My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
19
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
061615
>
19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 11:53:05 AM
Creation date
6/9/2015 4:14:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FINANCIAL STATEMENT <br /> Based upon 2014/15FY data for over 200 development related user fees, the <br /> recommended fee increases will generate approximately $2.739 million annually. <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> The City conducted a fee study of certain development related services based on the <br /> premise that there are certain services and regulatory requirements that the City <br /> provides that are of special benefit to an individual or business and are appropriately not <br /> a cost or financial burden of the general taxpayer. Also, one of the City's General Plan <br /> fiscal policies is to have development pay 100% of the cost to provide City services. In <br /> 2009, the City hired PRM to prepare a review and analysis of the City's direct and <br /> indirect costs associated with the delivery of development related services (Study). <br /> Based on the City's accounting records, the analysis tabulated the full cost of providing <br /> development related services including both direct and indirect costs. The review and <br /> analysis then recommended certain cost recovery levels for each fee based on <br /> economic and policy considerations (the "Recommended Cost Recovery Level"). The <br /> Recommended Cost Recovery Level was then compared with revenues currently <br /> received for these services to determine the recommended cost recovery rate for each <br /> service. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> The Study presented the cost of providing development related services by individual <br /> divisions including building and safety, fire prevention, planning and engineering. Staff <br /> has updated the Study's findings which were based on the 2007/08FY expenditures to <br /> the current budget year (2014/15FY) revenue and expenditures. The following is a brief <br /> summary of the findings by division: <br /> Building and Safety Division <br /> The Building and Safety Division (Building Division) provides the following services: <br /> permit processing, plan checking, building inspections and investigations of complaints <br /> regarding potentially dangerous buildings. The City's goal has been to recover 100% of <br /> the cost of these services in the fees charged by the Building Division. However, the <br /> Study found that in 2007/08FY the Building Division recovered approximately 88% of <br /> the cost of these services. In the past several years the Building Division's cost recovery <br /> rate has dropped and in 2014/15FY it is estimated to be 75% based on the analysis <br /> presented in Table 1. <br /> For all building permit applications, the building permit and plan review fees are based <br /> upon the cost or valuation of construction projects. Construction valuation tables are <br /> used to determine the construction value for all permits for new construction projects. <br /> For all other permits, the valuation of the project is provided by the applicant. The new <br /> construction valuation table is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Engineering <br /> News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. In <br /> 2007/08FY, the new construction permits' valuation represented approximately 25% of <br /> the valuation for all permits issued by the Building Division. In 2014/15FY, new <br /> Page 2 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.