Laserfiche WebLink
Master Fee Schedule. As proposed, the fees would be increased annually using the CCI starting <br /> January 1, 2017 and staff and the Council will review fees biannually as part of the 2-year budget <br /> process to work towards the goal of full cost recovery. Staff is also requesting that the Council direct <br /> staff to review these findings and recommendations with the Chamber of Commerce and Economic <br /> Vitality Committee, incorporate their comments into the report, and return to the Council on June 16, <br /> 2015 to approval as part of the 2-year budget review. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked if the new technology fee would be a separate line item or embedded within <br /> the overall fee structure. <br /> Ms. Wagner referred her to pages 4 and 5 the Master Fee Schedule, explaining that the fee would be a <br /> 5% surcharge on the total of all fees associated with a particular permit. She made a point to thank <br /> management staff from the various departments involved for all of their hard work. <br /> Mayor Thome opened and closed the public hearing. <br /> Mayor Thome said that Pleasanton has acquired a reputation for being a very expensive place to do <br /> business and obtain permits, and hope this report would shed some light on the inaccuracy of that <br /> assessment. He said it is also important that people recognize that a significant portion of costs of <br /> doing business is related to pass through fees that go to other agencies. <br /> Councilmember Narum said she supported the proposed appeal fee increase but asked that staff <br /> consider refunding all, or least a substantial portion, of that if an appeal is successful. She explained <br /> that the intent is eliminate some of the less substantive appeals the city has seen rather than punish <br /> people for bringing those that are truly legitimate. She also thought the CUP fee increase ($150 to <br /> $3,000) was too steep given the city's outdated zoning code. She thought the majority of CUP <br /> applicants were likely small businesses who could struggle with a fee this high, particularly once added <br /> to their other fees. She said she supported a review by the Chamber of Commerce and Economic <br /> Vitality Committee but thought the public could benefit from having the opportunity to attend even one <br /> open meeting on the matter. <br /> The Mayor and Vice Mayor felt that this meeting as well as the one on June 16`h should be sufficient. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown said it was incredible to learn that the General Fund has essentially subsidized these <br /> activities to the tune of $4.5 million per year which, assuming a population of 72,000, equates to a per <br /> capita subsidy of $63.70. She said she was very pleased to with staff's careful analysis and <br /> recommendations and is excited to get closer to the goal of full cost recovery. <br /> Councilmember Olson said that from a business perspective it is simply unconscionable that the city <br /> has not increased these fees in over 20 years. Based on that, as well as staffs careful control over <br /> costs, he strongly supported the proposed fee structure. <br /> MOTION: It was m/s by Pentin/Olson to approve the staff recommendation to review the recommended <br /> increases in user fees for development related services and direct staff to review the findings and <br /> recommendations with the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce and the City's Economic Vitality <br /> Committee; incorporate their comments in the report and return to the City Council in June, 2015 with a <br /> recommended updated Master Fee Schedule for Council's approval. Motion passed by the following <br /> vote: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Brown, Narum, Olson, Pentin, Mayor Thorne <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> City Council Agenda Page 10 of 11 April 07,2015 <br />