|
businesses. That is a decision that the Council could make on fire prevention fees as
<br /> well as any of the other proposed fees.
<br /> Highlights of the fire prevention analysis are:
<br /> • The current cost recovery rate of 5% is in the very low range compared to
<br /> other jurisdictions. Livermore recovers 75% of costs for the same services
<br /> provided by the same staff (LPFD).
<br /> • By instituting fees at 75% cost recovery (to phase in cost increases), the
<br /> current general fund subsidy will be reduced to $372,894.
<br /> • The recommended fee increases have minimal impact on new
<br /> construction and tenant improvement fees.
<br /> Summary
<br /> In fiscal year 2014/15FY, it is estimated that the City will recover approximately
<br /> $4,254,015 or 48% of the cost of providing development related services in the building
<br /> and safety, fire prevention, current planning and private development engineering
<br /> divisions. It is estimated that adoption of the staff recommended cost recovery levels will
<br /> increase the annual fee revenues to approximately $6,992,596 or to a cost recovery
<br /> rate or 79% depending on the volume of building construction activity. The following
<br /> table summarizes the findings of the Study (the information has been updated by staff to
<br /> 2014/15FY):
<br /> Table 1
<br /> City of Pleasanton
<br /> General Fund Department Summary
<br /> 2014/15FY
<br /> Portion of Allautlon Direct Alteration of Fully Recommended Cost
<br /> General Fund FY2O1475 Buret of Cost fnd/nad Cost between Arnimd Cost Cost Remarry Current hweme& Recovery
<br /> De tment Ruler , Recoverable CD Aber. Recoverable Cate") .fuAtdal Planning&BldF Recoverable /See Fees Revenue Level
<br /> Community Dev.Adm $671,789 $351,647
<br /> Building Safety Div. $3,215,665 $3215,665 $197.441 $3,413,106 $853,277 $4266,383 $724,433 $4,994816 $4990,816 53,752,000 $1,238,816 100%
<br /> Planning Division"' $2,194,334 51,516.724 $93,127 51,609,851 5402,463 $2,012,313 ($724,433) $1,287,881 5503,078 $144,515 5358,563 25%
<br /> Engineering Division0' $4859.426 $994,774 $61,079 $1,055,853 $263,963 $1,319,817 $1,319,817 $567,521 $295,000 $272,521 43%
<br /> Fire Prevention Div. $993.260 $993,260 $993.260 $248,315 $1,241,575 51,241,575 $931,181 $62.500 $868,681 75%
<br /> General Fund Total $11,934,474 $7,072,070 $351,647 $7,072,070 51.768,018 $8,840,088 $0 $8,840,088 $6,992,596 $4,254,015 52,738,581 79%
<br /> Current Planning It e only port/on or the Planning Division Included in the titer Fee Study • r r a r
<br /> m Private Development Engineering.Private Development Im lion and 21%of General Engineering are the only portion(of the Engineering Division Included in the User Fee Rudy.
<br /> m Indeed Cost are 25%of Direct Con(tor overhead costs for Finance.City Attorney.City Manager.etc)plus the division's prorate share of the Community Development Administration Program,
<br /> t9 Building&Sake'Dibhioni mrcmmended con rcmvery policy include,3696 of the current planning cosh.
<br /> How does the Proposed Fee Schedule Compare with Other Agencies?
<br /> The following tables arranged by division compare the current and proposed Pleasanton
<br /> user fees to the same or comparable fee in surrounding jurisdictions including
<br /> Livermore, Dublin, San Ramon, Fremont and Walnut Creek. As shown in the tables,
<br /> Pleasanton's proposed fees compare favorably with the similar fees in surrounding
<br /> jurisdictions and the average of the fees.
<br /> Page 6 of 9
<br />
|