Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 0702 CC SPC ITEM 10E«E t V O - L a CITY OF MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Services Manager DATE: June 26, 1996 SUBJECT: Consider Revision to the Film Permit Fee Schedule Summary Recently it has been brought to the City's attention that the film permit fee for projects located on private property of $700, ($100 for the application, and $600 for the permit), regardless of the number of days, may discourage filming in the City. The Economic Development/Affordable Housing Committee (Councilmembers Brown and Perez), considered this matter June 26, 1996, and recommends that a minimum charge of $100 be imposed for qualifying applicants, supported by a deposit to account for unanticipated City costs during the project. On December 9, 1994, the City established filming fees by adopting Resolution Number 94 -1090, provided in Attachment "A ". A regional comparison of local fee rates was presented in 1994, assisting the Council to arrive at the current rate. To film in the City, a standard permit currently costs $100 for the application fee, and $600 per day, ( "standard" being defined as use of public property). If the project is located entirely on private property, $700 ($100 plus $600) is the entire cost, regardless of the number of days required. If needed, the City provides a liaison at the site at a current cost of $30 per hour, and a police rate of between $70 and $90 per hour. Moorpark Redevelopment Agency property has been leased at a rate of $500 per parcel per day. A preliminary review deposit of $600 is required for all projects, plus an additional deposit, based on a sliding scale related to the length of time for the project, as follows: a duration of between one and two days, requires an additional $1,000; an additional $1,500 is required for projects that last three to five days; an additional $2,000 for projects with a duration of six to nine days, and; an additional deposit of $5,000 is required for projects of ten days or more. An exemption for non - profit organizations and local business promotions is provided in Section 4 of the resolution where these applicants are to be billed at cost, plus a $500 deposit. This exemption has never been applied. A procedure for processing film permits was also presented in 1994. It was noted that the perceived impact of a proposed project greatly influences the cost to the City for processing the conditions of a temporary use permit for the project. Film project proposals were separated into "significant impact" and "minimal impact." If a project was proposed in the public right -of -way, required street closures and /or public safety personnel, a 10 to 30 day lead time is required. If the project is proposed to be entirely on private property, the permit could be issued in 24 hours following the schedule for "minimal" impact, due to the reduced significance of the project's perceived impact on the community. Over the past 18 months, staff has received approximately 15 inquiries and processed 6 film permits. The total revenue to the City is approximately $3,500, and the total revenue to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency is approximately $2,000 for the use of Agency property (at $500 per parcel per day). The City revenue is "net," subtracting the actual cost of public safety personnel. The most complicated and potentially expensive project to the City was a student film, (private non - profit school), where both City staff and public safety personnel spent several extra hours developing the permit, requesting waivers from the City Council, and monitoring the project. None of the six projects lasted more than two days. Of the six projects, only a few minor concerns have been expressed by the public. This leads to the conclusion that the procedures proposed in 1994, have been effective. Two of these projects were filmed entirely on private property: one on a ranch and a second in a store on High Street. Three of the six film projects expressed to staff that the fee amounts were too high and that they were very unhappy. One concern came from the student project (a for - profit private school), referenced above, where fees were reduced after appealing to Council. One local merchant did support the project applicant's concern about the cost to film, and this project was entirely located on private property. At the June 19, 1996 Council meeting, this matter was brought to the City Council's attention, and per the Council's request, the Affordable Housing /Economic Development Committee, (Councilmembers Brown and Perez), have submitted the following proposal for Council consideration. Discussion After structuring a film permit process in 1994, City administrative time and cost related to simple projects, such as those contained on private property, has been reduced significantly. The Committee, after considering this relatively new process, agreed that reduced fees could be justified for projects held primarily on private property. However, a deposit would be retained by the City and all risk to City property would be included in an indemnification/hold harmless certification, and on insurance coverage. Each film project has to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. The Committee supports payment for this review by retaining the $100 application fee. From that evaluation, standard permit conditions are modified when necessary, and the permit is issued. For projects which are deemed to be entirely on private property, the standard conditions do not require changes, and the permit is issued quickly. It is proposed that the $100 application fee is all that is charged for these projects, with a deposit to 2 0002cao assure compliance to the standard conditions. A project proposal may be within the standard "minimal impact„ category, but have some equipment or parking on public property. For these projects, it is proposed that the City issue the permit application fee, and an encroachment fee of $35. An example of how this would apply is for a project that films entirely on private property, but requires a generator to be parked on the street, and have a power cord running across a City sidewalk. A third tier may apply where in addition to the need to have equipment on City right -of -way, a City or Redevelopment Agency owned parcel is needed for parking. Because the use of the parking area may conflict with other business, causing proliferation of the impact from the private property to the other businesses, staff is proposing that a third tier be considered. The amount of the third tier is proposed to be a $100 application fee, plus the cost of an encroachment permit ($35), plus $100 per day, per parcel, when used exclusively for parking. A use of City property as a staging area is considered to be more than "parking" and this cost would remain at $500 per day. For the three scenarios listed above, the City would impose a discretionary deposit of between $250 and $600. Depending on the perceived impact that a project may have under any of the three scenarios, the deposit will be adjusted at staffs discretion. Essentially, staff is on -call throughout the project. If staff is required to visit the site, the hourly rate for Administrative Services would be billed against the deposit. The complexity of the project increases the likelihood that staff would be needed, and it follows that a higher deposit be required. As soon as a camera is placed on public property, the project reaches the threshold of "significant impact." This is because cameras can and do attract crowds. No adjustments are being proposed for this aspect of the City's fee structure. Attachment "B" is the revised proposed filming fee schedule, which has added a new "Section 2" to address the three tiers for permit fees having a perceived minimal impact as referenced above. This change is proposed for a six month trial period, where if additional City costs are incurred beyond those fees being collected, revisions will be proposed. Recommendation That the City Council rescind resolution 94 -1090, and adopt the proposed resolution 96- to be revisited in six months, with those fee changes proposed by the Affordable Housing /Economic Development Committee in Attachment "B." Attachment: A) Resolution 94 -1090 B) Proposed Resolution 3 '()O()Z(;:L { �,kc�meNT`A RESOLUTION NO. 4-10 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING APPROVAL OF FILM /PHOTOGRAPHY PERMIT FEES WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City to establish fees for filming and photography activities in the City of Moorpark; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE DETERMINE FOLLOWS: , , AND ORDER AS SECTION 1. That the City Council hereb a schedule as follows: Y pproves the fee A) B) C) D) E) Preliminary Review Fee $100 Per Application Preliminary Review Deposit $600 Per Application City Film Permit Fee $600 Per Day City Film Permit Deposit 1). $1,000 2)• $1,500 3) - $2,000 4)• $5,000 5)• $ 500 1 to 2 day projects 3 to 5 day projects 6 to 9 day projects 10 day projects or more for those projects defined in Section City Film Permit Fee for Projects Located Entirely on Private Property 4 $600 Per Application P l u s t h e Preliminary Review Fee SECTION 2. The fees presented in this resolution shall be applied independent of filming /photography activities ti1nr thechcites incluuding bu to aplicable limited to police services, and rental of city but not y property. SECTION 3. Any and all costs which may occur during the effective dates of the film permit shall be billed by the City t the per hour rate for staff costs based on the a Resolution, for an Y costs not related to staff, and are o in addition plus applicable percent cfor forth in this resolution. o those fees set SECTION 4. Al' submitted from persons the City of Moorpark a organization (and have a copy of the Internal exempt from the fees billed at actual Ci- applicable City resolu, . applications for a Film Permit which are :)r companies that are permanently located in a business and /or represent a non - profit ,Terified the non - profit status by submitting Revenue Service 501.C.3 document) will be stipulated in "1.C" and 111.E" above, and :y costs (including overhead), per the :ions establishing said rates. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of December, 1994. ATTEST: Paul W. Lhwfason Jr., Mayor �'.0 J MOORPARK , - - ----------- - 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) it Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk of the Califo City of Moorpark, rnia, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 94 -1090 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 7th day of DECEMBER the same was adopted by the following vote: 1994 and that AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HUNTER, MONTGOMERY, PEREZ, WOZNIAK AND MAYOR LAWRA NOES: NONE SON ABSENT: NONE r ABSTAIN: NONE WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 9_ t_ h day of DECEMBER 1994. Lillian E. Hare City Clerk PAUL W. LAWRASON JR Mayor PATRICK HUNTER Mayor Pro Tem SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember A f ' � t • JOHN E. WOZNIAK Concilmember Prinfed on Recycled pa-,,