CCMIN061615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pleasanton collected only $62,500 for fire prevention services in FY 2014-15, the City of Livermore collected something closer to $700,000-$800,000 for the same services administered by the same personnel. Staff is therefore proposing to adopt the same fees charged in Livermore. She provided several examples of the proposed increase, noting that the city would still be either near equal to or well below the 5-city fee average. She presented an overview of the Planning Division's service costs and proposed fees. The total cost of planning services in FY 2014-15 just exceeded $2.2 million, of which only $1.5 million is fee related. Unrelated activity is mainly attributable to things like advanced planning or long-range land use planning such as General Plan or Housing Element updates. Currently, the city recovers only 7% of its Planning cost of services through fee related charges. Most cities achieve cost recovery of approximately 75%, with few reaching 100% largely due to the cost of appeals. Staff is recommending a 25% rate of recovery during the planning stage of a project as well as deferment of 36% to the building permit stage for a total cost recovery rate of 61%. CUP fees are proposed to increase from $150 to $3,000 versus a 5-city fee average of$5,158. The City of Livermore currently charges $10,590. Tentative tract map fees are proposed to increase from a flat rate of$2,000 plus $10 per lot to a flat fee of $4,640. The 5-city average is $8,468. She noted that many of the comparison agencies charge for time and materials, with an initial deposit, versus a flat fee. In addition to being an administrative burden, time and materials based charges were not supported by the Chamber of Commerce or Economic Vitality Committee due to the high level of fee uncertainty associated with this methodology. Councilmember Pentin noted that a number of the recommendations of the Customer Service Review Team (CSRT) have yet to be accomplished, one of which is the zoning code update. He expressed concern that the increase in CUP fees was significant and perhaps an onerous jump, and asked whether many of the businesses currently requiring a CUP could expect that to change with the update. He specifically expressed concern that increasing this fee prior to the update could be putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Mr. Fialho explained that the zoning code update may involve changing certain discretionary conditional uses to permitted uses, which would allow those businesses to secure their permit over the counter rather than having to go before the Planning Commission. Recognizing this, staff is also proposing as part of this recommendation to establish an Administrative CUP, which is a new category that anticipates some level of over the counter permitting that would not involve the Planning Commission, with a fee of $750. However, the actual definition of those uses would not occur until the zoning code update which is expected to take place over the next 12 months. The Council may adopt these proposed fees now or defer the decision to a later time. Ms. Wagner noted that when this item came before the Council on April 7, 2015 Councilmember Narum made several requests that were incorporated into the study. The first was for an administrative type CUP with a lower fee, as described by Mr. Fialho. However until those uses are defined all CUP applicants would be subject to the $3,000 fee. The second was that the appeals fee, proposed to increase to $250, would be refunded in full if an appeal is successful. Mr. Fialho added that the update is not identified as a priority on the City Council's Work Plan. However, staff has operated under the logic that this would likely be added following removal of the EPSP. If this is the desire, the Council could ask under Matters Initiated that staff retum with an amendment accomplishing this addition. Ms. Wagner continued her presentation, stating that the total cost of Engineering services in FY 2014- 15 was approximately $4.9 million of which only a little less than $1 million was fee related activity. Additional indirect costs, mainly attributed to the city's Capital Improvement Program, increase the recovery target to $1.3 million. This division currently recovers 22% in fee related charges as compared to most cities who use time and materials based fees to achieve full cost recovery. Staff is proposing increases that would achieve a recovery rate of 43%. She explained that this is a conservative estimate City Council Minutes Page 5 of 18 June 16,2015