My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061615
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN061615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2015 3:09:47 PM
Creation date
7/29/2015 3:09:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
because engineering and public works inspection fees are paid at the time a permit is pulled, which is <br /> sometimes up to 18 months in advance of when those services are provided so there is not always <br /> direct connection between fees generated and service costs within the same fiscal year. She also noted <br /> that the Finance Committee requested that some fees be increased over what was originally <br /> recommended by staff in an attempt to increase cost recovery. Pleasanton currently has no fee for <br /> onsite improvements for private development, which going forward would be billed at 3% of the value of <br /> improvement. As proposed, the city's current final map review fees would increase from $600 plus $50 <br /> per lot to $4,500 plus $30 per lot. While there is no 5-city average due to time and materials based <br /> fees, the City of Fremont collects an initial deposit of$15,000 for the same service. <br /> The total cost of Building and Safety fee related services, including indirect costs and fees, totaled just <br /> under$5 million in FY 2014-15. As already mentioned, staff is proposing to increase cost recovery from <br /> 75% to 100%. As fees are based on the cost valuation of a project, new construction valuation tables <br /> would be annually adjusted using the CCI to stay abreast of changes in construction pricing. However, <br /> new construction only represents about 18% of the permits issued today versus the 25% when the <br /> study was prepared. All other permits for additions and renovations are based on the applicant's <br /> valuation, despite the interpretive nature of that valuation and the fact that some projects require the <br /> same number of site visits regardless of the stated value. Staff is therefore proposing to increase the <br /> minimum fee from $23.50 to $85 and to implement a flat fee for 4 types of permits impacting <br /> homeowners: kitchen remodels, bathroom remodels, reroofing and swimming pools. Electrical, <br /> plumbing and mechanical permit surcharges would be based on a percentage of the building permit fee <br /> as opposed to the current method of counting actual fixtures. Staff is also proposing the implementation <br /> of new technology fee which will help to maintain and upgrade the permit center computer hardware <br /> and software and to support the archiving of property documents and permits. Under the proposed fee <br /> increases, building and safety fees on a new 2,000 square foot house would increase from <br /> approximately $5,251 to $6,042. The 5-city fee average is $6,426. <br /> Councilmember Pentin remarked that Walnut Creek seemed to be consistently more expensive than <br /> the other cities used for comparative purposes and thought it might be worthwhile to see an average <br /> excluding this. <br /> Ms. Wagner explained that Walnut Creek is quite comparable in terms of how costs are allocated <br /> amongst departments. She also pointed out that Walnut Creek underwent this same type of fee study <br /> several years ago, which could explain why their fees are higher than those cities who have not. <br /> Ms. Wagner stated that staff met with the Financial Audit Committee several times prior to bring this to <br /> the Council on April 7, 2015. At that time, the Council directed the staff to present the study to the <br /> Economic Vitality Committee (May 20, 2015) and the Economic Development and Government <br /> Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce (April 28, 2015). For the most part, both <br /> committees acknowledged that the proposed fee schedule was reasonable considering the length of <br /> time since the last increase. There was some philosophical opposition to the idea that the city should <br /> achieve 100% cost recovery for development services, given that development generates ample <br /> revenues and other benefits to the city. They also requested more focus on the implementing the 8 <br /> remaining recommendations of the CSRT, which the City Manager's office has assured they would <br /> continue to do. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that acknowledgement of the staff report and <br /> attachments, which outline the remaining CSRT recommendations, serves as the Council's tacit <br /> approval that these issues will be worked on and implemented over the next 12 months. <br /> Mayor Thorne requested clarification on the implementation of the fee schedule, pending the zoning <br /> code update. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 6 of 16 June 16,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.