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 />Full Cost Recovery <br /> <br />Most of the seven cities that participated in this survey have fee structures that are intended to recover <br />the full cost of providing development related services (see Table I). The exception is the City of <br />Milpitas, which has some flat fees that recover an average of 50% of costs. Services for most <br />development projects in Milpitas, however, are funded through full cost recovery Project Development <br />Accounts that require initial deposits that are expended on a time and materials basis. <br /> <br />Other cities with operating fee structures that are intended to be cost recovery are not meeting that goal <br />because of revenue shortfalls in certain sectors. Gilroy's Planning Department (75-90%) and Fire <br />PreventionlHazMat (90%) sections are not fully recovering costs. Santa Clara's fee structure is <br />currently around 80% cost recovery. Fremont and San Jose, have 100% cost recovery. Five of the <br />agencies - Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale proposed fee increases in <br />2005/06FY to maintain or move closer to full cost recovery. Morgan Hill, which has an enterprise fund <br />for its development services, has been phasing in Planning fee increases toward full cost recovery and <br />had a 20% increase in fees in 2005/06FY. Fremont also has an enterprise fund for its development <br />services to help it utilize full cost recovery of its costs. <br /> <br />Table 1 <br /> <br />2004-05 South Bay Area Cost of Development Survey Overview <br />Development Service Fee Cost Recovery Status <br /> <br /> 04-05 Cost Recoverv <br />Fremont 100% <br />Gilroy <br />Building & Engineering 100% <br />Planning RanlZe is between 75% & 90% <br />MilDitas 85%* <br />Moman Hill BldlZ-IOO% / Panning-53% <br />San Jose 100% <br />Santa Clara 80% <br />Sunnvvale 100% averalZe <br /> <br />*Project development accounts 100%; flat fees 50% <br /> <br />The final exercise was to calculate the City's percentage of cost recovery in the areas of Building <br />Inspection, Fire Inspection, Private Development and Inspection-Engineering and Current Planning and <br />Enforcement. Table 2 presents this information. As one can see, the City is considerably below a 100% <br />cost recovery of development related costs of service in all areas except Building & Safety Division <br />fees. It should be noted that the General Fund, therefore, subsidies or makes up the difference in the <br />cost of providing these services to the development community, residences and businesses who are <br />remodeling and/or repairing their homes and commercial space. <br /> <br />Next Steps <br /> <br />Since the preparation of this information, the City has begun the process of hiring a firm to complete a <br />Cost Allocation Study and User Fee Study for the City. Staff has incorporated the findings from this <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.