03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Thorne explained that the priority setting occurs at a special meeting of the City Council and then retums for adoption, giving the public 2 opportunities to comment. Mayor Thorne closed public comment. MOTION: It was m/s by Brown / Pentin to waive full reading and adopt Resolution No. 15 -766 stopping the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) planning and environmental review process, have EPSP process considered as part of the next City Council regular Priority Setting, and stop work by EPSP Task Force and thank and disband Task Force. Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Brown, Olson, Pentin, Mayor Thome NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Narum Councilmember Olson retumed to the dais. 19. Public Hearing: Consider adoption of a resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule for development related services such as Planning fees, Building Permit fees, Engineering fees, and Fire Department plan check and inspection fees Former Finance Director Wagner presented the staff report regarding the proposed update to development related user fees. She clarified that the proposed fee update relates only to user fees which represent approximately 5% of the total fees charged during the development stage of a project, and not development impact fees which are used to support the expansion of city facilities and infrastructure. The city last reviewed these fees in 1992 and again in 2011 but ultimately elected to postpone implementation of the fee increases until the economy had improved. Therefore, the majority of fees being discussed have not been increased since the 1980s. As per the city's General Plan, the city's fiscal policy requires that development pay 100% of its cost of services. Ms. Wagner stated that user fees are applied throughout Building, Planning, Engineering and Fire for items such as building, plumbing and electrical permits, plan checking, building and fire inspection, conditional use permits (CUP), planned unit developments (PUD) and appeals. Of the $12 million in expenditures in these departments for Fiscal Year 2014 -15, only $7 million was for fee related activities. Indirect costs for each area, which are department overhead costs associated with areas such as Finance the City Manager, City Attomey and building maintenance, total another $1.7 million. Therefore, the total burden of fee related services for which the city would be seeking recovery is $8.8 million. The total revenues for fee related activities collected in FY 2014 -15 totaled $4.2 million, which equates to a 48% cost recovery. Through the fee study, which included a direct fee comparison to 5 comparable jurisdictions, staff is recommending a 79% cost recovery at this time. As proposed Building and Safety fees would increase to 100% cost recovery, Fire to 75 %, Engineering to 43% and Planning to 25%. However, based on previous feedback from the Chamber of Commerce and Economic Vitality Committee, 36% of the Planning Fees that would typically be charged on the front end of a project before financing can be obtained would be deferred to the building permit stage, increasing the gross recovery in the Planning department to 61%. Assuming the same volume of fee related activity that occurred in FY 2014 -15, the proposed changes would generate an additional $2.7 million annually. Ms. Wagner briefly reviewed each of the departments individually. Fire prevention services, which are comprised of annual fire inspections of commercial properties as well as fire plan check fees, are administered by Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) and cost the city just under $1 million in FY 2014 -15. Unlike other jurisdictions, Pleasanton elected not to collect fees for annual fire inspections or pass through annual CUPA costs to commercial property owners when LPFD formed in 1998. While Pleasanton collected only $62,500 for fire prevention services in FY 2014 -15, the City of Livermore City Council Minutes Page 4 of 18 June 16, 2015