|
provided to both jurisdictions by the same staff. The only logical way to differentiate
<br /> between the two (if that is the desire of the Council) would be for Pleasanton to continue
<br /> to subsidize the fire prevention services provided by LPFD's staff to Pleasanton
<br /> 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 /> Gems!Fund Department Summery
<br /> 2014/15FY
<br /> Hanlon of Albation peeve Allocation of Fully Recommended Cwt
<br /> Cenae/hand IV 2014175 Byer of Con Incited Cost Between Runobmd Cost Cwt Recovery Cunt mowed Recovery
<br /> DepnCnent Budget RacoverWa CD Adm. Recoverable Conn) FIbMel %ennhw Blip R4mwanble leveto Fees Revenue Level
<br /> Community Dev.Adm $671,789 $351,647
<br /> Building&Safety Div. 53,215.665 $3,215,665 $197,441 53,413.106 5853.277 54,266.383 $724,433 $4,990,816 54.990.816 53,752.000 $1,238,816 100%
<br /> Planning Divivionnt 52,194,334 51.516.724 $93,127 $1,609,851 $402,463 52,012,313 ($724,433) 51,287.881 $503,078 $144,515 5358,563 25%
<br /> Engineering Division(2) $4,859,426 $994,774 $61,079 51.055,853 $263,963 $1,319,817 51.319.817 5567,521 5295.000 $272,521 43%
<br /> Fire Prevention Div. $993,260 $993,260 $993.260 5248.315 $1,241,575 51,241,575 $931,181 $62,500 $868,681 75%
<br /> General Fund Total 511,934.474 c 57,072.070 5351.647 57.072.070 c$1,768,018 :$8,840,088 50 $8,840,088 56.992.596 54.254,0,5 52,738,581 79%
<br /> err Current Planning is the onlyportion of the Planning Division included In the User Fee Study , ' '
<br /> W Private Development Engineering,Private Development inspection and 21%of General Engineering am the only portion,of Ilse Engineering Division included in the User Fee Study.
<br /> tnindirtet Cost are 25%of Direct Cost(for overhead cosh for finance,Cily Attorney,City Manager,etc)plus the division's prorate share of the Community Development Administration Program.
<br /> re)Pudding&Safety Division's recommended cost recovery policy includes 36%of the current planning roes.
<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 10
<br />
|