fees cannot be refunded should the application be withdrawn. ***** In addition to deposit fee. ****** Final cost of processing will be computed upon actual time expended (based upon established hourly rates) . If final cost is less than the deposit fee received, the unused portion of the deposit fee shall be refunded to the applicant. If final cost is more than the deposit fee received, the balance shall be payable by the applicant. • CITY OF MOORPARK LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING DEPOSIT SCHEDULE PERMIT TYPE FEE DEPOSIT * 22 . Xerox Copies a. 8. 5" x 11" and 8.5" x 14" $0.50 for first page + $0. 26 per each additional page b. 11" x 17" $1. 00 for the first page + $0.75 per each additional page up to nine pages + $0. 50 per each additional page thereafter 23 . Zoning Maps Actual Costs 24 . Other Actual Costs******* ******* Occasionally, special reviews are required and not addressed specifically by this schedule, (such as traffic analysis reviews) . These requirements will be determined by the Director of Community Development, based on the nature of the proposed land use request. The Director will make a determination of which use and/or amount listed on the fee schedule is equivalent to that used. Said use application or review shall then use the billing type for a filing fee or deposit. Clem I. Direct Oeartoenl Costsp Actual &'diaries and Casts ATTACHMENT 2 I Iter I, Direct Oepartmenl Costo G' 1989/90 A 4 C (A•(1) . C These are Actual Salaries, Vacancies 1 'C' level, Feely 4 1 for len. Total Yr. Total Med. Leave 1990/91 A B C (A40) e C Position Salary Benefits Benefits totals I Total Yr. Total Med. leave flee.,..,,,,.„ _ _ - - _ I Position Salary Benefits, Benefits !slats Associate Planner 34,489 11,606 17.69% 54,249 I - - - Code Enfarce.ar.t Officer 25,941 15,102 15.77% 42,515 1 Associate Planner 40,338 13,377 17.69% 63,217 Senior Planner 40,332 17,636 17.690 62,338 : Assistant Planner 33,186 12,126 17.691 53,328 Sensor Planner 34,910 11,686 17.69% 54.839 I Senior Planner 45,083 11,207 17.69% 69,778 Oir. of Connally !level. 52,188 15,231 19.62X 80.647 I Senior Planner 41,387 13560 17.691 64,667 Dir, of Community (level. 57.528 17,244 19.62X 89.442 ictal 187,860 66,261 299,588 Total 217,521 70,514 1 340,432 Item 2) Department Overhead, (Indirect Costs) 1999/90 Item 2) Derartoent Overhead, (Indirect Casts) 1990/91 City Applied Item Costs Deductions Anatol City Applied -, Item Casts (ledecl is os Anoint Persiue] 357,206 11 305.588 51.618 --- --- 6ainteoance and Operations 162.755 21 90,000 72,755 1 Personnel 3) 397,874 I) 349,932 47,943 Capital (Deleted-see rase allowance) ; Maintenance and Operations 192.845 2) 110,000 82.845 Fined Overhead (Deleted-see use allowance) ; Capital (Deleted-see use allowance) Fined Overhead (Deleted-see use allowance) 124,373 130.788 Deflections- IlTot. Dir. Pers. (iter I above) • Cone. Hos. (6,000) 21641- Professional services : Deductions- 1/Total Direct Per so naele Lou Nan. (9.508) 2)641- Professiawl services 3/Total Pers. Beds., less CEO, CET, 601 Sec., and Pea. for each (Deductions equal $101,076) Ilea 3, General City Indirect Costs 1989/90 Ilea 3, General City Indirect Costs Budgeted 1990/91 Ilea Casts Deduction Net Costs % applied Total Cot Budgeted -- - --- - - -- -- - Ileo Crab Deduction Net Costs X applied Tata] Casts City Cesecil 13,000 0 13,000 36% 4,680 - City Mailer 139,951 0 139,951 36% 50,382 City Cosecll 23,900 0 23,900 36X 8.604 City Clerk 92,935 11 32,464 60,471 36% 21,770 City Manager 217,481 6) 69,538 147.943 360 53.260 City Attorney 92,500 2) 12,000 80,5500 361 28,980 City Clerk 116,026 I) 36,913 79.083 360 28,470 City Trasorer 1.600 0 1.604 28% 448 City Worse), 113,000 21 25,000 88,000 36% 31,680 Finance Officer 109,224 31 50.831 58.393 281 16,350 City Trasorer 1,615 0 1.615 28% 452 Au lt:statave Services 614,4)1 II ln.l51 418,660 28X 117,225---' Finance Officer 158,833 3) 70,408 88,425 781 24,759 City Engineer 205,023 542 175.725 29,298 75% 21.974 I Admit:stratave Services 505,126 41 148,931 356,1Y5 28% 99,/4, 1 City Engineer 159,310 5) 122,000 37.310 75X 27.983 T+tal General Indirect Costs 261,808 Total General Indirect Costs 274.942 Oedatkos 1) Elections. 80% of Rec. ClerkekC Sen 2) Special legal Services I Oedections I) Electises+ 80X Rec.Clrk + Rec Be,. 3) Capital, (16000) • FO 8 60% e F0 Beo.'F0 Leen. 2) Special legal Services 4) Capital • C0I0 Salary, 19,0204 60X Seco Sec.Bea. I 31 Capital, (1600) • FO f 601 • FO Bee • Act. Clrk 8 501+ Act Clrl. I 5) 642- Gulf' Srvcs, 645- Plan Chk I 4) Capital • CDBO-A tory, 19,070 • 60% RecemL+ 60% Rec. Bre ' 5) 642- C+ntr Srvcs, 645- Flu CM, 646- [aspect 6) 1000 Assit. City Meager Positise•Bes. Item 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/88 1 Item 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/89 141:1 Use I From Uayne•s Spread Sheet Assets Allowance Total Use !loadings and str acture$ Assets Allowance 1,139,669 22,793 femave. ether than Beildinas 524,058 31,112 Bending$ and strictures - - 1.359.264 27,172 Office Ftraitore And Egoip. 129,680 8,689 Inprove, other this Buildings 524,058 35,112 Other violated 37,928 2,545 Office Furallare And Equip. 254,630 17,060 Other egoie.e)! 52,767 3,535 ' 1,C31,385 69.139 Rl to cal Tar 2,190,719 82.879 Total Employees 25 Allocation Departs/at E..ployees 7 Total Employees 32 Percent (7/25) 28% Department Eemleyees B - Use Allowance Attributable to Department Percent (8/32) 25% (280 * $69.139) 17,359 Use Al Io„ence Atte-ibutee It to Department 125% • $82,8791 20,720 RATE DETERMINATION Item 1, Oir ecl Cats I RATE DETERMINATION 299,588 Ila 2. Indirect Casts 124,373 I Item 1, Direct Costs 339,562 Ito 3. 8 I Overhead 261,108 1 Item 2, Indirect Costs 131,658 It.. 4, Use Allowance Item 3, General Overhead 274,942 19,359 Item 4, Use Allowance 20,720 Adie steal fro. Prier Year Adjustment from Prior Year Total Costs 705 Is2 Total costs 766,881 Divided by Total Hours Divided by Total Hours (2080 • 5 Positions) 10400 (2080 • 5 Pasitieat) 16400 RATE 7i PEP NOUF RATE ea PER HOUR (( O -.10Xv H ONNDD v —I— D CD -•m00 or rt O - mmmO 0 0 Set ,C) -I 0. XO —•-5 CD CD 0 -500 In 0 0 r0 mm 0 -I C m -•00 9 9 m - - -o — O m9 O > O a rt rt 0 -- 0 0 0 0 et \ CD \ O Cr m 0 0 N) O rt- 'O r0 = O—0 o - -e m to 0 - m -s ; o < m 0 no 0 J rt 3 -I m O co 0 — o--rt0 (DO r Z Co •D 0 - O 000 > H I r m rom 900 vv D-I Z CD '00 S00 -- 0 m 0 m m 0 0 CCD CD Co m cr 0 N a B \7 0zz 00 Cre C 3 a 1/40 rt - 00 m 0 -59 re m m -O m O m r< D 7 CD O 3 COV D CD rt 0 Co m v 7 CD v m O < Co rt r rt < CD 'I 9 CD _. -.m C) o -3 m0 D wN-• 0w S Ore -I m-• m - ^-IO\-I Oo m CA-1 0 0 OO F O0-w 0 - a N m0 <0 Z mrt_sr+ CCD r3CO Core lnatwF -rt 00 am I m -NJ 0'c< -I J-1P4+0 co m Oct 9 C - m0'- • co - 7 -D m0 S 0 v 0c+WW 'Ji Vrw0-+w r< 3 0 rt-Cr 70 (D CDFJ 0 NJ NW CO 0)44 < 0 C) -•m0 -• as V00- a ., co--.1 co Oral Z m O 7 t1 7 r I m W 9 0 0 0 0 0 N 7 0 CO 0. 00 (Dm---- (D Ort m0 0 (0 Z mW-• 0 rt CD-I C) .0 C0 0 CC fD m0 C a 0 0 CO 0 -s w a 0 Oct 0 m m 0 m l m CD -a F C 0 J 0 m 3 m -• -m Oro 0 Co O -4 co FNw M-W m • 0 m m•. • n rt <ft 00 --00 Co In NlTN-,w rt; CD ,v - -m 0 -00 0 FO\0NJ Co m < D 0 C 7 C GOON 0 ( COJO'J 0. 0 -I -I0 < - CC m • - m • m -•+ m CO • OJ000 00 m D Or I'I0O maDD Cor— 9 r --0 9 • 99 0 m D a c • 9 w WF 00 0m } r NW C - m < CO r< D C) S0 ‘C)J JIn- ",CD -- -I M O O\ OD .COR r+m + -I r V F-. a 0,Ch 0 -4 Or rt X O Co In w ,p, OR2VDQ2Q3H Co o f N Or — + M O r0 -• O M Ul H CD O w 0)Os O's 00, rt CD O -+ r0 rOFgONw 0 0 N F 0.JFN Co 0 .0O3-.41/4,-, Co NJ N J CO CO J 0 a 3 0 a CO 0 0 M 0 7 CD to 0 r 1Z --c > 00-W c- 0 -1 OD-70000O Nm - rt-39 C m n lnm SMO -" NN a n rt3Jrtnrfrtrt m Vtp 34 0 m -• - 3 C m '< - m'<'<'<'<'< 9 0 3 D 0 7 0 0 a D 0 - 77 ;- m 0 < - -F n nI- OH>CXO 'OW It 0 00G) 0m m70-m0 ND art1• a 0 0 m tort mrtm7C W< 0 CC In C 0 0 -70m0Om0 0 N CO 0 -•l 0 m rn m 7 m -D Crf ) T.1m 0 it s 0 O 0 17 m 0 -3 m rt-7 C 7 0 - 0 WD 3 -•0 0 0 m m - - 7 m l - fD -4 CD mrtmn 0 - 7 < O0'< 'O 0C 7 I (DCD - m —D rt7 N 0 - rt CD 0 c m 7 N O 7'7 m a m C) 7 D m C » 0 0 -) < rt CT 0. et -a m '< c We o D it r7c7 T O'Vi.CWN-• rt m 0 m a -.m _ ...._ 0 < O C -co W 0 CD 00-I - n 0 0 : CD tDm0 0 - - In S :Ort 0 m -O.00(/rn rt 0W m it 0 m m 10 )0 OFm ca)'0 - 0 aJ'- _aN O c as O m7 - In ONC'0mm VIOV1 •.+N mn 0. Oct 1-R I - -.00 'OVIW-cWTJW eon O et rn net- rt • 00 m 0 3 D 0 m m m -• W-a W T O O F'0 rt 0 0 •--00 m0 ----0 _NW-'0 IN)OD0 <D n m Wet- 00 0 O0'cc)V1OO.-aO 6 7 \ 0 - rt + I-0 l It WRIf< t I -1 -m + VI FW N-aT W 3 Nam • OaLID --- --- 0 O —O0 co aTcW rt O -m N D-t rt ) W0-0 a rt 0 Inc c < oo aD __ m n '< N V'co Oct 0 --N 0. O CD '0 VI VINVI mm nm0 m0 NFJ NWT C In CD 0 NFF'0 r+- 0 0 +7m NW0 VI T'0 0 Cr In N fD <0 it In J JTON Tm -n O'OF 0'D VI TWV1T 0Fz O0 0W0 0FW 0 'D JO WF - V,< o n o-.Wooca o 0 rt I - RD en 'C rt v-a Q '< 3-'0 O D mm• a9z - 7 7 O - W (D 0 N) co -4WN m J + CD WVIW WJFN it O N) WJNJ OC t0OO -3 JTW-c W'OJW E m m S () J W VIO-+-J CD CD 7T +0 W-cF10OO'O'0 0 CO N) Co -4 WTJ 0 -I- - ON003.F0' 003.F0 In O VIWN 'O VIONN 0 0 TW OVIVIVIOWWO it 2Q m 0000 f00 In • T 0 rt I S + • m n O -0 D 0 7 0 0 n co Enact rt V +Ort• '< a m ' - W O +0 0 J N N N W W W W O ct VI W Co CO T T T T N • T-3 0afl3Hn382@3*nn n O F -1 dB r (® -I A CO CO 0 m V 0 -J N'O N W N Us it 00 0 F --Ica.F aW co W m + '0 'DJJF TENT - CO F WWN ut Co J00 C) CD > N W'n'ONOOOF 0 7 0 in ti rt In 0 W CD CC 0 w a_ NWN0 • )!1- N c0 O N u1VO O N- a0 d rnrovD ✓ ,N N w m N L a 0) co } co 0) 1,L N S.- V) 07 S.- 0 0 V) 0) LOO 7 OOC•- Ou Z V)O > cc) t S C O 0 o )a 0 - U Y 0 • U-- E COY Z• ULL< OL ON - N•- 0) 4- HO X L-o C w N d • •- 00) NY 43 >, W o—U' 7 C c, L]Ul H 0) O Li E 0 'D* O F N M Y 4) Vi — 00 W EEE Om •—4 lJ H 0) 00) 0)•'I Y >O 1— < < Y Y Y Y-0 0 •—N < �' "---Q 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Two Tables Illustrating the Comparison Between Fiscal Years SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE GENERAL CITY OVERHEAD CALCULATION Item 3) General City Overhead Deduction Item 1989/90 1990/91 City Manager 0 100% ATCM Finance 60% F. Officer 60% F. Officer 50% Acct. Clrk. ** Admin. Srvcs. 60% Secretary* 60% Receptionist * The Secretary position was shared by Administrative Services and Community Development in 1989/90, and both departments have a full separate position for this purpose in the 1990/91 Budget. Deductions to other City departments have not changed. ** New position included with the adoption of the 1990/91 Budget RATE DETERMINATION COMPARISON BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS Item 1989/90 1990/91 % Difference Direct Costs 299,588 339, 562 +13% Indirect Costs 124, 373 131, 658 +6% Gen. Overhead 261,808 274,942 +5% Use Allowance 19, 359 20,720 +7% Total 705, 128 766,881 +8.7%