My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
04
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
011607
>
REGULAR MEETING
>
04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2007 12:01:47 PM
Creation date
1/11/2007 1:27:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/16/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
<br />City is in the process of reviewing its water and sewer connection fees and the findings will be presented <br />to the City Council in spring of2007. <br /> <br />Building & Safety User Fees <br /> <br />Initially, the only fees that staff analyzed were the Building & Safety User Fees. In order to do this Staff <br />calculated the fees based on the following scenarios: <br /> <br />. New Residential Home - 3,000 square feet with an 800 square foot garage <br />. New Commercial Office Building - 50,000 square feet (2 story building) <br />. Residential Re-roofbased on a valuation of the new roofof$13,000 <br />. Commercial Tenant Improvements for a 2-story office building based on a valuation of the <br />improvements of $950,000. <br /> <br />The results of the comparison are included in Appendix A and show that the City's Building & Safety <br />user fees are fairly comparable to other Tri- Valley cities and the other cities along the 680 Corridor. <br />However, during the study it came to Staff's attention that the fees charged in the Engineering -Private <br />Development and Inspection programs, and the Planning Department were considerably lower than <br />surrounding jurisdictions and was an area that needed further review. <br /> <br />Engineering -Private Development and Inspection Fees and Planning Department Fees <br /> <br />As a result of staff's findings it was decided to expand the study to include private development fees <br />collected in the Engineering-Private Development and Inspection programs and the Planning <br />Department. In order to do this Staff calculated the related fees for a single family residential <br />subdivision with 12 lots. The results of this comparison are included in Appendix B and show that the <br />fees collected in this area are considerably lower than surrounding jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Finally, it came to Staff's attention that a similar study had been done for seven South Bay cities- <br />Fremont, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale by the Home Builders <br />Association for the 2004/05FY. The sample projects that they compared fees were as follows: <br /> <br />. Residential addition/alteration <br />. 50-unit single-family residential tract development <br />. 96-unit multi-family (townhouse) residential project <br />. Commercial tenant improvement project <br />. An industrial research and development facility. <br /> <br />Staff decided to develop the operating user fees for each of the five scenarios for the City and insert <br />Pleasanton in the comparison. The results of this comparison are included in Appendix C. The results <br />indicate that our fees overall are low in comparison to the other jurisdictions in the area of multifamily <br />housing projects, commercial tenant improvements and industrial research and development projects. <br />While we have not had an inordinate amount of multifamily housing projects and industrial research and <br />development projects in the past several years, commercial tenant improvements are a large percentage <br />of the permits issued annually in the City. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.