The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0802 CC REG ITEM 11KTO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Background CITY OF MOORPARK AGENDA REPORT Honorable City Council Richard Hare, Deputy City Mana er July 27, 1995 (Meeting of August 2, 1995 ) /0009 ITEM 11 ► MOORPARK, CAUFCRX'.': Gty CoLodl Meeflng of — ?�" 1995- BY Consider Request from Matt Adragna Concerning Engineering Fees for Plan Check and Inspection Service Mr. Adragna sent a letter to the City Council, dated July 11, 1995 and received at city hall on July 26, regarding the plan check fees charged by the City Engineer's Office for improvements to his property at 106 Wicks Road. The City Manager and Deputy City Manager have been discussing this matter with Mr. Adragna prior to the submission of his letter. The City Manager had requested an explanation for the fees from the City Engineer. The Assistant City Engineer's response, dated July 13, is attached and was previously circulated to the City Council. The Deputy City Manager met with the City Engineer on July 26 to review the fees charged. The City Engineer maintains that this property has required extensive additional review, because of the previous property owners damage to the slopes. Staff is requesting the City Council's review of this matter. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments: Adragna Letter City Engineer's Memo w /exhibits an\m&Ud-g- — RECEIVED -- July 11, 1995 Jul 2 61995 Dear Mayor and City council: City of Moorpa+ rn I'm not a person who complains. I could have complained a long time ago about the service and charges by the City Engineer. But, I just received a bill in the mail from Dirk Lovett for plan check services. I was shocked to see a bill for $ 1300.00 . This bill, added to the money I already paid them'is a total of $ 1142.00 in plan check fees. Not only that, but I still have to resubmit my plans, which means that they will bill me again for who knows how much. My engineer's charge to me to survey, calculate, and draw the plans was $ 1500.00. I cannot believe that it takes more effort to check plans, and fill out a preprinted form, than to create the plans themselves. The plans are very simple, they involve some dirt removal and some minor drainage work. It is obvious to me that I am being overcharged and I will not be taken advantage of. It is also obvious to me that there is an incentive on the engineer's part to be nitpicky because he makes more money that way. I listened to the owner of the ARCO station complain to the Council about the same thing - -and I don't know if anything was ever done about it. I have heard from other people about similar experiences, including my own engineer. I don't know if the Council knows that your citizens are being ripped off, but it has to stop. I would like to have Mr. Lovett give me an full accounting of how he has spent my hard earned money. I would hope that the Council cares enough about its citizens to investigate the bad will caused by your City Engineer because of his overcharging practices and his unreasonable plan check requirements. Please help. I have tried to talk with your city staff about this problem but I have not been getting any answers, therefore, I would formally request that I be placed on the August 2, 1995 Council agenda so that I may discuss this problem with the Council. Sincerely, Mat Adragna ' CL! Z� ", i M E M O R A N D U M TO: STEVE KUENY, CITY MANAGER FROM: DIRK LOVETT, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE: JULY 13, 1995 SUBJECT: ADRAGNA GRADING PLAN CHECK AND FEES(106 Wicks Rd.) At your request, I am submitting an explanation of the deposits requested for this project with a brief discussion of the scope of our involvement. There is an extensive history with this lot. Attached for your review is a copy of a January 6th memo to you in which a brief chronology of the process and a course of action was outlined. The problems with this lot were discussed early with Mr. Adragna and were well documented. It was also understood that the City Engineering Departments involvement to bring this lot into conformance with City Standards, would be greater than for a typical project because of the existing illegal and non - standard construction which would need to be remedied. The Engineering Department has, however, made special efforts by allowing the Adragnas' to occupy their home while they addressed these hazardous items. The City also required a security for those items deemed not immediately threatening to the site's or adjacent structures. Mr. Adragna's engineer, Dan Holmes, submitted a conceptual grading plan in the third week of January 1995. A third plan check was completed by our department and returned to the applicant with several corrections the fourth week of May 1+995. No further plan check requests have been received by our office to date. It should be noted that in resolving this unpermitted activity, engineering staff has assisted the owner in preparing special agreements with surrounding neighbors, directed the efforts of the soils engineer in preparing the necessary reports and prepared special bond arrangements to guarantee the work. These coordination efforts have been extensively reviewed with City Staff. It is anticipated that additional deposits will be required to cover the costs of additional plan check, preparation of "As- Builts" and staff time to release securities. Upon completion of these tasks the owner will be responsible for the "Actual Costs" of the effort plus any City overhead which accrues, as required by the City's fee schedule. •0 cc G ea�.�c�.0 , Qc w, eL, CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM To: Steve Kueny, City Manager From: Dirk Lovett, Assistant City Engineer Date: January 6, 1995 Subject: 106 Wicks Road Per your request I am forwarding this account of recent events regarding the subject property and the involvement of the Director of Community Development. The new property owners of two parcels at 106 Wicks Road, Matt and Patti Adragna, requested Engineering clearance for the house on the subject property prior to receiving a Building and Safety occupancy clearance. Upon a site review from our office it was discovered that there were several issues that needed to be resolved prior to Engineering approval. These included uncompacted /unapproved fill, lack of proper drainage, non - approved retaining wall, erosion, incomplete access road, encroachments onto adjacent properties, and lack of Geotechnical Engineering evaluation on both parcels. A punch -list of these items was provided the Adragnas on November 29, 1994. Upon receipt of the punch list the Adragnas requested my presence at a field meeting with themselves and their civil engineer to discuss the punch list. , On December 5, 1994 Chris Oberender and I attended a meeting at the site which was attended by the Adragnas, Civil Engineer Dan Holmes, and Director of Community Development Jim Aguilera. After my explanation of the punch list and steps required of the Adragnas to obtain occupancy I was asked by Mr. Aguilera if we might consider a conditional occupancy of the subject property since most of the punch list involved work done on the easterly parcel that did not contain the house. I explained that my concerns were not just for the safety of the occupants of 106 Wicks Road but also for those properties which have been or could potentially be impacted by the items on the punch list. It was then agreed that should the punch list items that directly impact the safety of the subject building 000'Z31 HOLMES ELATE . Structurdl and,Q 2710 West Kelly Road - Newbury.: k: PROJECT A REa G NA 2g S. LOCATION G`,f �.. 4 TE/t -1 f. y�TvTA -L r) RAW 3. EknrA/O 4" •• 3p L.:f ��- ' ;t� %- G~ , 4. 6�ec �Gy a 1S. z Croy- ,BjO peA �� s +i AV l: C 1 ar* ' EkTEka a" 'D2A/tJ Zo L, F p °� mm+�s .t �•- ffA Igo RR 4 w o ivr�o vE �'i c � -5:6 c. y /l T F'4L ej CAP :14 •/�/v�i j C QJ �1%�i �� $C7 �. F k� P r • 1 2 4" 0.94 /At 7 J. i fiat ^v lr i j CCN7- /NC ENCY YA o. �� , _�_ ,(S '�s,�IG.S�) — A /YtP, 46 July 6, 1995 Mr. Paul Adragna 106 Wicks Road Moorpark, CA 90501 MOORPARK Building and Safety, City Engineering 18 High Street, Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 ext 421 Re: 106 Wicks Road Grading Plan Check Dear Paul: Below I have listed the amount of deposits received versus costs incurred on the above mentioned project. As you can see there is a balance on this account: 85.040 $ 1,142.48 $ 2520.36 $ 1,377.88 Total as of 5/30/95 $ 1,377.88 The original amount received was a deposit taken in at the time your plans were submitted to this office. Since that time, additional work has been performed, incurring additional costs. Please submit payment to this office within 30 days to cover these costs. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Chris Oberender, Associate Engineer cc: City Clerk Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works chron 85.040 0706952.1tr 0'0233 City Hail 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California (805) 529 -6864 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. PATRICK HUNTER JOHN E. WOZNIAK BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Prinfed on Recycled Paper Exhibit 'B' Page 3 5. FEE SCHEDULE The following schedule shall be used to calculate the Hap 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 ($) 0 - 999 1,000 - 9,999 10,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 - 999,999 1,000,000 and over Deposit ($! 420.00 300y00 + 151 of cost over 1,650.00)+ 101 of cost over 5,650.00 + 5$ of cost over 8,150.00 + 21 of cost over 26,150.00 + It of cost over 1,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000 6. _G_RADING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECKING FEE SCHEDULE QUANTITY CUBIC YARDS 50 or less 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 601 - 700 701 - 800 801 - 900 901 - 1,000 1,001 - 2,000 2,001 - 3,000 3,001 - 4,000 4,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 6,000 6,001 - 7,000 71001 - 8,000 8,001 - 9,000 9,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 30,000 30,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 60,000 60,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 90,000 90,001 - 100,000 100,001 OR ABOVE PLAN CHECK FEES (S 38.00 59.00- 86.00 112.00 140.00 167.00 193.00 221.00 249.00 277.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 312.00 333.00 353.00 374.00 395.00 415.00 436.00 456.00 477.00 Note A INSPECTION FEES (S) 41.00 62.00 89.00 116..00 144.00 171.00 199.00 226.00 253.00 281.00 308.00 332.00 355.00 378.00 ' 401.00 425.00 448.00 471.00 495.00 518.00 610.00 726.00 830.00 934.00 1,038.00 1,143.00 1,247.00 1,351.00 1,455.00 Note_ B TOTAL 79.00 121.00 175.00 228.00 284.00 338.00 492.00 447.00 502.00 558.00 600.00 624.00 647.00 669.00 693.00 717.00 740.00 763.00 787.00 810.00 922.00 1,059.00 1,183.00 1,308.00 1,433.00 1,558.00 1,683.00 1,807.00 1,932.00 000234