HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1993/03/16
March 10, 1993
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
John D. Goss, City Manager ~
City Council Meeting of March 16, 1993
This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council
meeting of Tuesday, March 16, 1993. Comments regarding the Written
Communications are as follows:
Sa. This is a letter requesting that the City urge the California Supreme
Court to accept review of a case challenging the constitutionality of (1)
the Fiscal Year 92-93 State Budget Law which diverted property taxes from
cities and redevelopment agencies to replace the State's constitutional
obligation to fund public education; and (2) establish the authority of a
Charter City to put a local tax on tobacco. The City Attorney's Office
believes that it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to review
these issues. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO WRITE A
LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT URGING THEM TO ACCEPT THIS CASE FOR REVIEW.
JDG:mab
"~.~
~l
. "
Gateu'o,J
to tbe
San Gabriel I'alley
J/J
South First Street
Alhambra
Ca/~rornia
918lil
City of Alhambra
'.
February 26, 1993
;
f
1993 o!
_.~._. ~ "VEO
, -"
-- , '
"'3 Pl2:49
Honorable Mayor & Members of the City COuncil_
Note: This Letter is being sent to all cities in
California
Dear Mayor & COuncilmembers: ~!rY OF CHIJLA ViSTA
On February 24, the City of Alhambra and the Alhambra Red~Ve~~S OFFICE
Agency filed an Original Writ/Conplaint with the California Supreme Court
challenging the constitutionality of the IT 92/93 State &Idget Legisla-
tion which diverted property taxes from cities and redevelopment agencies
to replace the State's constitutional obligation to fund public educa-
tion. The case is entitled City of Alhambra v. Ikemoto, Case No.
5031350.
The lawsuit, as it relates to cities, is based upon the constitutional
provisions which prohibit the State from using city property tax to fund
state obligations. In particular, the case is designed to reaffirm the
Horne Rule pa.vers of a city under Article XI of the state COnstitution to
receive and control local tax revenues. The lawsuit asserts that
property taxes are local taxes which may not be used for non-local
purposes .
The argument with regard to redevelopment agencies is that Article XVI
section 16 of the State COnstitution prohibits the use of tax increment
funds generated by redevelopment areas for any use other than the direct
benefit of the redevelopment area from which the tax is generated.
This action also challenges the State's ability to preenpt local taxes on
toba=. The pa.ver of a city to irrpose local taxes has long been one of
the fundamental tenets of the Horne Rule D=trine and is supported by
extensive case law. We argue that there is no statewide interest served
by prohibiting local taxation on toba=.
We urge all cities to write a letter to the SUpreme COurt requesting that
the Court hear this matter. since the COurt may decide whether or not to
hear this case in a short period of time, the letter should be sent imme-
diately. We believe that the preservation of property tax revenue as
local revenue, which this case seeks to establish, is a crucial issue to
all cities.
Any questions, please contact Julio J. FUentes, City Manager, at (818)
570-5010, or Leland C. Dolley, City Attorney, at (213) 236-2711.
Sincerely,
CITY OF JII.HAMBRA
~C;~dJ
MIOlAEL A. BIANCC
CC! 5 (~
~ f?i< ~~~
~J p"nted on ,e;y{.ldi(.l,e, /J ~
SJ;' if G~ ~tI .
WRlnEN COMMUNIC~~T50.NS
h
5a,-j ~07
I
.,.)
" '::J
P.O. Box 351
Alhambra
91802-2351
to- 9.1\11 f.fl
1i'i:)
IT I:)
(?/) iJ.?
--...'/ / c/,J (~,~>lj ,/
/;7. ~"
.:/~z- :
,75:'/
c.../7'
A r-.,
/ ".Y. /'\ .r ,./ ")
(," L./~' ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 3/16/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I ') ().3/ Appropriating $19,424.00 from the
unappropriated balance of the general fund reserves for payment
of the additional costs for the 11/3/92 election.
SUBMITTED BY: City ClerkY (4/5ths Vote: Yes..x.. No_)
On November 3, 1992, the City held a Municipal Election. At that election, the City
elected two council members plus considered five propositions.
RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the Resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
At the time the 1992 budget was prepared, the Registrar of Voters estimated the cost
for Chula Vista's municipal election to be $23,307. This figure was obtained by not
only looking at the number of registered voters in the City, but also estimating how
many State items would also be on the ballot since even-numbered year elections are
consolidated with the state and federal elections. This year there were fewer State
Propositions on the ballot than expected, making the cost of the City's election
considerably higher.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is requested that Council appropriate the additional $19,424.00
needed to pay for the 11/3/92 election from the unappropriated balance of the general
fund reserves to the 100-0170-5202 account.
attach.
Invoice
Resolution
~-J /6-;"
RESOLUTION NO.
17~:JJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $19,424.00 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND
RESERVES FOR PAYMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL COSTS
FOR THE 11/3/92 ELECTION
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1992, the City held a
Election for the election of two councilmembers
consideration of five propositions; and
Municipal
plus the
WHEREAS, at the time the 1992 budget was prepared, the
Registrar of Voters estimated the cost for Chula vista's municipal
election to be $23,307; and
WHEREAS, there were fewer State Propositions on the
ballot than expected, making the cost of the City'S election
considerably higher, and it is necessary to appropriate an
additional $19,424.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby appropriate $19,424.00 from the
unappropriated balance of the General Fund into Account 100-0170-
5202 for payment of the additional costs for the 11/3/92 election.
Presented by
Beverly Authelet, city Clerk
P:\home\attorney\eleccoat
~-;? /i-1
"
~o''''''.''
i ' _\
~ _::, ~,;r;;
~~!
'\~~, ' :"
"'''ceo-''
Invoice No. 034- 1243
Date Februarv 12 ,19.2}
'\, \/, \...;'
/--( \ ,~/ /1
\I (; ""',\
t~' (, ,-:"'\~,, " \j
~- \~ ,
~_) Ji)..
~ A~untin~ Section
(619) 694-3424
(!!nuttt~ of ~&tt ~ iegn
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
5201.1 RUFFIN ROAD. SAN DIEGO. CA 92123
INVOICE FOR ELECTION OR OTHER SERVICES
TO: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
QS2
-.-
-<-<
no
r- "TI
mC")
::u~
AC
v>r"
0)>
"<:
:=(7)
C"').-
rn-
.-
~
Ea
t:l
:0
ITI
o
ITI
<
ITI
o
;a
o
o
IX)
Date of Service November 3 ,1992
FUND 100100 ORG 4232
ACCOUNT 0124 ACTIVITY 041022
OPTION 208
This is to bill you for the following services:
Election services provided for November 3, 1992 Presidential Election.
Please remit within 30 days.
I AMOUNT
I Dollars I Cents I
I 16,900100 I
1 13,011100 I
I 1. 2041 00 I
I ?,7g71 00 I
I <;enl nn I
I 1,274100 I
I 151100 I
I 83100 I
1 6.778100 I
I 42.731100 I
1 ::>1.107100 I
.1 19,424100 I
DESCRiPTION
Labor
Sample 8al1o~Candidate Statement costs are $2.451)
printinq: Official Ballot & Other
Posta<]e:
Rpntrll ^' Rqllipmpnt-
Supplies
Misc. Costs
Legal Ads
Administrative Costs
Total Costs
Less Deposit
TOTAL. qu~
NUMBER OF PRECINCTS
NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS
Note:
The detail of the costs shown are available for your inspection at
the Registrar of Voters Department.
ROV-9211-2 {4/87l
~ ..f'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 3/16/93
ITEM TITLE: Resolution I 7 ~ ;J). of the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, authorizing issuance of bonds, approving forms of bond
indenture, bond purchase contract and preliminary official statement for
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ ~
Director of Finance tf>
REVIEWED BY: City Manager tf (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No...KJ
At the meeting of June 30, 1992, Council approved Resolution 16708 authorizing issuance of
bonds for Assessment District No. 90-2, Otay Valley Road. Delays in the project make it
necessary for Council to again authorize issuance of bonds.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Background
In May of 1990, Council approved agreements between an assessment team and the City to begin
proceedings under the 1913/1915 Acts to establish an assessment district and use bond proceeds
to fund improvements on Otay Valley Road east of 1-805. On June 23, 1992, the assessment
district was formed and on June 30, 1992 the construction contract was awarded. In conjunction
with that action, Council approved a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds, approving the
forms of the bond indenture, official statement and bond purchase contract. That approval was
valid through September 2, 1992. Due to delays caused by pending litigation, that authorization
expired prior to bond sale consequently it is necessary for Council to approve the resolution
agam.
Resolution
Tonight's action will continue the legislative proceedings of the Otay Valley Road Assessment
District. Through the approval of this resolution, the following will generally be accomplished:
1. The RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS,
APPROVING THE BOND INDENTURE, OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND
BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT authorizes the issuance of 1915 Act
bonds in the amount of the unpaid assessments following the 30-day cash
?-/
Page 2, ItemL
Meeting Date 3/16/93
payment period, approves the bond indenture, which sets forth the
conditions and covenants of the bond issue, and the Official Statement,
which is the disclosure document about the assessment district and bonds,
in substantially final form, and approves the sale of the bonds to the firm of
Stone & Youngberg, subject to the determination of the amount of bonds to
be issued and the interest rates thereon. Following the final pricing of the
bond interest rates, the indenture and Official Statement will be completed
and executed on behalf of the Council by the Director of Finance.
In conjunction with authorizing issuance of bonds, staff presents for approval updated bond
indenture, official statement and bond purchase contract reflecting changes outlined below which
have occurred since prior approval in June of 1992.
1. Bond Indenture
The bond indenture has been revised to reflect that staff anticipates issuing Series C
bonds in addition to Series A and B bonds, Series A for Phase I construction, Series B
for Assessment Nos. 25-41 (Darling Delaware properties) and Series C for Phase II
construction. Series A is being authorized by tonight's action. Series B will be issued
upon environmental clearance of the Darling Delaware properties pursuant to the
agreement approved on March 9, 1993 by Council. Their assessments are covered by
an advance of City funds (Resolution 16706) until such time that Series B bonds are
issued. Series C will be issued upon the need for funds to construct Phase II
improvements (Nirvana Avenue to the eastern City limits). Staff recommends that there
be Series A and C bond issues for Phase I and II construction to reduce the cost of
capitalized interest to the property owners. It will also reduce the costs to the City
should the City proceed to purchase property in Otay Rio Business Park Phase II for the
corporation yard.
2. Purchase Agreement
The purchase agreement reflects the changes described above.
3. Preliminary Official Statement
The official statement reflects information regarding hazardous waste and groundwater
contamination and will reflect additional appraisal information obtained on Otay Rio
Business Park Phase I. Other minor changes have been made.
A copy of all documents are on file in the Clerk's office for Council's review.
7 '" .:J.
Page 3, Item1-
Meeting Date 3/16/93
Future Actions
Future actions shall include:
1. Advertising for bids and awarding contracts for construction of Phase II
improvements and for construction of the traffic signal at 1-805.
2. Authorizing issuance of Series B and C bonds.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project (Phases I and II)
is $13,084,504. Prior contributions to this project total $5,292,867 plus $422,500 for the
Darling Delaware properties. The balance of funds needed, $7,120,280, will be obtained from
bond proceeds.
An outline of funding sources is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
RDA 996-9960 ST-123, 123A, OVool, $1,765,167(4)
RD205
RDA 996-9960 ST -123 (slopes/improvements) 775,807
Assessment No. 7 19,367
RDA TF-220 89,300
TSF TF-220, TF-208 100,000(4)
Sewer Fund 222 1,161,00lP)
SDG&E 20A 320,0000>
SDG&E 20A Oleander to Nirvana 642,226(3)
Sewer Fund 222 420,000(1)
TOTAL $5,292,867")
0) This is a previously approved loan to the district which is to be repaid from
future Transportation DIF for Otay Ranch area.
(2) This is a previously approved loan to the district to be reimbursed by SB-
300 funds upon completion of construction.
~) Estimated cost of SDG&E work equals estimated allocation of 20A funds
available for project from SDG&E.
(4) Amounts include money already encumbered for the project.
(S) Approved by Resolutions 16706, 16725, and 16886.
The City will advance a maximum of $422,500 from Fund 996-9960-ST123 (RDA) to cover the
Series B bonds. The Series B bonds are to cover the Rio Otay Subdivision. These bonds will
?"';:J
Page 4, Item ?
Meeting Date 3/16/93
be issued when the site is cleared of the environmental concerns. This money will be recovered
if these bonds are issued.
Assessment No.7 is the animal shelter property (City property). Staff recommended that this
be paid off during the cash collection period at a cost of $19,367. This will come from Fund
996-9960-ST123 (RDA) and is included in Table 1 above.
The City has obligated approximately $671 ,357 of General Fund money to cure any deficiency
or delinquency which may occur in the Redemption Fund by failure of property owners to pay
annual assessments. This is a Limited City Pledge. Funds so advanced shall be reimbursed to
the City from payments of delinquent assessments and/or the proceeds of the redemption or sale
of the parcel or parcels for which payment of delinquent assessment installments was made from
City funds.
N)!.IJ
AITACHMENTS, 1lo.110it SCA.N~
A - Counoil report dated 6-30-92 !."' C .. 1lo.1NED
B - R"oluti"" 16708 1'\01 S ~..
WPC F:\homc\engineer\agenda\bonds.ovr
?_L/
.
.
.
Rc..v i~e-O
AgeNOf\ IT<:.rI\
t=t7
RESOLUTION NO. 17032
RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIPORNIA, BSTABLISHING TBRMS
AND CONDITIONS !!'OR PINAL PRICING AND DBLIVERY
OF BONDS IN ASSESSMBNT DISTRICT NO. 90-2
(OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
--- . ----.----
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, has previously confirmed assessments in a special
assessment district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the state of California, said special
assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment
District"); and,
1fHI!:REAS, this City Council has also previously, by resolution,
authorized the issuance of bonds, said bonds to issue pursuant to
the terms and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915",
being Division 10 of said Code; and,
WHEREAS, the final delivery of bonds was delayed by litigation,
and at this time this City COuncil is desirous to proceed to estab-
lish the final terms and conditions as it relates to the pricing and
delivery of said bonds to the designated underwriter, Stone"
Youngberg.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS !!'OLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the sale and delivery of the bonds to Stone ,
Youngberg is hereby approved pursuant to the terms of. the Bond
Purchase Agreement previously submitted by Stone " Youngberg and
subject to modifications as necessary and approved by the Finance
Director. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to estab-
lish the final pricing of the bonds and to execute and deliver the
Bond Purchase Agreement. Acceptance of the final Bond Purchase
Agreement ehall be evidenced by the execution and delivery of the
Agreement by the Pinene. Director on behalf of the City.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
John P. Lippitt
Public Works Director
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
7-5
~
(j[
7-C, ~
'!!'
7~S"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~~
SUBMITTED BY:
Meeting Date 6-30-92
ITEM TITLE: a) Resolution I~"D~ Authorizing various appropriations of
funds for Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
b) Resolution 1l,,'10i of the City Council of the City of
Chula vista, Cal ifornia, awarding the contract for the
construction of certain publ ic works of improvement in
Assessment District No. 90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
c) Resolution 1\01 Cd' of the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista, California, authorizing issuance of bonds,
approvi ng forms of bond indenture, bond purchase contract and
preliminary official statement for Assessment District No.
90-2 (Otay Valley Road)
Director of Public Wo~~ ~
Director of Finance ~;;
( ,'~
City Manager. j(, l':)'I...!Jj {4/5ths Vote: Yes-LNo_>
REVIEWED BY:
At 2:00 p.m. on April 8, 1992 in the Public Services Building the Director of
Publ ic Works received sealed bids for "The improvement of Assessment District
90-2 (Otay Valley Road) from 1-805 to 1,200 feet east of Nirvana Avenue in the
City of Chula Vista, California".
Since the Council established the Otay Valley Road Assessment District 90-2 at
the public hearing last week, it is now appropriate to award the construction
contract for the first phase of the project. In order to award the
construction contract, it is necessary that the bond funds for the contract be
assured. The approval of the bond sale agreement, preliminary official
statement and bond indenture fulfi 11 that requi rement. It is also appropri ate
to authorize the various City appropriations and transfers.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Descriotion of Work
The improvement of Otay Valley Road - Phase I includes widening the roadway to
six lanes from 1-805 to Nirvanna Avenue and includes curb, gutter, sidewalk,
medians, drainage facilities, undergrounding of utilities and construction of
all the pertinent other work as may be necessary to render the above
improvements complete and workable.
ATTACHMENT A
~ ?..~
Page 2, Item ~
Meeting Date~
Bid Results
On April 8, 1992, 11 bids were received for construction of the improvements
on Otay Valley Road. A summary of the bids are listed below:
1. Granite Construction Company - Lemon Grove
2. C.W. McGrath, Inc. - El Cajon
3. RLF, Inc. - San Di ego
4. R.E. Hazard Contracting Co. - San Diego
5. Southland Paving, Inc. - Escondido
6. Erreca's, Inc.- Spring Valley
7. L.R. Hubbard Construction Co., Inc. - San Diego
8. Kiewit Pacific Co. - Vancouver, Washington
9. Daley Corporation - San Diego
10. Cass Construction, Inc. - El Cajon
11. Drainage Construction Co., Inc. - Vista
$4,319,428.00
4,442,946.32
4,517,899.00
4,591,121.95
4,604,260.83
4,747,158.00
4,801,765.87
4,849,963.00
4,977,718.50
5,201,758.65
5,241,859.50
The low bid submitted by Granite Construction Co. is below the Engineer's
estimate of $6,305,743 by $1,986,315 or 31.5%. We have reviewed the low bid
and recommend awarding the contract to Granite Construction Co.
The low bid by Granite Construction included a minor irregularity in that the
complete listing of the addresses for the subcontractor was not included with
the bid. However, the name of the company and the type of work the
subcontractor was to perform was i ncl uded. The contractor has subsequently
provided the City with the complete address of each of the subcontractors.
Thi s is cons idered a very mi nor i rregul arity in the bid. Many contractors,
when submitting the bid, fail to provide the complete addresses of their
subcontractors. It is recommended that Council wai ve thi s omi ss i on as an
insufficient deviation from the bid specifications.
Attached is a copy of the Contractor's Disclosure Statement.
Disadvantaoed Business Enterorises
The bid documents for thi s project requi re the contractor to have
di sadvantaged bus i ness enterpri ses perform 15% of the work or show a good
fa ith effort by the contractor to sol i cit such part i ci pat ion. Attached as
Exhibit A is a memo from Chris Salomone, Community Development Director,
regarding the review of Granite Construction's effort to meet the DBE
participation requirements for the Otay Valley Road widening project. His
conclusion is while the goal of 15% DBE participation was not met by Granite
Construction they showed good faith and effort toward the goal with 11.1%
qualified and certified DBE participation.
Fundino for Proiect
In order to award the construction contract, it is necessary that the funds
required for that contract be assured. For this reason, the approval of the
bond sale agreement, subject to the final amount of bonds to be issued and the
~ 7;ltJ
Page 3, Item d. ~
Meeting Date 6-30-92
prlclng of the interest rates thereon, is recommended at this time. The
actual amount of bonds to be issued will be based on the amount of unpaid
assessments remaining after the 30-day cash payment period has closed on July
27, 1992. Following the close of the 30-day cash payment period, the interest
rates on the bonds will be finalized, subject to the approval of the Director
of Finance, and the bonds will be delivered to the underwriter in mid-August.
At the May 26th hearing the Council determined that the City would provide the
equivalent of the bond reserve fund. This amounts to approximately 10% of the
amount of bonds issued. Following the close of the 30-day cash payment
period, the amount of the City commitment will be reported to the Council.
At the Council meeting of May 23, 1992 Council approved the following
recommendations which are reflected in the fiscal impact:
1. Approve credits for slopes.
2. Approve credits for improvements.
3. Approve future transportation DIF for the Otay Ranch area to be charged
$420,000.
4. Agree to contribute any County contribution or funds from future cost
recovery di stri ct or savi ngs in project costs to help reduce annual
assessment payments.
The necessary appropriations for these recommendations and the modifications
approved on May 26th, 1992 are incorporated in the resolution appropriating
funds.
Resolutions
Tonight's action will complete the legislative proceedings for the Otay Valley
Road Assessment Di stri ct. Through the approval of these resol ut ions, the
following will generally be accomplished:
1. The RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VARIOUS APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANSFERS outl ines
the transfer of funds which must be made to the Improvement Fund.
2. The RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT will award the contract
for the construct i on of the Otay Valley Road - Phase I improvements to
Granite Construction Co. for the amount of $4,319,428.00.
3. The RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, APPROVING THE BOND
INDENTURE, OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT authorizes the
issuance of 1915 Act bonds in the amount of the unpaid assessments
foll owi ng the 30-day cash payment period, approves the bond indenture,
which sets forth the conditions and covenants of the bond issue, and the
Official Statement, which is the disclosure document about the assessment
district and bonds, in substantially final form, and approves the sale of
~ 7'//
Page 4, Item 02-'1
Meeting Date 6-30-92
the bonds to the firm of Stone & Youngberg, subject to the determination
of the amount of bonds to be issued and the interest rates thereon.
Following the final pricing of the bond interest rates, the indenture and
Official Statement will be completed and executed on behalf of the
Council by the Director of Finance.
Future Actions
Future actions shall include:
1. Advertising for bids for construction of Phase II and construction of the
signal at I-80S (3-6 months).
2. Staff returning to Council after the 30 day cash collection period to
report the Reserve amount.
3. Staff reviewing the "credits" for Mr. Cushman's property, J.T. Racing's
property, and Mr. Teyssier's property. Staff will return on July 21,
1992 with a recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total cost of the Otay Valley Road project
(Phases I & II) is $13,132,428. It is proposed that the City and RDA
contribute $5,244,779 of this total, leaving $7,170,590 to be assessed to the
district. The contribution will come from the following sources:
TABLE "A"
RDA 996 9960 ST-123,
123A, OVOOl, RD205
RDA 996-9960-ST-123
RDA TF 220
TSF TF 220, TF 208
SEWER FUND 222
SDG&E 20A
SDG&E 20A Oleander
to Nirvana
Sewer Fund 222
$I, 765,167(4)
747,086
89,300
100,000(4)
1,161,000<2>
320,000<3>
642,226<3>
420,000<1>
$5,244,779
(1) This is 8 loan to the distdct which is to be repaid from
future Transportation DIF for Otay Ranch area.
(2) This is 8 loan to the district to be reimbursed by 58 300
funds upon completion of construction.
(3) Estimated cost of SDG&E work equals estimated at Location of
20A funds available for project from SDG&E.
(4) Amounts include money already encumbered for the project.
~ ?,IJ.
Page 5, Item ~1
Meeting Date 6-30-92
In addit i on to the above contri but ions, the City will advance a maximum of
$422,500 from fund 996-9960-STl23 (RDA) to cover the Seri es B bonds. The
. Series B bonds are to cover the Rio Otay Subdivision. These bonds will be
issued when the site is cleared of the environmental concerns. This money
will be recovered if these bonds are issued. The City will also obligate a
maximum of $717,059 to the district reserve fund from the General Fund.
Assessment No. 7 is the animal shelter property (City property). Staff
recommends that this be paid off during the cash collection period at a cost
of $20,262 less financing costs. This will come from Fund 996-9960-STl23
(RDA).
The slope credit option, requires that the City contribute $435,382 to the
district. The revised improvement cost option, requires that the City
contribute $311,704 to the district. Total impact of these two options is
$747,086. This is reflected in the table "A" above.
DDS:AY-081
WPC 604SE
~ 7"'/;1
-
RESOLUTION NO. 16708
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS,
APPROVING FORMS OF BOND INDENTURE, BOND PURCHASE
CONTRACT AND PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD)
'l\'
.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, is
conducting proceedings for the installation of certain public improvements in a
special assessment district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the
"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and
Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment district known
and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-2 (OTAY VALLEY ROAD) (hereinafter
referred to as the "Assessment District"); and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body has previously declared in its Resolution
of Intention to issue bonds to finance said improvements, said bonds to issue
pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being
Division 10 of said Code; and,
WHEREAS, at this time this legislative body is desirous to set forth all
formal terms and conditions relating to the authorization, issuance and
administration of said bonds; and,
WHEREAS, there has been presented, considered and ready for approval a bond
indenture setting forth formal terms and conditions relating to the issuance and
sale of bonds; and,
WHEREAS, there has 'lls~ ;'''~l) r:.', 'J'ted., tel' consideration by this
legislative body a form of ~ond Purchase Contract authorizing the sale of bonds
to Stone & Youngberg, the designated underwriter; and,
WHEREAS, there has also been presented for consideration by this
legislative body a form of Preliminary Official Statement containing information
including but not limited to the Assessment District and the type of bonds,
including terms and conditions thereof; and,
WHEREAS, this legislative body hereby further determines that the unpaid
assessment shall be specifically in the amount as shown and set forth in the
Certificate of Paid and Unpaid Assessments to be certified by and on file with
the Treasurer, and for particulars as to the amount of said unpaid assessments,
said Certificate and list shall control and govern.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
RECITALS
SECTI ON 1.
That the above recitals are true and correct.
e
,"
ATTACHMENT B
1
l
7,J1
.1'
:~:
-
1.:lLl:lI_
~., '.
Resolution No. 16708
Page 2
SECTION 2.
BOND AUTHORIZATION
That thi s I egi s I ati ve body does authori ze the issuance of
limited obI igation improvement bonds pursuant to the terms and
provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915", being
Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
Ca I iforni a, and a I so pursuant to the speci fi c terms and
condi t ions as set forth in the Bond Indenture presented
herei n.
SECTION 3.
BOND INDENTURE
That the Bond Indenture is approved,substantially in the form
presented herein, sub!e("~ '-oj ",:;~;f'i';il;ti"Ons ilshecessary and as
approved by the Fi nance Oi reCtor.' fi nill approval of the Bond
Indenture shall be conclusively evidenced by the signature of
the Finance Director. A copy of said Bond Indenture shall be
kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings and open
for public inspection.
SECTION 4.
BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT
That the Bond Purchase Contract as submitted by STONE &
YOUNGBERG, the designated underwriter, known as document
number C092-94, a copy of which is on fil~ in the office of
the City Clerk, is hereby approved substantially in the form
presented herein, subject to modifications as necessary and
approved by the Finance Director, with the concurrence of Bond
Counsel, with the final pricing of bonds being delegated to
the Finance Director. Final acceptance of the Bond Purchase
Contract shall be evidenced by the signature of the Finance
Director on behalf of the City.
SECTI ON S.
PRELIMINARY OFfI:;If\~,.~J~!E-lI~:.r
That the Pre I imi nary Offi ci a 1 Statement is approved
substantially in the form presented, subject to modifications
as necessary and as approved by the City Manager, and
execution and distribution of the Preliminary Official
Statement and the corresponding final Official Statement is
hereby authorized. The City Manager is further authorized to
execute and deliver any certificate regarding the finality of
the Prel iminary Official Statement as may be necessary or
appropriate for purposes of complying with Section 240.1SC2-12
in Chapter II of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations
("Rule ISC2-12"). A copy of the Preliminary Official
Statement and final Official Statement shall be kept on file
with the transcript of these preceedings and remain open for
public inspection.
7'15'
,.~y
r!l
~.". ,. .,.,
..
e
.
e
_ ."~,,.1'
Resolution No. 16708
Page 3
SECTION 6.
FINAL BOND DELIVERY
No further action will be required by this legislative body if
the bonds are priced, sold and delivered prior to the 2nd day
of September, 1992.
e
SECTION 7.
FINAL ASSESSMENT
That the Certificate of Paid and Unpaid Assessments, to be
cert i fi ed by the Treasurer, shall remai n on fil e in that
off~ce and be ope_n ,fOI' ,PIIO]ic inspection for all particulars
as ,t relate~ to t~'a amOlJr.~ of unpaid assessments to secure
bonds for this Assessment District.
SUPERIOR COURT FORECLOSURE
SECTION 8.
This legislative body does further specifically covenant for
the benefit of the bondholders to commence and prosecute to
completion foreclosure actions regarding delinquent
installments of the assessments in the manner, within the time
limits and pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth
in the Bond Indenture as submitted and approved through the.
adoption of this Resolution.
OTHER ACTS
SECTION 9.
All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the
City with respect to the sale and issuance of the bonds are
hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the City Manager,
Finance Director and any and all other officers of the City
are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on
beha 1 f of th~ [;i~/,'., to do'!'!y ar.d.. 11 thi ngs and take any and
all actic.i,s r,:latin~- fil"the' exectlt:i'on and delivery of any and
all cert i fi cates, requi s i ti ons, agreements and other
documents, which the City Manager or the Finance Director may
deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful
i ssuanceand deli very of the bonds in accordance with this
resolution.
~
.
'Presented by
by
J n P. Lippitt
D rector of Public Works
Bruce M. Boogaard
City Attorney
, 7,.lv
'r '.
<:".
.
.".-i- ., _-::,,'
i', d
.~--
Resolution No. 16708
Page 4
~ /'
.','("
e
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 30th day of June, 1992, by the following vote:
YES: Counci 1 members: Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore,
Rindone, Nader
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None
r--AA
~ ' .~:'
Tim Nader, Mayor
ATTEST:
1_<-"
., /i ;-.
I .. ...
/ I (""c i " j-
i i._-'\" '~,.', ( ( \ ) X (,
_, N c,,,;,;.-,,.:, '
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16708 was duly passed, approved,
and adopted by the City Council held on the 30th day of June, 1992.
55.
Executed this 30th day of June, 1992.
/I"
.
7"'17
~
."...,..'....'....
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ItemX
Meeting Date 3/16/93
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution J '7~3;J Approving a Joint Use Agreement between the City
of Chula Vista and San Diego Gas and Electric Company to allow the City to
maintain a storm drain within SDG&E's easement and authorizing the Mayor to
execute said Agreement. I
Director of Public Works ~
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY: City Manager fJ
t
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..x..)
Development of property owned by R.E. Hazard, at the northeast comer of "C" Street and North Fifth
Avenue, required the construction of a double reinforced-concrete-box culvert as part of the
improvements. The alignment of the new storm drain required crossing an existing San Diego Gas &
Electric Company easement.
Since SDG&E has senior rights, the City is required by SDG&E to enter into a Joint Use Agreement
in order to maintain the storm drain facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
SDG&E's existing 24' wide easement, north of "C" Street, runs parallel to and along the entire east side
of North Fifth Avenue. The completed storm drain encroaches upon SDG&E's easement by running
parallel to and within the easement for approximately 260 feet north of "C" Street (see Exhibit A).
R.E. Hazard has granted to the City a 20' wide drainage easement along the storm drain alignment,
which was recorded by document number 1992-0538127 on August 25, 1992. Said easement overlaps
the existing SDG&E's easement. Since SDG&E has senior prior rights, the overlap of the City's
drainage easement onto SDG&E's must be addressed by a Joint Use Agreement.
Since the City has already obtained an easement from R.E. Hazard the execution of the Joint Use
Agreement will provide the City's right to construct and maintain the facility.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City will maintain the storm drain.
WPC F:\home\engineer\agenda\620.93
8'~/ It-1-
RESOLUTION NO.
17~.:JJ
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO ALLOW THE CITY TO
MAINTAIN A STORM DRAIN WITHIN SDG&E'S EASEMENT
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the development of property owned by R.E.
Hazard, at the northeast corner of "c" Street and North Fifth
Avenue, required the construction of a double reinforced-concrete-
box culvert as part of the improvements; and
WHEREAS, the alignment of the new storm drain required
crossing an existing San Diego Gas & Electric Company easement; and
WHEREAS, since SDG&E has senior rights, the City is
required by SDG&E to enter into a Joint Use Agreement in order to
maintain the storm drain facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula vista does hereby approve a Joint Use Agreement
between the City of Chula vista and San Diego Gas and Electric
Company to allow the City to maintain a storm drain within SDG&E's
easement, a copy of which is on file in the office of the city
Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of
Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to
agreement for and on behalf of the City Chula vis
the City of
ecute said
a
Presented by
John P. Lippitt, Director of
Public Works
F,hcmela_\620.93
a'=-3/8-'I
I \ I
I ),
III
~ I!I
~ , :I
~ I II
~ I II
III
4- 5.5' CITY OF CHULA I1STA
I : I STREET TREE EASEMENT
I
I :'
-I 'r24' SDGtkE EASEMENT
I PER DOC. NO. 1992-0443127
I, RECORDED 7/15/92
I .
I OM"R POLE
: I
'/1-20' CITY OF CHULA I1STA
I' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
I :1/
I :I~
l ~==
" "
" "
'e'STREET " rOM"R POLE
------, (---- ~FERENCE:
CITY OF CHULA I1STA
DRA'MNGS 91-486 TO 484C
K'-> 8-'
f
!
\ \
-.....
co
<>d
J'-, Z
"T"" 0
tOl.QO
Cf.)T""<x:
rZZ
0.9 <x:
--lr-l
a to
1l.,lllllltO
OCf.)QT""
2:0::00
.9111:r:z
bra
o::<r:z:ll.,
o::)<x:<r:
ll.,00::2:
L01 10
MAp I
No. 8766 i
------~
POM"R POLE'
OM"R POlE
POR1JoN OF
L01S 9, 10 8. 11
QUAR1ER SEC1JON 161
RANCHO DE LA NAcJoN
MAp No, 166
I
EXH I BIT ''I{'
'J _,(,':'
";' /",' -f /..,'?
"
Recording Requested by
San Diego Gas & Electric
When Recorded Mail To:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
P. O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Attn: Tom Duncan, EB 601
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
JOINT USE AGREEMENT
The undersigned declares consideration is less than $100.00
and Transfer Tax is none.
THIS AGREEMENT, dated
, by and between SAN
DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation (SDG&E), and the CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, a Municipal Corporation (Second Party), is made
with reference to the following facts:
A. SDG&E is engaged in the business of transmitting and
distributing gas and electricity within the County of San Diego,
State of California and has facilities for such purposes located
in, upon, over, under and across that certain easement and right-
of-way granted to SDG&E as described on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto (SDG&E's Easement);
B. Second Party desires to acquire and is now acquiring
easements and rights-of-way and intends to construct, operate and
-1-
r,/
maintain therein street tree and drainage facilities in the
configuration shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto (Second
Party's Facilities); and
C. Second Party desires to obtain SDG&E's consent for the
construction, operation and maintenance of Second Party's
facilities in, over, under and across SDG&E's Easement along the
route(s) particularly shown on said Exhibit "B" (Designated
Route(s)).
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Second Party, its successors in interest and assigns, shall
have the right and privilege to construct, operate and
maintain Second Party's Facilities in, over, under and
across SDG&E's Easement by the Designated Route(s), together
with the right of ingress thereto and egress therefrom by
practical route(s). In the event Second Party's route(s) of
ingress or egress at any time, in the sole discretion of
SDG&E, conflict with SDG&E's use of the SDG&E Easement,
Second Party agrees, upon notice from SDG&E, to relocate
said route(s) at no expense to SDG&E. SDG&E shall cooperate
with Second Party to effect such rearrangement, relocation
or reconstruction.
2. Second Party agrees not to interrupt the use or operation of
SDG&E's facilities. Any temporary ,interference with the use
[ChulaJU.h21)
-2-
8',y
or operation of SDG&E's facilities shall be made only with
SDG&E's prior written consent.
3. SDG&E shall be deemed the "party first in place" and its
rights and interests shall be prior in time and superior in
title to those of Second Party.
4. Should Second Party desire to construct, install and
maintain surface or subsurface installations other than
those specifically provided for in Exhibit "B", Second Party
shall obtain prior written approval of plans and
specifications for any such proposed installation from
SDG&E, including alignment and locations of all proposed
work. Second Party will submit such plans in writing to
SDG&E not less than forty-five (45) days before the date of
anticipated commencement of any work. Notices shall be
addressed to:
San Diego Gas & Electric
P. O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
Attention: Land Services Department
SDG&E reserves the right to reject any proposed plan which
would, in its sole determination, substantially conflict
with its use of the SDG&E Easement, its facilities, or be
"unduly burdensome." SDG&E shall consider the (1) relative
-3-
8'"
size and character or its then existing and possible future
installations, (2) relative hardship, inconvenience, and
expense to SDG&E if plans are approved, (3) relative
hardship, inconvenience and expense to Second Party if plans
are rejected, and (4) length of time and extent of any
service interruption to SDG&E's customers.
5. This agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon
both parties, their representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns.
6. In the event of damage caused by an act of God, war, or
other casualty, or damage caused under circumstances where
it would be impractical or impossible for SDG&E to notify
the Second Party of the necessity for temporary interference
with the other party's facilities, SDG&E, without notice,
may enter upon the joint easement area and make emergency
repairs to restore service. SDG&E shall, however, take
reasonable and prudent measures to protect the installations
of the Second Party and minimize such interference and as
soon as practically possible, notify the Second Party of
such emergency repairs. If permanent repairs are required
after such emergency repairs have been made, reasonable
notice shall be given to the Second Party.
7. Each party shall save, indemnify and hold harmless the other
party against any liability, loss, cost, damage and expense
[ChulaJU.h21]
-4-
8""/0
caused by or arising from (i) an act(s) or omission(s) of
such party, its employees, agents, contractors, successors
and assigns or (ii) the location and existence of its above-
described facilities, whether defective or otherwise;
including, but not limited to, any such loss, cost, damage,
liability and expense arising from damage to or destruction
of real and personal property or injury to or death of any
person. Liability to a third party(ies) shall be divided
between the parties hereto in proportion to the measure of
each party's liability. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each
party shall hold harmless the other party against damage to
or destruction of its facilities caused by an act(s) of a
third party(ies).
8. Nothing herein contained shall constitute a grant of
easement by SDG&E to Second Party, it being understood that
any such grant may be obtained only from the fee owner.
9. In the event either party commences legal action against the
other by reason of an alleged breach of this agreement or in
connection with joint use of the SDG&E Easement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover court costs
and attorney's fees as set by the court. "Prevailing Party"
means the party in whose final judgment is rendered.
-5-
FI"II
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
)
) ss
On , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared D.R.
GUEBERT personally known to me to be the person who executed the
within instrument as Acting Land Management Supervisor, Land
Services Department, on behalf of San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws
or a resolution of its Board of Directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
g'"/:l
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
and year first above written.
agreement to be executed by duly authorized officers on the day
SDG&E
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.,
A Corporation
By
David R. Guebert, Supervisor
Land Management Section
Land Services Department
Drawn By:
Date:
A.P. No:
Duncan
8/21/92
562-323-14,
15 & 16
[ChulaJU.h21]
"SECOND PARTY"
CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
a Municipal Corporation
By
S::::;Il.T'_'RE3 M:...'!'iT BE NCTAR1ZE';)
NCIARI~:;; L;~E PRCP'R F0~;M
-6-
~,./~ /8-/03
EXHIBIT "A"
That certain strip of land 24.00 feet in width, lying within a portion of
Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Quarter Section 151 of Rancho De La Nacion, in the City of
Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
166, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said County of San Diego, described
in that certain Easement and Right of Way Granted to San Diego Gas & Electric
Company recorded July 15, 1992 at Recorder's File/Page No. 1992-0443127 of
Official Records of said County.
fOUNCADOC.H19]
8'~/tf
"
\ \
--
342.40
I \ I
,11
III
~ 1'1
m 1:1
~ 1:1
1:1
~
1:1
14- 5.5' CITY OF CHULA I1STA
I 'I STREET TREE EASEMENT
I
I :I
-I Ir24' SDGJtE EASEMENT
I PER DOC. NO. 1992-044J127
I I RECORDED 7/15/92
I
I O~R POLE
: I
'11-20' CITY OF CHULA I1STA
,I DRAINAGE EASEMENT
1,'11
Lor 10
MAp I I :I~
NO. B16~ l "- =--=
--...--PO~R POLE. "'" "'"
t;" STREET "'" "'" ~O~R POLE
- -- - - -l '-"'''' -... ~7{;~r~ULA I1STA
I DRAWfNGS 91-486 TO 484C
8''' /f
EX H I 8 IT "8"
to
<<3
'f'-, z:
.. T"' .9
co 1.0 0
T"'<(
~z:z:
0.9<(
-lr-l
o co
ll..UlUlco
OroaT"'
Z:o::oo
.9Ul:r:z:
1-.}-' 0
a::<(z:ll.,
0=><(<(
ll.,Go:::2:
PORrJON OF
Lors 9, 10 & 11
QUARrER SEcrJON 161
RANCHO DE LA NACJON
MAP No. 166
I
7/23/92
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM ~
MEETING DATE 3/16/1993
17~:JlI
ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting California State Library 6th-Year
matching funds awarded to the Chula Vista Literacy
Team, appropriating funds, and amending FY 1992-93
budget.
SUBMITTED BY: Acting Library Director OJ]
REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: YES l NO _)
In 1987 the library received a five-year California State Library grant to
establish the Chula Vista Literacy Team. The fifth and final year of this
funding was FY '91-92. The California State Library has announced a one-year
extension of California Library Services Act funding for programs which were
awarded the original five-year grants. The FY '92-93 awards are based on a
match of $1 for every $4.62 raised locally and spent during FY '92-93. This will
provide $23,309 to the Chula Vista Literacy Team.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution which accepts
the grant and appropriates the funds.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On January 21, 1987 the
Library Board of Trustees voted to support the Library's application for the
originalS-year CLSA California Literacy Campaign grant.
DISCUSSION:
As an extension of the original CLSA literacy grant, these funds are intended
to supplement monies raised locally to support library adult literacy
programs. The $23,309 awarded must be spent in FY '92-93. The Chula Vista
Literacy Team intends to use the funds to purchase much-needed equipment,
induding a photocopy machine, computer hardware, and promotional items
to recognize volunteer tutors. In addition, funds will be encumbered to cover
the rent and utilities on the existing Literacy Team office and Annex for the
twelve month period July 1993 - June 1994. This plan has been approved by
the California State Library.
FISCAL IMPACT: Accepting this grant will provide $23,309 in FY '92-93 to
the Chula Vista Literacy Team. These funds cannot supplant existing funds,
however, general fund expenditure for the literacy office rent and utilities
will be reduced in FY '93-94 by $11,280. Note: The Annex rent of $4,200 has
traditionally been funded by non-general fund monies. (For Matching Fund
Budget, see Attachment A).
9~/ l1-1.
RESOLUTION NO.
1?~.3'1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY
6TH-YEAR MATCHING FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA
VISTA LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING FY 1992-93 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the California State Library has announced that
California Library Services Act funds are available to continue
funding on a limited basis for programs which were awarded five-
year grants through the California Literacy Campaign; and
WHEREAS, the amount of funds awarded for 6th-year and
beyond programs is based on a match of $1 for every $4.62 which was
raised locally and spend during FY 1992-93; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 1987, the Library Board of
Trustees voted to support the Library'S application for CLSA
California Literacy Campaign funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept the California State
Library 6th-year matChing funds awarded to the Chula vista Literacy
Team.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Chula vista does amend the FY 1992-93 budget by appropriating
$23,309 into the following accounts: $15,934 into Account 216-2164-
5323 and $7,375 into Account 216-2164-5324.
David Palmer, Acting Library
Director
Presented by
F: \hcmelattomcyICLSA6th
?~.3/c;- ~
A TT ACHMENT A
CLSA MATCHING FUNDS BUDGET
FY 1992-93
2/18/1993
BUDGET ACCOUNT: 216-2164
5323 Rent, Utility, Other
$15,934.
$7,375.
$23,309.
5324 Equipment
TOTAL:
tj-5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM J d
MEETING DATE 3/16/1993
ITEM TITLE:
. Report on the application of the Chula Vista Public
Library for California Department of Education Adult
Basic Education Section 321 funding for FY '92-93 thru '94-
95 for the Chula Vista Literacy Team.
Resolution I?' aJ accepting California Department of
Education Adult Basic Education Section 321 grant funds
awarded to the Chula Vista Literacy Team, appropriating
funds, and amending FY 1992-93 budget.
SUBMITTED BY: Acting Library DirectorV(jl
REVIEWED BY: City Managerg (4/5ths Vote: YES .lL NO _)
The Chula Vista Public Library has applied for ABE Section 321 funds in a
new California Department of Education three-year grant cycle. (All funding
is subject to availability of funds from the federal government.) The primary
purpose of these grant funds is to improve the quality and responsiveness of
programs which enable adults to acquire basic literacy skills. The first year
grant of $5,645 has now been awarded to the Library. The base grant ($3,500)
must be used for supplemental staff development, assessment, and/or
networking. Additional funds are calculated based on the number of learner
attendance hours.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report, ratify the
application, and adopt the resolution accepting the grant and appropriating
the funds.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On February 24, 1993 the
Library Board of Trustees voted to support the Library's application for ABE
Section 321 grant funds for the three year period through June 1995.
DISCUSSION:
These grant funds will be used to provide training to the Adult Literacy
Coordinator in specialized techniques for teaching adults with language based
learning disabilities such as dyslexia and dysgraphia, so that training can in
turn be provided to our volunteer tutors. Funds will also be used to purchase
a comprehensive collection of instructional materials and supplies in order to
fully implement this new program.
FISCAL IMP ACT: Accepting this grant will provide $5,645 to implement this
program in FY '92-93 through the Chula Vista Literacy Team. The grant has
been approved for a three-year period, based upon submission of an annual
continuation request. The fiscal portion is approved for a one-year period but
is renewable annually through FY 1994-5. Funds cannot be used to supplant
the current volunteer tutor program. These funds will be appropriated into
fund 260-2608. (See Attachment A).
I~-I f~- 2..
RESOLUTION NO. 1?()35
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION ADULT BASIC EDUCATION SECTION 321
GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO THE CHULA VISTA
LITERACY TEAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, AND
AMENDING FY 1992-93 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Chula vista Public Library has applied for
ABE section 321 funds in a new California Department of Education
three-year grant cycle; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of these grant funds is to
improve the quality and responsiveness of programs which enable
adults to acquire basic literacy skills; and
WHEREAS, the first year grant of $5,645 has now been
awarded to the Library and the base grant of $3,500 must be used
for supplemental staff development, assessment, and/or networking;
and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 1993 , the Library Board of
Trustees voted to support the Library's application for ABE section
321 grant funds for the three year period through June, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the city of Chula vista does hereby accept the California
Department of Education Adult Basic Education section 321 grant
funds awarded to the Chula vista Literacy Team.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1992-93 budget is hereby
amended by appropriating $4,445 into Account 260-2608-5221 and
$1,200 into Account 260-2608-5321.
Bruce M.
Attorney
Cl.ty
Presented by
David Palmer, Acting Library
Director
F:\home\auomey\liten.cy.grt
/~-J /10-'1
ATTACHMENT A
ABE SECTION 321 FUNDS
FY 1992-93
2/18/1993
BUDGET ACCOUNT: 260-2608
5224 Training - City Personnel
$4,445.
5321 Instructional Resources
$1,200.
TOTAL:
$5,645.
/0--5
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: I)
Meeting Date:3/16/93
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing:
Schedule update
Municipal Code.
Consideration of Master Fee
and related changes in the
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance~
Revenue Manager ~
Administrative Analyst Yo~n~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 0 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ No X l
According to legal notice publishing requirements for the public
hearing, no action can be taken on this item until the meeting of
March 23, 1993. However, since the public notices mailed in
January specified a hearing date of March 16, there may be members
of the public with comments on the proposal at both meetings.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council:
1. Open the public hearing on March 16 to accept testimony from
anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal.
2. Continue the public hearing until March 23.
//-/ //-2.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date:3/16/93
/1
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing:
Schedule update
Municipal Code.
Consideration of Master Fee
and related changes in the
Ordinance Amending Sections 9.12.160,
9.13.050, 13.14.090, 13.14.100, 13.14.110,13.14.120
and 13.14.150 of the Municipal Code and adding new
Sections 5.36.035 and 15.36.015 of the Municipal
Code relating to fees and service charges.
Resolution Amending the Master Fee
Schedule to effect changes in designated existing
fees and addition of new fees.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance~
Revenue Manager ~ ~/'.
Administrative AXla~yst Youn~ .
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___ No X)
The portion of the Master Fee Schedule update completed on April
28, 1992, amended several titles of the Municipal Code and made
related changes in the Master Fee Schedule document. These
changes, which did not include changes in existing fee levels,
represented Phase I of the first comprehensive review of the City's
fees since 1987. At the time of final approval of the FY 92-93
budget, Council considered several revenue options and directed
staff to bring forward the second phase of the Master Fee Schedule
update. Having obtained recommendations from various Boards and
Commissions, solicited feedback from interested community and
business groups, and advertised the public hearing, staff is now
submitting Phase II of the update to:
1). Make several administrative and technical changes in the
Municipal Code relating to the assessment of fees.
2). Update designated existing fees to account for increases in
costs; Make adjustments in fees to provide for more equitable
and accurate cost assessment; Propose adoption of new fees
for recently evolved services or for special services
currently being provided at no additional charge.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance amending several sections of the Municipal
Code relating to fees and service charges.
II-J
2. Adopt Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to effect
changes in designated existing fees and add new fees.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Proposed changes in Building
and Housing and Library fees have been submitted to and recommended
for approval by the Board of Appeals and Advisors and Library
Board, respectively (See minutes; Attachment *5). Proposed changes
in Parks and Recreation to adopt non-resident fees were submitted
to the Parks and Recreation Commission but were presented to
Council separately. Prior to bringing the full proposal forward to
the City Council, staff presented the package to the Chamber of
Commerce on February 2, and to the Economic Development Commission
on March 3. Each body posed several questions for staff which are
addressed in Attachment *8. The Chamber's position on the proposal
is included in that attachment. The EDC has decided not to take an
official position on the proposal.
DISCUSSION:
1. BACKGROUND
While a primary mission of government is to satisfy community needs
such as police and fire protection, many city services solely
benefit specific individuals or businesses. It has been the
general policy of the City Council that the public at large should
not subsidize activities of such a private interest through general
tax revenues. Therefore, the City has established user fees to
best ensure that those who use a proprietary service pay for that
service in proportion to the benefits received. With few
exceptions, such as those services provided for low-income
residents, fees have been set to enable the City to recover the
full costs of providing those services.
Types of Fees
Typically, fees take one of three forms: flat fees, multi-level
fees, and variable fees based on costs (deposits).
Flat fees are preferable in most cases due to their ease of
administration and collection. Where the annual volume of an
activity is high and the per-project costs are reasonably stable,
flat fees have been based on the average transaction costs for
services provided (e.g. $50 processing fee for satellite dish
variance). Since the time of the last comprehensive update of the
Master Fee Schedule in 1987, however, inflationary factors have
diminished the ability of certain flat fees to recover the City's
costs. If flat fees are not SUbject to regular updates and service
levels are maintained, then as costs for providing services
Page 2
1/-1/
increase, general tax dollars will increasingly subsidize the
City's costs for providing these services.
Variable fees adjust for inflation automatically by requiring a
deposit from which actual costs are debited and any unspent balance
is refunded. If the costs of a particular service differ with the
size or complexity of the project, deposit-based fees provide for
a more equitable assessment of those costs than would be possible
through a flat fee. Thus, for example, citizens who petition for
annexation to the city are charged for only the actual staff time
spent on their projects rather than paying "average" processing
costs. Variable fees are difficult to administer, but since they
automatically correct for changes in service costs, increased
efficiency, and fluctuations in requested or mandated service
levels, they seldom require updating.
Multi-level fees serve as a convenient middle ground. These fees
are used when the cost of service provision is closely correlated
to a specific project factor. Two or more fee levels are set and
the level of the fee is determined by objective measurable criteria
(e.g. site plan and architectural approval fees are recommended to
range from $0-$720 depending on building valuation) Multi-level
fees thus offer the stability and administrative ease of flat fees
and the enhanced equity of deposits. As with flat fees, however,
these fees must be updated periodically to ensure that the City's
general tax support for these services remains at a consistent
level.
Update Criteria
A prime consideration in this update has been how changes in fees
would impact local citizens and businesses. Staff has endeavored
in its recommendations to maintain equity through variable and
multi-level fee structures and to keep increases in flat fees
moderate wherever possible.
Proposals for flat and multi-level fee revisions in the attached
resolution were formulated in terms of staff time, hourly salaries,
benefits, administrative overhead, and postage and material costs.
To ensure that these figures provided the most accurate cost
estimates, the indirect cost allocation (overhead) factors were
recalculated in conjunction with this update using current budget
figures for salaries and benefits. For the most part, the fee
proposals reflect the effects of inflation on salary and supply
costs since 1987. In some cases, however, increases in efficiency
or streamlining efforts have mitigated the effects of inflation by
reducing the amount of staff time required to provide the service.
Variable, deposit-based fees were similarly reviewed for equity and
cost recovery. These fees required few adjustments because charges
Page 3
11"'5'
are based on actual hours worked given the employees' current
hourly and overhead rates.
Service Costs
Prior to and concurrent with this update, staff has been working to
minimize costs of city services, simplify the development process
and provide for decreases in fees where appropriate. Through the
annual budget process for fiscal year 1993-94, staff is identifying
potential cuts of 2%, 5% and 10% in department operating budgets
and conducting a review of development services staffing. After a
similar process for FY 1992-93, the city eliminated expenditures
totaling $778,000 (1.5% of the operating budget), instituted a
temporary hiring freeze and approved negotiating with employee
associations on a voluntary work furlough program.
At a time when other jurisdictions have found themselves
overstaffed and have had to implement layoffs, Chula Vista's
conservative hiring practices have allowed the City to maintain one
of the lowest ratios of employees to population in the county.
This low ratio has been accomplished in spite of increasing
workloads brought on by limits placed on the hiring of outside
consultants.
Innovative ways of providing similar services are also being
pursued to achieve sighificant cost savings. In the past year, the
city has entered into cooperative agreements for operation of
library and community center facilities on school sites, marketed
city services (animal control, parking ticket processing) to other
jurisdictions, refinanced long-term debt, purchased SDG&E street
lights to achieve long-term saving on energy costs, implemented
non-resident park and recreation fees, established a non-profit
corporation for lower mailing costs, and increased reliance on
volunteers in both operating and administrative roles.
Service streamlining is also one of the City's primary goals.
Implementation has already begun on an automated permit tracking
system to coordinate plan check activities between departments.
Other changes underway include reorganization of committee roles to
eliminate duplication of effort, clarification of project
management responsibilities to reduce the time required to bring a
project to approval, automation of engineering department functions
and establishment of a computerized geographic information system.
As these changes reach full implementation, they will result in
significant savings in the time and expense of obtaining permits
and services. In the short term, these effects are passed on
through sliding scale deposit-based fees, through mitigation of
inflationary impacts on other fees, and through approximately 83
fees contained within the fee schedule are not recommended for any
changes.
Page 4
/1"'1,
Taxes vs. Fees
Although it may not seem appropriate to increase some fees in the
midst of a struggling economy, taking no action would mean that
inflationary impacts on service costs would be borne by the general
taxpayer. Since it has been City policy to charge for these
private-benefit services, subsidizing increased service COStS would
thus be a departure from previous policy.
Chula Vista has, however, paid significant attention to the state
of the economy through the levels at which taxes are assessed. In
1991 and 1992 annual reviews of the business license tax and the
transient occupancy tax (paid by hotel patrons), all scheduled
increases in the level of the taxes have been abated. For the
utility users tax, the scheduled increase has been abated every
year since 1979. If consideration is also given to the limits
placed on property taxes through Proposition 13, the recessionary
impact on real estate prices and the link between sales taxes and
consumer spending, tax assessment and collection have remained very
responsive to economic fluctuations.
Public Hearing Process
To prepare for the public hearing, copies of the proposed fees were
sent to individual users of the services or specially impacted
groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Construction Industry Federation)
during the week of January 25. These mailings included a list of
contact people and phone numbers to respond to questions on the
proposal and announced an open forum on the proposal (which was
held on February 25) and a public hearing date of March 16.
Initial legal notices were placed in the Star-News on March 13,
with final notices scheduled to appear on March 20.
A complete list of those noticed and of comments received on the
basis of this noticing have been included in this packet in
Attachment #8.
Equity and Fee Waivers
Despite staff's attention in the fee schedule to maintaining or
enhancing equity, there may be cases down the road in which
additional consideration will be warranted. Recognizing that,
staff has incorporated the Municipal Code section regarding fee
waivers into Chapter I of the fee schedule for easy reference.
According to Code Section 3.45.010, all waiver requests must be
submitted in writing and considered through a public hearing.
(Such a public hearing does not require publication of legal
notices.) Waivers larger than the greater of $2,500 or 25% of the
original fee must be considered by City Council. By following this
Page 5
/1- ?
pOlicy for all fee waiver requests, the City will ensure that all
those deserving of waivers receive proper and fair consideration.
It should be emphasized, however, that by granting waivers, the
City does not make the costs disappear. Unless the level of
service is reduced or the costs for providing a given level of
service are reduced, the City continues to incur those costs. But
rather than passing on the cost of that service to the party who
receives the benefit, the City is subsidizing the service with
general tax revenues. As more waivers are granted or the as the
City goes longer without adjusting fees, the percentage of that
subsidy grows.
If a particular class of fees is subject to frequent waiver, it is
appropriate to amend the fees or change the policy on their
application. One policy alternative would be to formalize criteria
for waiving fees to encourage economic development. For example,
where the long-term benefit outweighs the amount of a waiver (in
attracting specific types of businesses or businesses within
certain geographic areas), either a partial or full amount of the
fee would be abated and the city's costs would be paid from general
or redevelopment funds. With such arrangements set as policy
instead of being subject to individual hearings, they could be a
powerful tool in marketing investment in Chula Vista.
2. FEE PROPOSALS
Recommended changes have been grouped into four categories detailed
below. A complete summary of the fee update recommendations which
follows the same categories is included as Attachment #1. Staff's
cost analyses have been made available in binder form to the
Council with an additional copy available through the City Clerk
for public review. The figures from staff's analysis were modified
in some cases (e.g. returned check fees) to recognize market forces
or legal constraints which preclude recovery of all associated
costs.
For comparison purposes, a copy of the 1992 Construction Industry
Federation Regional Fee Survey has also been included (Attachment
#6). However, since many of the fees compared are deposit-based,
it is difficult to provide an exact comparison of fee levels in
different cities.
A. Increases in Existing Fees
In light of the fact that the vast majority of fees addressed in
this update have not been revised in five years, the analysis
outlined above uncovered several areas where the existing fees were
no longer sufficient to recover costs.
Page 6
J /-g'
Plumbing permit fees are a good example of this. These fees were
set in 1987 to recover staff time costs for plan check and
inspection of various plumbing systems and fixtures as listed in
the Uniform Plumbing Code. Although the staff costs have gone up
since then, ChulaVista's fees have stayed the same. Thus, a fee
which once recovered the cost of a half-hour of staff time may now
be recovering only 15 minutes of staff costs.
Sewer construction fees are also set at flat rates and all of these
costs have risen significantly since the last fee update. The new
fees have been set in consideration of the extensive labor,
equipment and material cost data contained in the Public
Works/Operations Work Management System.
While electrical permit fees have been updated in response to
similar cost increases, the principal recommendation is a new fee
structure for set-ups and fixtures not specifically addressed in
the previous fee schedule (e.g. carnivals, outdoor signs). This
structure would mirror the outline of the National Electrical Code,
which more accurately identifies the scope of electrical
installations and practices than the current "per ampere" format.
The schedules and fees recommended for electrical and other
building-related fixtures are industry standards, the adoption of
which would bring Chula Vista in line with charges assessed by
other jurisdictions.
For the processing of returned checks, the Uniform Commercial Code
allows businesses to charge treble damages. This provision has not
yet been extended to cities. Until recently, cities have only been
allowed to charge a "reasonable" fee not to exceed $10. Because
the costs of internal processing and bank clearing fees are much
higher, a recent assembly bill (AB 2274) which is effective January
1, 1993, has revoked this $10 restriction in favor of full cost
recovery. Staff proposes following the lead of AB 2274 and
adopting a fee of $25 per returned check, with a discounted fee of
$15 for payments received within 10 calendar days after the first
collection notice.
Following a straight cost recovery calculation, the cost of zoning
permit processing has risen from $15 to $45. Since these permits
are required to investigate the potential impacts of new land uses,
consideration has been given to the burden these fees place
specifically on new businesses. Also considered was the extent and
significance of the proposed change in use and the variation in the
staff time required for processing routine start-ups in existing
buildings, significant changes in use, and delinquent or "after the
fact" zoning. Staff's recommendation is to adopt the new $45 fee
only for those permits for which applications are not filed prior
to business start-up or building occupancy. All other new
businesses would remain subject to the existing $15 fee.
Page 7
//-9
Although a few of the fee increases may seem extreme on a
percentage basis, it is important to consider the changes that have
taken place since some of the fees were last updated. Review of
most environmental impacts is done by deposit due to the
significant variation in environmental concerns from one project to
another. Where a previous initial study or negative declaration is
to be used, staff felt that a deposit was not necessary. But
because the fee for such review had not been updated in five years
and the amount of staff time required for a thorough environmental
review has increased, staff has updated the fee accordingly.
Perhaps the best example of a fee in need of updating is the fee
for a certificate of compliance. This fee, which is charged to
recover the cost of verifying legal property line adjustments, was
added to the Municipal Code in 1974. Since the number of annual
requests for such work is minimal, the fee was overlooked when the
Master Fee Schedule was first compiled and in subsequent updates.
Thus, while the increase from a $25 fee to a $200 fee might seem
inordinate, the proposed change reflects the true cost of the
service and brings the certificate of compliance into agreement
with other similar planning fees (e. g. adjustment plat
examination)
B. Adjustments to Existinq Fees
A second category of recommended changes are those that will
result, not in increased fees, but rather in lower, clarified or
more equitable fees.
Dog license fees are a good example of an area where staff has
recommended different procedures and fee structures which would
effecti vely reduce the cost for providing a similar level of
service. This is an optimal solution as fees do not have to be
raised significantly, but neither do general City funds have to be
diverted from other services.
The City issues one, two and three year dog licenses. While the
costs for issuing each license are the same, issuing three one-year
licenses requires three times the staff work, supply and postage
costs needed for issuing one three-year license. Therefore, a
small fee break has been given to those purchasing longer term
licenses.
In this update, rather than increasing fees across the board, staff
has recommended minimal increases in three-year licenses and much
larger increases in shorter-term licenses. This will encourage the
purchase of longer-term licenses and enable Chula Vista's fees to
remain lower than those of other County cities. License fees were
actually reduced (20%) for dogs under six-months-old which are only
eligible for a one-year license due to vaccination schedules. The
50% discount for dogs which have been spayed or neutered is
Page 8
//"/0
recommended to continue unchanged. These proposed changes will not
result in added revenue, but will reduce the cost of providing the
service so fee levels can be maintained. Since compliance with
animal license requirements is important for public health reasons,
fees have been set at a level below full cost so as not to
discourage licensing.
Among other fees staff is proposing to amend, the existing Master
Fee Schedule contains fees for copying of documents which charge
higher rates for the first page copied or for different types or
sizes of paper. Through more thorough cost estimation, these fees
have been simplified (to one flat rate) and the cost to the public
reduced.
Additional charges for after-hours public works inspections were
established prior to implementation of indirect cost allocation
standards. This charge is, therefore, being decreased to reflect
more accurately actual overtime costs.
Traffic signal participation fees are recommended to increase from
$10 to $13 per average daily trip (ADT). All other things being
equal, this would represent a 30% fee increase. However, since the
San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) calculation of
residential ADTs has dropped from 12 to 10, the net effect is an
increase of only 8% (from $120 to $130) per equivalent dwelling
unit of development.
When golf course greens fees were updated last summer, an effort
was made to discount costs to residents. That same methodology has
also been applied to adjustments in animal relinquishment fees and
increases in charges for business-related fingerprinting. Both
these fees apply to a considerable number of non-residents. The
proposed resident rates represent a discount from the non-resident
level.
Several fees that to this point have been at flat rates are
recommended to be set as deposits or at multiple levels depending
on the amount or complexity of staff work required. This will mean
higher fees for some people and lower fees for others, but the
burden of the fees will be distributed more equitably (e. g.
processing an application for waiver of public improvements is
recommended to change from a flat fee of $284 to a deposit. Thus,
if the end cost is only $200, the applicant would be able to
receive an $84 refund). The net fiscal impact for the City in most
of these cases is negligible and, where appropriate, has been shown
as "N/A" or "Minimal net impact" on Attachment #1.
Also deserving of special note among the fee adjustments, sewer
capacity charges have been updated to incorporate a more accurate
methodology for estimating sewer facility needs. Sewer flow is
typically estimated according to land use and building square
footage. Through a shift toward equivalent fixture units (EFUs) -
Page 9
I}-//
a measure which puts more emphasis on the number of drains, sinks
and plumbing fixtures - staff will be able to make a more aycurate
assessment of the capital costs of increasing sewer capacity. As
a result, many commercial developments with low water usage will be
subject to a lower sewer capacity charge.
The revenue not collected because of these adjustments would have
paid for facility expansions which the new EFU calculations
indicate should not be necessary. Such adjustments must be made
from time to time to ensure that an enterprise fund continues to
collect its actual costs. Thus, just as inflationary and treatment
cost increases necessitated recent increases in sewer service
charges, a reassessment of the costs covered by sewer capacity
charges necessitates a decrease in the assessments against certain
land uses.
C. New Fees
A third category addressed in this update is new fees which have
not been previously adopted by the Council. While the basic City
services remain somewhat constant, new services frequently evolve
which merit individual attention in the Master Fee Schedule.
Through frequent updates of the Uniform Building Code and passage
of additional mandates, the building process has changed
considerably over the years. In order to keep up with these
changes, the language in the Municipal Code must evolve as well.
Proposed additions in this area include fees for certificates of
occupancy, foundation-only building permits and applications for
appeals hearings. Fees have also been proposed for strong motion
instrumentation, plan maintenance and mobile home park inspections,
each of which is mandated by the State.
Currently, planning fees are collected for initial plan check on a
project. These fees do not recover costs for additional review
necessitated by changes made in those plans during construction.
A new fee has thus been calculated to capture the cost of both
summary and on-site review of these construction changes.
Cities occupy a unique position in providing access to and
preserving public records. Advances in technology and data
management have expanded cities' capabilities in this field to
include conducting computer searches, generating printouts and
providing copies of data on magnetic media. As the public's
demands have evolved, the City has responded by tailoring new
reports such as business license listings to annual or monthly
requests. Other new services related to technological change
include fees for faxing city documents and for processing lost
library materials through the City's new automated circulation
system.
Page 10
J I-I,),
In the existing Master Fee Schedule, there are delinquency fees
assessed for late payment of sewer service and pump station
maintenance charges. These fees pass on the added processing and
collection costs to the delinquent payee instead of subsidizing
those costs through the general fund. Staff recommends extending
this provision to cover certain other fees susceptible to late
payment, namely industrial wastewater discharge permit fees,
downtown improvement district assessments and alarm permit fees.
Staff has also added a reference to delinquent payment in the
definitions section of the fee schedule introduction to standardize
the application of these fees.
Recognizing the potential for environmental damage or explosion
associated with the installation and removal of storage tanks for
flammable and/or combustible liquids, staff is proposing a new fee
to recover the Fire Department's costs for the required
inspections. This fee is one component of the proposed high
hazard/high occupancy fire inspection fee program, the remainder of
which is presented in a subsequent staff report.
D. Other Chanqes
Annual subscriptions to agendas and minutes for the City's various
commissions are a special case in that they actually fit into all
three of the above categories. Based on the new copying cost
estimates, the recommendation for this item involves an increase in
one fee, a decrease in another, and the addition of two new fees.
The new fees are being proposed to recognize the fact that some
people wish to subscribe to either the agendas or the minutes but
not both, as the fee currently provides.
Although fees for swimming classes are shown as increasing and
daily and annual swimming passes are shown as new fees, these
proposals are just a reflection of what is already listed in the
department program brochure. These fees have been assessed under
the general authority provided for all Parks and Recreation
activities and classes and, with the other recreation fees, listed
in the seasonal brochure. What differentiates swimming fees from
other recreation classes and programs is that they recover far less
than their full cost (for pool maintenance, utilities,
lifeguarding, etc.). To avoid confusion with other fees which have
been set to recover costs, these swimming fees are being
incorporated into the fee schedule. No changes have been
recommended in these fees and their inclusion in the fee schedule
will carry no fiscal impact.
Street marking fees do recover their full cost and are shown to be
increasing. Most street marking, however, is done by contract with
developers at the time of street dedication. Since these
agreements are written to require the work be done by the developer
or to have city crews do the work and assess the full project cost,
Page 11
11-13
individual fees have seldom been necessary. The proposed change in
the fees will have no direct bearing on day-to-day operations and
no significant fiscal impact, but will allow for current costs to
be assessed when there is no formal agreement.
Several other fees being added to the fee schedule do not represent
increases in fees but rather administrative corrections or
refundable charges. Bingo license fees and casino party fees have
been authorized since 1982 and 1988, respectively. Their inclusion
in the fee schedule document formalizes investigation fees set
administratively and through Resolution #13439. In the case of
holistic health practitioner business licenses, a new refundable
fee has been proposed to recognize the fact that most applicants
are legitimate business people, but that investigations are
required to discover those who are not. If a pOlice department
investigation finds cause to deny a business license, the fees will
be forfeited. A similar refundable fee was enacted in December for
live entertainment license investigations.
3. MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGES
In consideration of recent and proposed changes in the Master Fee
Schedule and of previously anticipated changes in the sewer billing
process which have not been implemented, staff recommends amending
certain sections of the Municipal Code to avoid ambiguity or
confusion in the interpretation of fees. Five of these changes are
to provide the general authorization or proper reference to the
Master Fee Schedule for fees discussed above (fire inspections,
bingo fees, et al.). None of these changes would have any
independent effect on fee levels.
with the completion of Phase I of the Master Fee Schedule update,
the table assigning equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for various
land uses in the computation of sewer capacity charges now appears
in the Fee Schedule. Since the table still appears in the
Municipal Code as well, any changes in the table would require both
documents to be amended. To avoid any possible confusion with the
proposed revisions in the Master Fee Schedule, staff recommends
that the relevant text in the code be stricken. This change would
have no impact on the assessment of fees.
Throughout Title 13, several changes are recommended which would
clarify the assessment and collection of sewer service and pump
station charges. None of these changes affects the rates at which
these fees are assessed.
Lastly, the proposed formal adoption of federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) median income figures to
determine low-income discount eligibility led staff to review other
low-income discounts in the city. Staff is recommending a change
in the Municipal Code relating to low-income senior citizen
Page 12
11-/1./
discounts on utility user's tax to remove the specified maximum
income threshold of $7,500 (set in 1976) and instead adopt the
annual HUD low-income standards as currently listed in the fee
schedule. This change will broaden eligibility for the discount
and maintain fairness by tying the standard to annual changes in
median area incomes.
4. FUTURE UPDATES
While this update addresses most of the
Master Fee Schedule, there are some
unresolved.
issues pertinent to the
which are temporarily
Negotiations are proceeding with San Diego County on the provision
of health-related services. These services are generally covered
by Title 8 of the Municipal Code. The anticipated agreement would
continue the County's role in performing inspections and other
duties as an agent of the City. Since the City is not directly
involved in the billing for these services, the impact on the
Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code would be primarily
administrative.
Several other fee-related items which are subject to periodic
update have been incorporated by reference into the appendices of
the Master Fee Schedule. As new indirect cost allocation factors
are calculated by Finance, new construction valuations calculated
by Building and Housing, new low-income standards published by HUD,
or new industries or pollutants listed by the EPA, these appendices
will be updated.
As for the fees themselves, the reorganization of the fee schedule
and the shift toward more multi-level or variable (deposit-based)
fees are anticipated to mitigate the need for regular comprehensive
updates of the fee schedule. Instead, as individual fees are
proposed or revised, they will be processed according to the form,
context, and procedures developed through this update. While
future comprehensive updates may not be necessary, staff will
continue to reexamine the individual fees on at least a biannual
basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated fiscal impact of the above changes is an increase of
approximately $299,400 in annual general fund revenues, an increase
of approximately $10,000 in annual traffic signal fund revenues and
a decrease of approximately $237,600 in annual sewer fund revenues.
This yields a net impact across all funds of $71,800. The impact
on current year revenues would be prorated from that total based on
the date of adoption of the update resolution (except for
development-related fees, for which the effective date is 60 days
Page 13
11-/>
after adoption). The total fiscal impact for FY 92-93 would be
approximately $11,000.
The primary sources of general fund revenue increases are
development-related services which have been updated according to
current staff time costs (e.g. Zoning Administrator design review,
$22,000 impact) or changes in the National and Uniform Codes (e.g.
electrical, $46,075; plumbing, $55,450).
The decrease in sewer fund revenue is due to the restructuring of
sewer capacity charges (-$290,000). This figure represents the
difference between current estimates for facility expansion costs
and new estimates based on the level of expansion indicated by the
revised (EFU) rates of flow. The overall impact on the sewer fund
is lessened somewhat by the fact that several developments have
already been assessed at these new rates via rebates granted on a
case-by-case basis following official appeals.
Categorizing the proposals according to their impacts, this update
would result in total annual impacts of approximately: $27,600 on
development (e.g. plan review, inspections, sewer construction),
$5,200 on businesses (e.g. business license - change of location,
street overload, fingerprinting), $800 on general services (agenda
subscriptions, sewer service variances), and $38,200 on specialized
services (e.g. business license listing, animal impoundment,
inspection of underground storage tank removal, processing of
returned checks and delinquent payments). While the City would
receive these revenues on an annual basis, the impacts on
residents, non-residents and businesses are primarily one-time.
For "typical" projects or populations, the impacts would be
approximately: +$5,750 for a 25 unit subdivision (an average of
$230 per unit), -$24,000 for a 25,000 sq. ft. commercial space and
$0 for current residents or existing businesses. The reduction in
commercial fees is primarily due to changes in sewer capacity
charges.
Impacts of individual fee increases, adjustments or adoptions are
shown on Attachment #1.
Attachments:
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
MFS113II. JY2
Page 14
Summary of Updates/Additions NOT SCANNED
Resolution
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
Ordinance
Board and Commission Recommendations
Construction Industry Federation
Regional Fee Survey - 1992
Council Agenda Statement, Master Fee
Update, Phase I
Public Input
~\)
(Minut~c~
~O't
sChed~e
;{ 'f,C~~
~,O
I/~/~ /II-:U'
/'
:-j()
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as followF:
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule has not undergone a
comprehensive review and update since August, 1987, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section
66016, notice was mailed at least 14 days prior to the public
hearing to all parties which filed a written request for
notification of new or increased fees, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code sections
6062a, 66018 and 60629, notice of the. public hearing was published
in a newspaper of general circulation twice within 10 days prior to
the public hearing and said notices were published at least five
days apart, and
WHEREAS, in :lccordance with Government Code section
66016, estimated cost data was made available for public review at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the noticed public hearing was held on
, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to adopt the amended Master
Fee Schedule, as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the amended Master Fee
Schedule as attached hereto, and hereby repeals all earlier
versions of said Master Fee Schedule, said changes and repeal to be
effective 60 days following adoption, in accordance with Government
Code section 66017, except for the changes in Chapters I through
VIII, which are not subject to Government Code 66017 and shall
therefore be effective upon adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
D. Richard Rudolf, Assistant
City Attorney
Attachment #2-1
/1- 27/11- 7/J
~b
;;~~
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
'Ia6fe of Contents
CHAPTER I.............................................
Introduction .............................................
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General .......................................
Fee Waivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Master Fee Schedule Copies .......................
DEFINITIONS ......................................
Full Cost Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delinquent Payment .............................
Low Income Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER II............................................
Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Records and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ENGINEERING .....................................
Records and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
POLICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Records and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER III...........................................
Animal Control ...........................................
DOG LICENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purchase ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Penalty for Late Application/Payment ................
License Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
License Transfer ................................
ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT AND RELINQUISHMENT. . . . . . . .
Impoundment ..................................
Boardinl! of Imoounded Animals ....................
Relinquishment of Dogs and Cats (Live or Dead) . . . . . . . .
C HAPTE R IV.................................... .........
Business Fees ............................................
GENERAL BUSINESS ................................
Business License - General ........................
Sales - Special . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SPECIFIC BUSINESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ArtFigureStumo ...............................
ll-ll
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
v- ".'\
\
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
lJ'aDCe of Contents
Bath House ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Bingo License Investigation Fees - New and Renewal .... 14
Card Room .................................... 14
Casino Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Fraternal Society Gameroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Holistic Health Practioner Investhration Fee ........... 15
Junk Dealer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Live Entertainment License Investie:ation ....... . . . . .. 15
Massage Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Massage Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Mobile Home Park Annual Operatine: Fee ............. 16
Pawnbroker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Peddler ....................................... 16
Public Dance .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Second Hand Dealer ............................. 16
Solicitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Transient Merchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Business - Other ..................................... 17
Curb Loading Zone Permit Fee ..................... 17
C HAP T E R V............................................. 18
Library ................................................. 18
SERVICE FEES ..................................... 18
Library Cards .................................. 18
Audio Visual ................................... 18
Books ........................................ 18
Darkroom ..................................... 18
Lost Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
FINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
Overdue Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
AudioNisual ................................... 18
C HAP T E R V I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Police .................................................. 19
ALARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Alarm Use Permit .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
False Alarm Assessment .......................... 19
BICYCLE LICENSE .................................. 20
Application .................................... 20
PROPERTY RECOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
By Owner ..................................... 20
By Finder ..................................... 20
{l-7#-
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
'IaDfe of Contents
C HAP T E R V II .......................................... 21
Recreation Programs/Facilities ............................... 21
PROGRAMS ........................................ 21
SWlInrmng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
FACILITY USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
General Facilities - Use Permit ..................... 22
Picnic Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
Ballfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
C HAP T E R V III ................................... . . . . .. 28
Greens Fees, Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
STANDARD GREENS FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
LADIES DAY GREENS FEES. . '" .. .. . .. . .. . .. . ... .. . .. 28
RESIDENT DISCOUNTS .............................. 28
JUNIOR MONTHLY TICKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
SENIORS RATES .................................... 29
Qualifications .................................. 29
Seniors Discount Cards (Yearly, Monthly) ............. 29
Seniors Greens Fees (Residents only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
RAIN CHECKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
LEGAL HOLIDAYS. ... . .. . .. .. . . . ... . .. . .. . ..... .. . .. 30
C HAP T E R I X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
Downtown Improvement District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
DOWNTOWN ....................................... 31
Downtown Improvement District Assessment .......... 31
Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
C HAP T E R X............................................. 33
Building and Housing ...................................... 33
APPEALS .......................................... 33
Board of Appeals and Advisors, Hearing Application ..... 33
Building Move, Relocation, or Demolition Appeal . . . . . . .. 33
CODE ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Nuisance Abatement: Appeal fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Nuisance Abatement: Noncompliance with order to
abate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Sign Structures - Charges for moving, removal, correction
or other work performed by the city . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
BUILDING PERMIT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
DETERMINATION OF VALUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
{l-13
~~~nr~~~~n~uu~~
'['116ft of Contents
HOUSING PERMIT FEES ............................. 39
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES ............................ 42
CHAPTER Xl............................................ 44
Enguleenng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
DEFERRALSl\VAIVERS ............................... 44
Deferral of Public Improvements. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. " 44
Deferral of Undergrounding Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
Waiver of Public Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 44
PLAN REVIEW ......................................44
Adjustment Plat Examination Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
Certificate of Compliance ......................... 45
Final Map and Improvement Plan Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
Final Map Recordation Fee ........................ 45
Plan Review and Inspection, Encroachment and
Construction Permif2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 46
Preliminary Parcel Map Fee ....................... 47
.
Public Works Inspection .......................... 47
PERMITS .......................................... 47
Construction Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
Construction Permits - Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Construction Security Deposit Bookkeeping Fee . . . . . . . " 48
Driveways; Excessive Width ....................... 48
Encroachment Permit, Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Temporary Encroachment for storalre ofbuildinlr materials
in Citv rilrht-of-wav Permit Application .......... 48
Watercourse and Grading Permit Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
STREETS .......................................... 49
, Street Marking Fees ............................. 49
Street Name and Regulatory Signs .................. 50
Street Vacation Fees ............................. 51
. TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
Street Overload/I'ransportation Permit ............... 52
Traffic Signal Participation Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
TREES ............................................ 53
REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Reimbursement District Formation .................. 53
CHAPTER XII .......................................... 54
Engineering - Sewer ....................................... 54
CONSTRUCTIONiDEVELOPMENT ...................... 54
Minimum Front Footage Charge. . ................... 54
L 1-14
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
lJ'a6fe of Ccmtents
Sewer Construction and Connection Fees. . . . . . . . . .. 54
Sewerage Capacity Charge ........................ 55
SERV1CEC~GES ....... .......................... 58
Sewer Service Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Sewer Service
Charges " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
Sewer Service Charges for Low Income Households . . . . .. 60
Sewer Service Variance Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
STORM DRAINS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
Storm Drain Fees ............................... 61
PUMP STATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Sewal!'e Pumo Station Charl!'e ...................... 62
Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Pump Station
Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
INDUSTRIAL ....................................... 63
Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees (Industrial) . . . . . . . .. 63
Compliance Charges ............................. 64
Penalty for Late Payment ......................... 64
CHAPTER XIII ......................................... 65
Parks .................................................. 65
PARKLAND ACQUISITION IN-LffiU FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 65
PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT IN-LffiU FEES .............. 65
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ENCROACHMENT FEES. . .. . .. ... 65
CHAPTER XlV.......................................... 66
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
ANNEXATION......... ...... ....................... 66
Annexation Deposit . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
APPEALS AND HEARINGS ............................ 66
Appeals and Requested Actions before the Planning
Commission and Zoning Administrator .......... 66
CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
Conditional Use Permits and Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
PLAN REYmW AND INSPECTION ...................... 68
Design review .................................. 68
Environmental Review Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69
General Plan Amendment ......................... 69
Landscape Plan Review/Landscape Inspection . . . . . . . . .. 70
PC Zone - General Development Plan and Modifications .. 70
Planned Unit Developments and Modifications ......... 70
Plan Review - Construction Changes ............. . . .. 70
Precise Plan Approval and Modifications .............. 70
0-15
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Tabfe of Contents
Sectional Planning Area Plan and Modifications ........ 71
Site Plan and Architectural Approval (Zoning
Administrator) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71
Specific Plan Development Proposal and Modifications ... 71
Tentative and Vesting Tentative Map Fees ............ 72
SIGNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
Sign Permits ................................... 72
Signing Program Application and Modifications . . . . . . . .. 72
ZONING ........................................... 72
Rezoning ...........................:. . . . . . . . .. 72
Zoning Code Applications subsequent to a violation . . . . .. 73
Zoning Permit .................................. 73
C HAP T E R X V ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74
Fire Department Fees ...................................... 74
PERMITS .......................................... 74
Flammable and/or Combustible Liquid Storage Tanks. . .. 74
C HAP T E R X V I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75
Other Fees .............................................. 75
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ........................ 75
H-llo
CHAPTER!
Introduction
A. MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
1. General
a. The City Council shall adopt, by resolution, a Master Fee
Schedule, indicating therein the fees for all services,
administrative acts and other legally required fees, which
resolution may be amended from time to time and shall be
effective upon first reading and approval; provided, however, such
resolutions may specifY therein their applicability, if any. to
applications currently in the process of review.
b. A copy of the Master Fee Schedule shall be maintained in the
office of the City Clerk and in each department of the City.
[&solution 16579]
2. Fee Waivers
a. The fees set forth in the Master Fee Schedule may be waived by
the Waiving Authority, as defined hereinbelow in Subsection b, in
accordance with the following procedures:
1) Any person requesting an abatement of a fee herein
charged shall request said abatement in writing, addressed
to the Waiving Authority, and shall set forth therein, with
specificity, the reasons for requesting said abatement of all
or any portion of the fees.
2) The Waiving Authority shall conduct a public hearing,
notice of which is not required to be published. Notice of
said public hearing shall be given to the applicant and to
any party or parties requesting notice of same.
3) Prior to abating all or any portion of a fee established in
the master fee schedule, the Waiving Authority shall find
a peculiar economic hardship or other injustice would
result to the applicant which outweighs, when balanced
against, the need of the City for revenue and the need for
a uniform method of recovering same from those against .
whom it is imposed.
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter I. Introduction
ll- 11
Page 1
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
b. Waiving Authority, as the term is used herein, shall mean the
City Manager, or his designee, if the amount of such waiver is
less than or equal to the greater of(l) $2,500 or (2) 25% of the fee
imposed by the master fee schedule. If the amount of the waiver
is greater than the greater of $2,500 or 25% of the original fee
imposed by the master fee schedule, the Waiving Authority, as
used herein, shall mean the City Council.
c. If the Waiving Authority in a particular fee waiver matter is the
City Manager, or his designee, the decision of the City Manager,
or his designee, may be appealed to the City Council by any
resident of the City of Chula Vista, including, but not limited to,
the members of the City Council. If the Waiving Authority is not
the City Council, then the Waiving Authority shall provide notice
of his decision to waive a fee set forth in the master fee schedule
by distributing a copy of said notice of decision to each member
of the City Council and to the City Clerk. Said notice of decision
shall be deemed a public record.
[Resolution 16579]
3. Master Fee Schedule Copies.
Copies of the Master Fee Schedule may be purchased for ~ .$6.00.
[Resolution 16579]
B. DEFINITIONS
1. Full Cost Recovery
In this schedule, "a deposit to cover the City's full cost, including
overhead," or "the fee shall be the City's full cost including overhead" or
any similar phrase shall be understood to mean that:
a. The department shall determine the appropriate deposit for each
application and shall attempt to limit that deposit to a reasonable
amount. If, at any time, it appears that the deposit amount will
be insufficient to cover accumulated City costs, the applicant shall
deposit additional amounts as required by the Department Head.
b. If the City determines that consultants are required to assist in
the processing of any permit, the City reserves the right to retain
and pay such consultants from fees collected from the applicant.
Master Fee Scheduk
POI1 I . General
Chapter I . Introduction
Page 2
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
ll- 1'0
c. The City's full cost shall include any consultant fees paid by the
City all other direct expenses or pass-throue-h chare-es. plus all
City operational direct salary costs multiplied by the appropriate
departmental full cost recovery (FCR) multiplier. The multipliers
are as determined from time to time by the Department of
Finance and included herein by reference. (SEE APPENDIXES)
fRe8oluJion 165791
z.. DelinQuent Payment
Unless otherwise specified bv ordinance. resolution. master fee schedule
or invoice. a payment shall be considered delinQuent or late if it is not
received within thirty days ofbilline-. No payment shall be considered
delinQuent if the billinl!" notice is sent more than 90 days after the
chare-e has become payable.
~
b
Low Income Households
Elil!"ibilitv for City proe-rams or fee schedules restricted to low income
households shall be based on the 50% level of median family income for
the San Diel!"o Metropolitan Statistical Area as determined annually bv
the federal department ofHousine- and Urban Development and adopted
herein bv reference. (SEE APPENDIXES)
Eligibility reF Ie.:: iaeeme h81::lseheld :reaaeea se"."leF seF\-iee Fates shall he
EleterHlilleEl aeeerElillg te the taMe ill f43peRElin R (SEE
.WPENDlXES)
Master Fee Scheduk
Part 1 . General
elulpler 1 . Introduction
Ll-1 ~
Page 3
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
CHAPTER !!
Records. Documents. Research and Processinlt Fees
A. GENERAL
1. Research Requests
a. When an individual requests a City department to research and
investigate its files and records for general information then that
person shall be charged a fee haseEl ea of the full cost includine:
overhead for the time to conduct such research and investigation
&BEl tlle eempell5atiea eeBt eft.Re staffpel'lleBftel as EletermiaeEl hy
tfte DiFeeter sf FiFl8Bee.
b. General information is defined as "any data contained in City
files or other records."
c. In order to guarantee payment, the City department responsible
for conducting requested research or investigation shall estimate
the time to complete such work and require a e&eft deposit to
cover its estimated costs.
d. City departments shall not charge for requests for research and
investigation that involve a minimum amount of time (less than
10 minutes) to obtain. This section cannot be used to divide up
a large request for research and investigation into smaller
requests for the purposes of obtaining free research and
investigation.
[Resolution 16579]
2. Records and Documents
a. Copies of Records
1) Copies of any Official Record
(from COpy machine. microfilm. or microfiche)
Sille aREI Tyjle ~
8 1/2 II 11"
$.7li first page (1 eellY)
$.1li eaeR aElditisaal page eF esl'lY;
Master Fee Schedule
Part / . General
Chapter II . Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
f I-go
Page 4
(Rev. November /6, 1992)
8 gl X 13" $.78 Brst page (1 e9p)')
..le aaeft additisBal page SF e8J3J~
Reaaer $.78 Brst page (1 eapy)
PFiater $.15 eaea adEiitieBal page SF espy.
~.15 per pae-e. (Resolution 165791
b. Subscriptions for Agenda/Minutes
1) City Council
2) Redevelopment Agency
3) Planning Commission
Agenda and minutes of the meetings of the Council,
Planning Commission or Redevelopment Agency may be
mailed to applicants for an annual fee of $79.99 ~90.00
[Resolution 165791
Ae-endas only. Annual subscription .......... ~30.00
Minutes only. Annual subscription . . . . . . . . . . . ~65.00
4) Other Boards/Committees
Agenda and minutes of meetings of other commissions,
boards or committees may be mailed to applicants for an
annual fee of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $29.99 $12.00
[Resolution 165791
c. Transcripts of Public Meetings
Transcripts of all or a portion of any meeting or public hearing
. of the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board or
commission which are recorded may be obtained upon the
payment to the Director of Finance of the aebia! hBlH'ly J'8.te full
cost includine- overhead of a City employee transcribing said
record, phiS the iaeiaeBtal Byel'heaa eBSt.s tB he establishea hy the
DireetBr Bf FiBaBee, plus a charge per page for copying as
established herein.
{Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chaprer /I - Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
lL-~ I
Page 5
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
d. Intergovernmental Document Requests
Copies of any of the documents, minutes or records referenced
herein will be furnished to any federal, state, county,
municipality, district, department thereof, governmental agency
or any federal officer acting in his official capacity without charge
except in the case of a request for a transcript of the recorded
proceedings of any meeting or public hearing; provided, however,
that any such governmental agency shall be required to pay the
fee herein required for all copies in excess of one.
.!h Fax Transmissions
12. To a number within San Diee-o County - $.40 per pae-e
~ To a number outside San Diee-o County but within the
continental United States - $.50 per pae-e
Q2 To all other numbers - $4.00 for the first pae-e
.:-$3.00 for each additional pae-e
f. Business License Listine-s
12. Listine- of all licensed businesses - $.1Q
~ Listine- of all newly licensed businesses
,$10 per monthly listine-
$50 for one year of monthly listine-s (if picked up)
.$80 for one year of monthly listine-s (if mailed)
&. Records stored on Computer
12.
Printouts. Mainframe Reports
.$5.00 per printout
plus $.04 per pae-e
~ Copies of data on disk. tape. or other media
Per 3-1/2" disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,$1.00
Per 5-1/4" disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l..&Q
Per 8" disk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,$2.50
Per 1.200 ft. tape'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,$8.50
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 . General
Chapter 1/ - Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
ll-~L
Page 6
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
;u Anv reauests which reauire research. tlrol!I'amminl! or
tlrocessinl! time of at least ten minutes shall also be
subiect to research chaNes (See Section II.A.U.
3. Processing
a. Election Recount
The fee for an election recount at the request of a contestant
shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
!Resolution 16579]
b. Returned Checks
Any check returned for non-payment shall cause the issuer of
said check to be subject to a $W returned check fee .Qf..$15 if the
balance due is tlaid within 10 calendar davs of the first collection
notice: $25 if the balance due is not paid.
!Resolution 16579]
c. Tape Recording Set-Up
The City Clerk shall make available to any person requesting
such service the use of the tape recordings for use within City
Hall at a flat set-up charge of ............... $3.00 ,$5.00
!Resolution 16579]
B. ENGINEERING
1. Records and Documents
The City Engineer is authorized to furnish any person applying therefor
any of the following documents, papers, drawings or official records of
the Engineering Department upon payment of the fees herein
established:
&., .\ml.exatisR Plats, Legal DeseriptisBs
$ .4Q per s'l"--e feet ,',rith a B1i-'-"- fee sf $2.QQ
a. Bid Documents
$6.00 per complete plan and specifications; plus $1.00 per plan
sheet in excess of five sheets; provided, however, that any
Master Fee Scludu1e
Part I . General
ChIlpter /I . Records, Documents, Research IUId Processing Fees
ll-f)
Page 7
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
primary contractor purchasing one set of plans shall be given up
to two additional copies without additional charge and for
payment of two sets of plans and specifications, the contractor
may receive up to six copies of bid documents; a RRadliBg liBEl
pestage CRlH'ge sf $3.GG oostalre and handlinlr costs. with a
minimum charlre of ~ will be collected for plan sets mailed
at request of the Contractor.
b. Design and Construction Standards - $3.00 each
c. Maps and Drawings
Various master street and sewer maps annexation plats. lelral
descriptions. and miscellaneous drawings: $.65 per square foot,
with a minimum fee of $3.25
d. Aerial Topo Sheets
$9.00 per sheet, plus $1.00 per additional copy of same sheet
e. Title Sheets
1) Mylar title sheet blank ............ $4.00 per sheet
2) Mylar title sheet profile . . . . . . . . . . .. $5.00 per sheet
3) Vellum title sheet blank. . . . . . . . . . .. $1.50 per sheet
4) Vellum title sheet profile ........... $1.50 per sheet
f. Subdivision Manual - $7.00 each
g" Street Desirn Standards Policv ............... $3.00 each
h.
Annual Traffic Flow
..................... .
$3.00 each
1:. Resale of Publications from other
lrovernment alrencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. at City's cost
[Resolution 165791
U-~1
Page 8
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter II . Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
C. POLICE
1. Records and Documents
The Police Chief is authorized to furnish any person applying therefor
any of the following documents, papers or official records of the Police
Department upon payment of the following fees:
a. Accident Reports - $5.00 per copy
b. Crime Reports - $5.00 per copy
c. Photographs - $12.00 per copy
d. Record Check Letter Request - $2.00 each
[Resolution 16579]
2. Processing
a. Fingerprint Requests
The Police Chief shall furnish fingerprint identification service to
any person applying therefor upon payment of a fee
for City residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ $ 8.00
for non-residents of the City of Chula Vista . . .. $ 8.99 $10.00
[Resolution 16579]
ll-<(5
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter II . Records, Documents, Research and Processing Fees
Page 9
(Rev. January 14, 1993)
CHAPTER III
Animal Control
A. DOG LICENSES
1. Purchase
a. For license expiring one year from date of issue . . . . .. $19.99
1. do~s 6 months old or voun~er . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ 8.00
2. do~s over 6 months old ................... ~18.00
b. For license expiring two years from date of issue $18.99 ,$24.00
c. For license expiring three years from date ofissue$2S.99 ~28.00
Any dog license issued pursuant to this section shall be issued for one-
half the fees required hereinabove for any dog if a certificate from a
licensed veterinarian is presented or an affidavit is received stating that
the dog has been spayed or neutered. For all licenses. the license period
cannot exceed the expiration date of the rabies vaccination.
[Resokawn 16579]
2. Penalty for Late Application/Payment
The penalty aut~:orized to be collected for late payment shall
be ......................................... ~ $3.00
[Resolutwn 16579]
3. License Replacement
$1.99 IlFaeesBiBg fee
A. Processin~ fee in nerson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.00
b. Processin~ fee bv mail ................... . . . . . . . $3.00
[Resokawn 16579]
4. License Transfer
The fee for all types of dog license transfers shall be ~ . . . . . . $5.00.
[Resokawn 16579]
U-K4
Muter Fee SCMdule
liV';r 9f~'1l.inuIl Co1llrol
Page 10
(Rev. December 11,1992)
B. SALE OF DOGS AND CATS
Dol!'s Cats
Adoption $5 $13
Neuter Deposit $25 $12
Spay Deposit $25 $20
Rabies Shot Deposi t $8 N/A
{Resolution 132011
C. ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENI' AND RELINQUISHMENT
1. Impoundment
For the picking up, transporting and impounding of any animal
including a dog, by the use of equipment, personnel and regular
facilities maintained by the City. the City shall assess fees as shown
below. Offenses shall be counted per owner. not per animal (e.e.. if a
person has two does and each is picked UP three times. the owner is
e:uilty of six offenses).
$20.00 - first offense
$gg.gg eaeR SliBSeEltieat aR'eRse
$ f.Q9 per day far keepiag SlieR animal
$40.00 - second offense .
$60.00 - third and subseQuent offenses
[Resolution 165791
b Boardine of Impounded Animals
h per day
!h .$5/per day for does and cats
b. .$3/per day for birds and fowl
~ .$8/per day for eoats. sheep and other animals
~ 2. Relinquishment of Dogs and Cats (Liye or Dead)
Fer the FeliREllHSluBeBt sf 8ags 91' ea~s BY tReil' e"}.~eP8t there shall he
Be ehaFge pFeYlides the reliREI\HshmeBt is maae at tlte 1/_':-&1 sBelter,
iftBe 9\VileFS &Fe FesidsBts aetae City; 89...;8";81", ReR resideBts :&ley 1168
tae seFviees af the shelter BY deliveAag the &Rimal t.eeFeta and BY
MlISter Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter III . Animal Control
\l- i'7
Page 11
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
payiBg a fee ef $10.00 feF a deg eF eat. Res~EleBts efUle City wae ~sa
18 FeliRflwSR B.fl animal at taeiF plaee sf pesuieaee mas aa 89 hy p8j'iBg
a fee sf teB dell81'S te ha-;e the $'- al pieked \ip.
[Resolution 16579J
I I B~:~ht to I I
e ter Pick Up
Resident
Cats, Licensed Dogs $ 5.00 $15.00
Unlicensed Dogs $15.00 $25.00
Non-Resident
Cats, Dogs $25.00 N/A
( l -?f
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter III - Animal Control
Page 12
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
CHAPTER IV
Business Fees
A. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Business License - General
a. Duplicate License
$5 processing fee
[Resolution 165791
b. Change of Location
$a ill processing fee
[Resolution 165791
c. Home Occupation Permit
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 165791
2. Sales - Special
a. Closing Out Sale
$25 filing fee for first 60 davs
.$25 filin!! fee for one extension of 30 davs
[Resolution 165791
b. Special Sales Event
$de .$45 application fee
[Resolution 165791
c. Temporary Outside Sales Permit
$eG .$45 application fee
[Resolution 165791
. B. SPECIFIC BUSINESS
1. Art Figure Studio
a. License Investigation
Application - $100 nonrefundable fiHRg investieation fee
[Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter IV - Business Fees
l ,-y~
Page 13
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
b. Work Permit
Model Permit - $ 25 nonrefundable filiBg investil!ation fee
[Resolution 165791
2. Bath House - License Investigation
$100 filiBg non-refundable investil!ation fee
[Resolution 165791
b Binl!o License Investil!ation Fees - New and Renewal
Chairoerson $50
Co-Chairperson $27
In the event an application is denied, fifty percent of the fee shall
be refunded. Applicant shall also pay the required fees for
fingerprint processing for each change in the bingo
chairpersons. [Ordinance 19871
4. Card Room
a. License Investigation
$500 nonrefundable investigation fee
b. Work Permit
New: $50 - card room managers
$30 - card room employees
Annual renewal:
$20 - card room managers
$10 - card room employees
[Resolution 165791
5. Casino Parties
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 134391
6. Fratemal Society Gameroom
a. License Investigation
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapler IV - Business Fees
U-qD
Page 14
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
1:. Holistic Health Practitioner Investi!!ation Fee
~100 investi!!ation fee. refundable upon issuance of a business license
8. Junk Dealer
a. License Investigation
Business License - $80 nonrefundable investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
b. Work Permit
Employee ill Card - ~ $30 nonrefundable BHag investi!!ation
fee
,$10 chan!!e of address/replacement fee
[Resolution 165791
9. Live Entertainment License Investigation
$150 investigation fee, refundable upon issuance of a business
license
10. Massage Establishment
a. License Investigation
Massage parlor application - ~ ,$150 nonrefundable
investigation fee [Resolution 165791
b. Sale!I'ransfer
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 165791
c. Change of Location
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 165791
11. Massage Technician
a. Work Permit
$2& $30
nonrefundable investigation fee.
[Resolution 165791
Master Fee Schtdult
Part 1 - Getltral
Chapter IV - Busitltss Fees
n-~r
Page 15
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
12. Mobile Home Park Annual Operatin~ Fee
The annual safetv and health fee for operation of a mobile home park
shall be as established bv the State.
13. Pawnbroker
a. License Investigation
Business License - $80 nonrefundable investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
b. Work Permit
Employee ill Card - $2G $30 nonrefundable filiBg investi~ation
fee
.$10 chan~e of address/replacement fee
[Resolution 165791
14. Peddler
a. License Investigation
$10 filing fee
mesolution 165791
15. Public Dance
a. License Investigation
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
16. Second Hand Dealer
a. License Investigation
Business License - $80 nonrefundable investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
b. Work Permit
Employee ill Card - $2G $30 nonrefundable filiBg investi~ation
fee
$10 chan~e of address/replacement fee
mesolution 165791
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 - General
Chapter IV. Business Fees
{l-~L
Page 16
(Rep. January 14, 1993)
17.
Solicitor
a. License Investigation
$10 nonrefundable filing fee
[Resolution 165791
b. Identification Card - Work Permit
$16 RliR, fee
$15 reF a BRe yeM FeRe"llal annual fee
[Resolution 165791
18. Transient Merchant
a. License Investigation
$10 HliBg investil!ation fee
[Resolution 165791
C. Business. Other
1. Curb Loading Zone Permit Fee
Applicants for a curb loading zone permit shall pay a fee of $87 to cover
the cost of investigation plus an initial installation fee of $61.00 for 75
lineal feet plus $1.00 for each additional lineal foot and an equivalent
annual maintenance fee. In addition, if it is necessary to remove an
existing parking meter, the sum of $30 shall be charged to the
applicant.
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 " General
Chapter IV " Business Fees
u-t.t&
Page 17
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
CHAPTER V
Librarv
A. SERVICE FEES
1.
Library Cards
a. Resident card - no charge
b. Replacement of Lost Card - $1.00
c. Non-California Resident Cal"d - $HI.99.'jT
~20.00/vr
lResoluJion 16579]
[ResoluJion 16579]
2.
Audio Visual
a. Insurance Charge - $lO/year
b. Video Cassette Reserve - $.50/item
lResoluJion 16579]
[ResoluJion 16579]
3.
Books
a. Book Reserve - $.50/item
b. Interlibrary Loan - $.50/item
[ResoluJion 16579]
lResoluJion 16579]
4.
Darkroom
a. Use Fee - $4.00Ihr
[ResoluJion 16579]
Q. Lost Items
!h .$5.00 processing: fee added on to
the retail price of anv lost book or
audio-visual item
B. FINES
1. Overdue Charges
a. Books
Adults ........... $.25 per day per item
Children ......... $.05 per day per item
b.
[ResoluJion 16579]
lResoluJion 16579]
Audio-Visual - $3.00/day
2.
AudioNisual
a. Cassette Rewinding - $1.00/each
lResoluJion 165791
Master Fee Scheduk
Part J - General
Chapter V - Library
ll-qL\
Page 18
(Re.. No.ember 16, 1992)
CHAPTER V!
Police
A. ALARMS
1. Alarm Use Permit
A nonrefundable fee shall accompany each application for an alarm user
permit as follows:
a. A fee of ten dollars ($10.00) for both business and residential
applications.
b. A two dollar ($2.00) renewal fee will be required every
twenty-four (24) months.
[Resolution 16579]
2. False Alarm Assessment
When any emergency alarms, messages, signals, or notices are received
by the Communications Center which results in a police response and
in which the alarm proves to be a false alarm, the owner and/or
occupier of the property shall pay a false alarm assessment to the City
as follows:
a. The first two (2) false alarms within a ~welve (12) month period
shall be considered accidental and no fee shall be charged. The
alarm permit applicant shall be notified in writing by the Crime
Prevention Unit after the occurrence of the second false alarm,
notifying him/her that any further false alarms will result in
penalty assessments.
b. For false alarms exceeding the initial two (2) false alarms within
a twelve (12) month period:
1) Third (3rd) false alarm Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00).
2) Fourth (4th), Fifth (5th) and Sixth (6th) false alarms -
Fifty Dollars ($50.00).
3) All additional false alarms One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)
each.
l&solution 16579]
MMtu Fu Scheduu
Part I . General
Chapter VI - Police
\ I-C\CS
Page 19
(Re.. No.ember 16, 1992)
~ The fee for delinQuency in oavment of a false alarm char!!"e shall
be a basic oenaltv in an amount eQual to ten (10) oercent of the
false alarm char!!"e. olus one and one half (1-1/2%) oercent oer
month for non-oavment of the char!!"e and basic oenaltv. False
alarm fees shall be considered delinQuent if not oaid within 30
days of installation of the alarm system.
B. BICYCLE LICENSE
1. Application
A license fee of one dollar shall be paid in advance to the city before any
such license is granted. Renewals are valid for three years and shall be
indicated by a renewal sticker affixed parallel to and above or below the
license. New registrations require the purchase of a bicycle license (one
dollar) and a renewal sticker valid for three years (three dollars).
/Resolution 16579]
C. PROPERTY RECOVERY
1. By Owner
The fee for recovery of property in possession of the police department
shall be the City's full cost including overhead and charges for storage.
/Resolution 16579]
2. By Finder
The fee for title to property to be vested in the person who found or
saved the property or in the successful bidder at public auction shall be
the City's cost for publication.
/Resolution 16579]
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . GeMrol
Chapter VI . Police
11- OilQ
Page 20
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
CHAPTER VI!
Recreation Prosn-ams/Facilities
A. NON-RESIDENT POLICY
1. Fees for various Parks and Recreation Department programs and
classes shall be composed of fees applying to legal residents of the CIty
of Chula Vista and fees for non-residents. A resident shall be
considered any person residing within the City limits, and who can
show proof of residing, as defined in Chapter VII.A.2; and/or any person
paying property taxes to the City of Chula Vista, and supplying proof
of residency or property ownership, as defined in Chapter VII.C.2. The
resident and non-resident fee schedules will apply to the Master Fee
Schedule Chapter VII, B.I, B.2, C.I, C.2, and C.3.
2. Proof of residency in the City of Chula Vista shall be one of the
following:
a. Valid California Driver's License displaying City of Chula Vista
address on license, or official I.D. card issued by the Department
of Motor Vehicles for non-drivers.
b. Current year utility bill listing name and address of current
residence or property in Chula Vista on which property taxes are
being paid.
c. Active duty or retired military identification card.
d. Property tax statement.
B. PROGRAMS
1. Swimming
a. Classes
Fees for various Parks and Recreation Department programs and
classes shall be as follows. Non-Resident surcharge is 50%:
l \ -'1"\
Moster Fee Schedule
PIJI1I . General
Chapter VII . Recreation Programs/Facilities
Page ZI
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
Resident w!Non-Resident
Adult/Youth Adult
I. Beginners swimming ~ lli!participant $27.00/participant
2. Advanced swimming ~ lli!participant $27.00/participant
3. Tiny Tots swimming ~ $19/participant $28.00/participant
4. Parents and tots ~ $19/pair $28.00/pair
swimming
!L. Pool Passes
Annual:
Familv - $QQ
Adult - $,iQ
Senior - $3Q
Child - $.1Q
Dailv:
~.75 per person
2. Other
Fees for Parks and Recreation Department activities and classes shall
be set in consideration of the City's full cost including overhead. Non-
Resident surcharge for activities and classes will be 25%.
[Resolution 16769]
B. FACILITY USE
Parks and Recreation facilities are available to groups only when City
programs are not scheduled. Policies and regulations governing facility use
permits are provided in Council Resolution 12343. An employee or
City-appointed representative must be present during use of listed facilities.
1. General Facilities - Use Permit
a. Group Priorities
Facilities are available for recreation activities under the
following order of priority based on group classification. Non-
Resident surcharge is 100%:
Classification 1: City programs. Non-Resident surcharge not
applicable to city-sponsored uses.
Mast., Fee Schedule \ \ - C\e
Part I . General
ChDptLr VII . RecreaJion Programs/FacililUs
Page 22
(Re.. No.ember 16, 1992)
Classification 2: Chula Vista community service organizations
related in purpose to recreation and the
furtherance of community leisure programs.
Classification 3: Chula Vista civic and social organizations
which are democratic in character with
membership open to the general public or
designated elements thereof.
Classification 4: Private resident groups requiring large
facilities for special events not open to the
general public. If applicant is a Chula Vista
resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will not
apply.
Classification 5: Unions, employee associations and special
recreational groups and non-residential
groups requiring public facilities for fund
raising to perpetuate special interest. If
applicant is a Chula Vista resident, the Non-
Resident surcharge will not apply.
Classification 6: Private individuals or groups offering
recreational type activities for the purpose of
monetary gain. If applicant is a Chula Vista
resident, the Non-Resident surcharge will not
apply.
b. Basic Fee Schedule
Fees will be charged for any activities requiring leadership or
custodial services. Basic Fee schedule is based on the group's
classification as described in Section A above. There will be an
additional charge if time is required outside of normal employee
working hours or special services are required.
Fee Schedule I: Community organizations in classification 2,
or 3 shall be granted use of facilities without
charge if admission fee/contribution is not
collected.
Fee Schedule II: Community organizations in classification 2
or 3 can use facilities on an actual cost basis
Masur Fit Schedule
Part I . General
Chapter VII . Recreation ProgramslFacUilies
\ \-q~
Page 23
(Re.. November 16, 1992)
,
,>
if a contribution/fee is assessed for charitable
purposes.
Charges are based on actual costs for
personnel and a minimum utility charge as
shown in fee schedule 2.
Fee Schedule III: Resident organizations and individuals not
qualifying for Fee Schedules 1 or 2 will be
assessed the rental rate shown in Fee
Schedule 3.
Fee Schedule IV: Those individuals or groups in Categories 5
and 6 will he assessed rates based on Fee
Schedule 4 or 30 percent of gross receipts,
whichever is larger. A financial report must
be submitted one week after the activity is
held if an admission fee was charged. If
applicant is a Chula Vista resident, the Non-
Resident surcharge will not apply. Non-
Resident surcharge will be applied to fee or
30% of gross receipts, as applicable.
Master Fcc Scheduk
Part I . General
Chapter VII. RecreatWn Programs/Facilities
\ \ - \ 00
Page 24
(Rev. November 16,1992)
For the Non-Resident surcharge for Facility Rentals, all hourly rates listed below will
be increased by 100%:
FEE SCHEDULE
Facilitv n m IV
1. Parkway Gymnasium
a. Gymnasium $10 $30 $60
2. Parkway Community Cenl<!r
.. Auditorium $10 $25 $50
b. Cl..sroom $5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen facilities $3 $3 $3
3. Lauderbach Community Center
eo Auditorium $10 $25 $50
b. Classroom $5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen $ 3 $3 $3
4. Norman Park Center
a. Cornell Hall $5 $20 $40
b. Norman Hall $5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen $3 $3 $3
5. Lorna Verde Recreation Center
a. Auditorium $10 $25 $50
b. Classroom $5 $10 $20
c. Kitchen $3 $3 $3
6. Other Recreation Facilities
a. Rohr Manor $5 $20 $40
b. Memorial Bowl . $20 $40
c. Sunrise Center $5 $20 $40
7. Swimming Pools Rent StalT .. Needed
a. Loma Verde $401hr plus Current staff salary
b. Park Way $301hr plus Current stalT salary
-To be determined. by Aquatic Coordinator
All hourly rot.. an chor,od on u.. basis of -pc hour or any portion lherrof.'
[Resolution 16769]
\t- lO\
Page 25
(Re~. No~ember 16, 1992)
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Programs/FacUiJus
c. Cancellation Fee
Parks and Recreation office must be notified of cancellation a
minimum of 48 hours prior to scheduled time for activity.
Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the fee.
[Resolution 165791
d. Required Deposits (Non-Resident surcharge does not apply to
deposits).
A cleaning/damage deposit of $200 may be required for certain
activities.
An additional deposit of $100 will be required of groups granted
permission to have alcoholic beverages.
[Resolution 165791
e. Variations
Variations of stated fees must have approval of the Parks and
Recreation Director.
[Resolution 165791
2. Picnic Shelters
For the Non-Resident surcharge for Picnic Shelters, all Reservation Fee
rates listed below will be increased by 100%:
Medium
Small (Cluster) Large
a. Reservation Fee $25 $75 $100
b. Cleaning/Security Deposit $25 $75 $100
c. Maximum Group Size 50 100 200
d. Cancellation Fee
Groups which cancel a reservation will be charged a $5
handling fee.
[Resolution 167691
Master Fee Schedule
Part 1 - General
Chapter VII - Recreation Programs/Facilities
\ \ - \O'J-
Page 26
(Rev. Novem~r 16,1992)
3. Ballfields
For the Non-Resident surcharge for ballfields, all reservation fee rates
listed below will be incresed by 100%:
Prepped Unprepped
a. Reservation Fee $20 + $101hr. $lOlhr.
b. CleaninglSecurity Deposit N/A N/A
c. Maximum Group Size N/A N/A
d. Cancellation Fee
Groups which cancel a reservation will be charged a $5
handling fee.
[ResolutwFI 16769]
Muter Fcc Schedule \ I -lO.,3
PIUII . Gelltral
CluJpltr VII . Recrcalion Programs/Facilities
Page 27
(Rer. Norembtr 16, 1992)
CHAPTER VBI
Greens Fees. Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course
A. STANDARD GREENS FEES
Number Standard Resident
-2f Greens Discount
Applicable Davs!I'i.mes/Months Holes Fees Rate
Monday through Friday
(excluding legal holidays) 18 $15.00 $13.00
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays 18 20.00 17.00
Monday through Friday
(excluding legal holidays) 9 10.00 8.00*
Monday through Friday/twilight 9 10.00 9.00
Monday through Friday/super twilight 9 8.00 7.00
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays 9 12.00* 10.00*
Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays/twilight 13.00 11.00
Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays/super twilight 9.00 8.00
· 9-Hole play would continue to be scheduled in the early morning on the back nine only.
Once the front nine golfers are finished, 9-hole play will be limited after 12:00 noon.
NOTE: Twilhrht and super twilie-ht posted seasonally.
B. LADIES DAY GREENS FEES
Tuesday (excluding legal holidays)
Tuesdays only; except when a legal holiday falls on a Tuesday,
18 holes .................... $13.00
C. RESIDENT DISCOUNTS
1. A resident discount card is established at an annual charge of $8.00.
Residency requirements must be met to purchase the discount card.
One of the following forms of identification will be required to show
proof of residency:
~ l- LOY-
Page 28
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
MfJSler Fee Schedule
Pan I . General
Chap~r VIII - Greens Fees, Chula Vis//J Municipal Golf Course
-- ~ - ---,
1. Driver's License
2. Current Utility Bill
3. A Parcel Map showing location of Chula Vista property
ownership
2. Resident rates shall also apply for non-residents of the City of Chula
Vista who are members of either the Chula Vista Men's Golf Club or the
Chula Vista Ladies' Golf Association and who have paid a $25.00
one-time only fee to the City of Chula Vista.
D. JlJNIOR MONTHLY TICKET
The cost of a junior monthly ticket is hereby established as $25.00. Said
monthly ticket shall entitle a junior (defined as non-college students who have
not reached their eighteenth birthday or completed their senior year of high
school) to playa maximum of 18 holes per day after the hour of 2:00 p.m.,
subject to any rules, regulations or restrictions imposed by the management
of the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course.
E. SENIORS RATES
1. Qualifications
a. Chula Vista residency. Said residency shall be verified by
driver's license or voter registration card.
b. The individual must be at least 62 years of age.
c. Play is restricted to weekdays only, holidays excluded.
2. Seniors Discount Cards (Yearly, Monthly)
a. ~ Yearly Discount Card, subject to above qualifications . $10.00
b. Monthly Discount Card, subject to above qualifications - $40.00
l \ -J.C6
MlISter Fee Schedule
Put I . General
ClulpIer VIII. Greens Fees, Chu/Q VisID Munieipal Galf Course
Page 29
(Re.. No.ember J6, J992)
3. Seniors Greens Fees (Residents only)
Number of Greens Fees
Applicable Da vslI'imesIMonths Holes Charl!es
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays 9 $4.00.
- with yearly discount card 18 6.50
- with monthly discount card 18 1.00
· 9-Hole play would continue to be scheduled in the early morning on the back nine only.
Once the front nine golfers are finished, 9-hole play will be limited after 12:00 noon.
F. RAIN CHECKS
No rain checks will be given for any fee category.
G. LEGAL HOLIDAYS
For the purpose of these golf course fees, legal holidays are defined as follows:
January I, New Year's Day; February 12, Lincoln's Birthday; third Monday in
February, Washington's Birthday; last Monday in May, Memorial Day; July 4,
Independence Day; first Monday in September, Labor Day; September 9,
Admission Day; second Monday in October, Columbus Day; November 11,
Veterans' Day; fourth Thursday in November, Thanksgiving; fourth Friday in
November; and December 25, ChriStmt-.3.
[Resolution 16608]
u- l D~
Muter Fee Schedule
Part I . Genel'lll
Chopter VIII. Greens Fees, Chuw Vista Municipal Golf Course
Page 30
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
CHAPTER !X
Downtown Imnrovement District
A. DOWNI'OWN
1. Downtown Improvement District Assessment
a. Professionals (as defined in Section 5.06.020 of the Municipal
Code) shall pay $100 per professional, provided that all
professionals working in a partnership or corporation at the same
address shall not pay in excess of $100.
b. All other businesses in the downtown parking and improvement
area shall pay a base fee of $50 plus $6 per employee, excluding
the owner or first employee, provided that no business location
shall pay in excess of $100.
&. The fee for delinquency in pavment of a downtown district
assessment shall be a basic penaltv in an amount equal to ten
percent of the assessment. plus one and one half (1-1/2) percent
per month for non-pavment of the assessment and basic penalty.
!Resolution 16579]
2. Parking
a. Downtown Parking District - In-Lieu Parking Fee
For the purposes of setting the in-lieu parking fee, pursuant to
City Ordinance 19.62.040, the fair market value of land within
the Downtown Parking District will be computed at $20 per
square foot.
The fee shall be based upon an amount equal to twenty-five
percent of the fair market value of that portion of the property
which would have been required to be developed for parking
purposes.
!Resolution 16579]
b. Downtown Business Area Parking Permit
$54 Quarterly Permit Fee: Parking permit tags for the
downtown business area parking lots are for use in nine-hour
spaces only. The Director of Finance may, in the exercise of
\\-I0"l
Page 31
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part I . General
Chapur IX - Downtown Improvement District
discretion, prorate the quarterly fee if an applicant desires to
purchase a permit tag for the balance of a calendar quarter.
[&solution 165791
Master Fee Schedule \ l- \ D8
Part I . General
ehllpter IX. Dow1JIown Improvement District
Page 32
(Rev. November 16, 1992)
CHAPTER X
Buildinfl and Housinlt
A. APPEALS
l... Board of Anneals and Advisors. Hearinl!' Annlication
The filinl!' fee for a hearinl!' before the Board of Anneals and Advisors
shall be a deoosit to cover the city's full cost includinl!' overhead.
2. Building Move, Relocation, or Demolition Appeal
The fee for filing an appeal of a finding or recommendation of the
Building and Housing Department on a building move, relocation or
demolition shall be one-half of the original application fee.
lRuolution 16579]
B. CODE ENFORCEMENT
1. Nuisance Abatement: Appeal fee
The amount of the appeal fee shall be determined periodically by the
City Council based upon the costs incurred by the City in processing an
appeal pursuant to this chapter. The calculation shall include all costs
of the City Abatement Officer, City Clerk, and the City Council uut
shall exclude actual costs for any work of abatement calcul"ted
pursuant to Section 9.9. lRuolution 16579]
2. Nuj.sance Abatement: Noncompliance with order to abate
The fee authorized in case of noncompliance with an order to abate shall
be the City's full cost including overhead for nuisance abatement.
{Ruolution 16579]
3. Sign Structures - Charges for moving, removal, correction or other work
performed by the city
The fee for moving, removing, correcting, storing or doing work on a
sign or sign structure shall be the city's full cost including overhead.
{Ruolution 16579]
MIIS"r Fet SCMdll1e
Pm 11 . IHveloplMllt
elulp"r x . BIlUding tIIId HOllsing
U - lOOt
PIIge 33
(Rev. IHumber 10, 1992)
C. BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting building permits shall be collected in
accordance with the fee schedule below.
TOTAL VALUATION FEE
$1.00 to $500.00 $15.00
$501.00 to $2,000.00 $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for
each additional $100.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including.$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$3.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof to and including
$500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $2,039.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus
$1,000,000.00 $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000.00
$100,001.00 and up $3,539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus
$2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
The fee fer eeBd,lleting a 8elBpB8Bee B11IVeY sf 8B emoting swetaPe shall he
$.78 per 109 square €eet sf BeeF area 81' heti8B therese, lnlt B8 les8 than
$7li.99.
H- 1\0
Pagt 34
(Rtv. Dtctmbtr 10, 1992)
Masur Fit Scll4tl1lk
Part 11 . DtPlIoJllllt"t
Cltaptlr X . B8Udillg aIIII H08Sillg
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of nonnal business hours ~
full cost recovery
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) ~
full cost recovery
3. Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum ~
charge -- one-half hour) full cost recovery
4. Comllliance Survey InSllections (minimum charlre - one hour) full cost recovery
5. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or ~
revisions to approved plans (minimum - one-half hour) full cost recovery
6. Stronl! Motion Instrumentation PI'Olrram fees per California Iler State reouirements
Health and Safety Code
7. Applications requiring additional plan review to confinn
conformance with California Administrative Code Title 24
requirements for Energy Conservation shall pay an additional
15% for plan check and an additional 15% for inspection.
8. Applications requiring additional plan review and inspection
to confirm conformance with California Administrative Code
Title 24 requirements for disabled access shall pay an
additional 10% for plan check and an additional 10% for
inspection.
9. Foundation only Ilennits (not credited toward buildin!! 25% of buildin!! Ilermit
Ilennit) fee or as otherwise
determined foIlowin!!
reauest for Buildin!!
Official review
10. Alllllication for hearin!! before Board of Alllleals and full cost recovery
Ad visors
11. ADDlication for Administrative Hearin!! to evaluate full cost recovery
alternate methods and materials
12. Certificate of OCCUDanCy issuance $100
13. Temoorary Certificate of OccuDanCy issuance $100
14. Plan maintenance charlre (retention mandated by 2% of buildin!! pennit
California Health and Safetv Code Sec. 19850) fees
(bldl!.. mech. Dlmb &
elect)
(min. $5)
15. Permits for mobile home installations and accessorv per State reouirements
buildinl!S and structures
[Resolution 16579]
Master Fee SCMdule
Part 11 . Development
eluzpler X . BuUding and Housing
,,-Ill
Page 35
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
D. DETERMINATION OF VALUE
The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this
master fee schedule or of the building code have been made by the building
official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building
plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the
permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical,
plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and
any other permanent equipment (SEE APPENDIXES).
(Raolution 16579]
F. ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting electrical permits shall be as follows:
A. For issuing each permit
For issuin~ each supplemental
permit
$lQ.QQ
,315.00
4.50
B.
Ne.~. genstnietisB, fer sash ..........:Pere
sf ..........:B senies, B~y\iteft, Nae, 9F
I3FeakeF
SiBgle Phase
TMee passe
.4Q
.GG
c.
Ne"Jv samea 88 eHisting l:niild:iBg,
feF eaeh --per€! sf iBeFeae8 iB maiR
sernee, 8".'.~teh, fuse, 8F hFeakeF
Single Phase
Three paase
.4Q
.GG
D.
Remsde), al,eI'6MSR, BS ehaBge ia
sanies, feF saeh ....-pere sf iBeFeaSe
Single Phase
Three Phase
.4Q
.GG
&GG
E.
Tempsl'6Ty semee lip ill eBd
iBelllEling 2QQ -""peFe
F. TemJ39F8J"y 8e"~ee ever :JQQ ....-pere
per lQQ -""peFe
G. 1B additisB, in eiiet.isBs simil8F ts
thsse listed llBaer the SlHlSeeMSR
ti~ed "OtfteF w:peHi8flS and. Fees"
sf SeessR lB.QS.Q7Q, the fee shall
13e the 8--8.
~
(Raolution 16579]
Master Fee Scluduk
PIJI1I1 . Derelopment
Clulpter X . Bllilding tutd Housing
\\ -\\ er
PflIe 36
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
(Note: The followi1ll! do Mt include permit-issui1ll! fee.)
New Residential Buildinn - The followilll! fees shall include all wirim! and electrical
eauillment in or on each buildim!. or other electrical eauillment on the same Ilremises
constrocted at the same time.
For new multifamily residential buildilU!ll (all8rtments and ~
condominiums) havinl! three or more livinl! units not includinl! the area of
l!8rll2eS. can>orts and other noncommercial automobile storaee areas
constrocted at the same time. Der sauare foot.
For new sirurle- and two-family residential buildinl!S not includinl! the .035
area of llarll2es. can>orts and other minor IlCa!ssorv buildinl!S constrocted
at the same time. Der sauare foot.
For other tVDeS of residential occullancies and alterations. additions and
modifications to existinll residential buildinl!S. use the UNIT FEE
SCHEDULE.
Private Swimminll Pools
For new Ilriyate. residential. in-l!rOund. swimminl! IIOOls for simrle-family ~
and multifamily occullancies incIudinl! a comlllete sYStem of necessary
branch circuit wirinl!. bondinl!. l!rOundirur. underwater lil!htinl!. water
Ilumllinl! and other similar electrical eauillment directly related to the
oDeration of a swimminl! IlOO1. each
For other tVDeS of swimminllllOOls. theraDeutic whirlllOOls. Silas and
alterations to existirur swimmirur IIOOls. use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE.
Carnivals and Circuses. Carniyals. circuses. or other trayeIinll shows or exhibitions
utiIizinl! transllOrtsble-tVDe rides. booths. dislllavs and attractions.
For electric eenerators and electrically driven rides. each 15.00
For mechanically driyen rides and walk-throul!h attractions or diSlllays !:.@
havinl! electric Iil!htinl!. each
For a sYStem of area and booth Iil!htilll!. each 4.50
For Dermanently installed. rides. booths. diSlllays and attractions. use the
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE.
Temporary Power Service
For a temoorarv service oower oole or Dedestal includinl! alloole or 15.00
Dedestal-mounted recelltacle outlets and allllurtenances. each
For a temoorarv distribution SYstem and temoorarv Iillhtinl! and 7.50
recelltscIe outlets for constroction sites. decoratiye Iil!bt. Christmas tree
sales lots. firework stands. etc.. each
MtJlter Fee SCMdll"
Ptut 11 . DeHWptMllt
Clulpter X . B"Wing tutd HDIISing
U-IL~
Page 37
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
(Note: The followiTli! do not ine/ude permit issuiTli! fee.)
Receptacle. Switch and Lil!:htinl!: Outlets
For reoeDtacle. switch. lil!"htinl!" or other outlets at which current is used
or controlled. exceDt services. feeders and meters.
First 20. each .75
Additional outlets. each .45
NOTE: For multioutlet assemblks. each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be
considered as one outlet.
Lil!:htinl!: Fixtures
For lil!'htinl!' fixtures. sockets or other lamD-holdinl!' devices
First 20. each .75
Additional fixtures. each .45
For Dole or Dlatform-mounted lil!"htinl!' fixtures. each .75
For theatrical-tYDe lil!'htinl!' fixtures or assemblies. each .75
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential 8DDliances or receDtacle outlets for same. includinl!'
wall-mounted electric ovens: counter-mounted cookinl!" toDS: electric
ranl!'es. self-contained room. console. or throul!'h-wall air conditioners:
sDace heaters: food waste l!'rinders: dishwashers: washinl!' machines: water
heaters: clothes drvers: or other motor-ooerated aDDliances not exceedinl!'
one horseDower (HP) in ratinl!". each ~
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven
appliances haviTli! larRer electrical ratiTli!s. see Power Aoparatus.
Nonresidential Appliances
For residential aDDliances and self-contained factory-wired. nonresidential 3.00
aDDliances not exceedinl!" one horseoower (HP). kilowatt (KW). or kiloyolt-
amDere (KV A). in ratinl!' includinl!" medical and dental devices: food.
beveral!'e. and ice cream cabinets: illuminated show cases: drinkinl!'
fountains: vendinl!' machines: laundry machines: or other similar tYDes of
eauiDment. each
Power Apparatus
For motors. e-enerators. transformers. rectifiers. synchronous converters.
C8Dacitors. industrial heatinl!'. air conditioners and heat DumDS. cookinl!' or
bakinl!' eauiDment and other aDDaratus. as follows.
Ratinl!" in horseoower (lIP). kilowatts (KW). kilovolt-amoeres
(KV A). or kilovolt-amoeres-reactive (KV AR):
\ \ - \ \~
Page 38
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part 11 . Development
Chapter X . BuUding and Housing
'FEE
Uo to and' in.. 1 oo~h 3.00
Ovo. 1 on~ nn' nvo. 1 0 oo~h 7 fin
Ovo. 1 0 on~ nn' nvo. 1<0 oo~h 11> 00
Ov~r 50 and not ov~r 100. ~a~h 3000
Ov~r 1 no oo~h 41>00
NOTE:L,. For ellui"ment or a""liances havirut more than one motor.
transfonner. heater. etc.. the sum of the combined ratiruts
may be used.
E.:. These fees incluck all switches. circuit breakers.
contactors. thermostats. relays and other directly related
control ellui"ment.
Busways
For trolley and i>lul!'-in tYDe buswavs. each 100 feet or fraction thereof. 4.50
NOTE: An additional fee will be relluired for liRhtinll fIXtures. motors and
other O/J"liances that are connected to trolley and "IUll-in tv"e
busways. No fee is relluired for /JOrtable tools.
Shms. Outline Lhthtinl!' and Marquees
For sil!'ns. outline Iil!'htinl!' svstems or marQuees supplied from one branch .!2..QQ
circuit. each
For additional branch circuits within the same sil!'n. outline Iil!'htinl!' ~
system or marauee. each
Services
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in ratinl!'. each 18.50
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in 37.50
ratinl!'. each
For services over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in ratinl!'. each 75.00
Miscellaneous Auuaratus. Conduits and Conductors
For electrical apparatus. conduits and conductors for which a permit is 11.00
required but for which no fee is herein set forth
NOTE: This fee is not a""licable when a fee is "aid for one or more
services. outlets. fixtures. a""liances. "ower a""aratus. busways.
siRns or other eQui"ment.
G. HOUSING PERMIT FEES
The fee for a housing permit as authorized by Section 15.20.040 of the
Municipal Code shall be as follows:
Master Fee Scheduk
Part II . lHvelopment
eluJpter X . Building and Housing
\t-115
Page 39
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
For each apartment house, lodging house, boarding house, group
residence, hotel and motel containing -
not more than six (6) units
not less than seven (7) units but not more than ten (10) units
not less than eleven (11) units but no more than fifteen (15) units
more than fifteen (15) units
~
$8&3G
$78.00
$106.00
$127.00
For failure to pay a housing permit fee on or before the delinquency date, the
penalty shall be computed on the same basis as the penalty to be paid for
failure to pay a business license fee tax on or before the delinquency date as
outlined in Section 5.04.080 of the Municipal Code.
[Resolution 16579]
H. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting mechanical permits shall be as follows:
A. For the issuance of this permit 15.00
B. For issuinl! each suvvlementalvermit 4.50
C. For the installation or relocation of each forced air or 9.00
gravity type furnace/burner, including ducts and
vents attached to such appliance, up to and
including 100,000 Btu's
D. For the installation or relocation of each forced air or 11.00
gravity type furnace/burner, including ducts and
vents
E. For the installation or relocation of each floor 9.00
furnace, including vent
F. For the installation or relocation of each suspended 9.00
heater, recessed wall heater or floor mounted unit
heater
G. For the installation, relocation or replacement of 4.50
each appliance vent installed and not included in an
application
Master Fee Schedule
Part 11 . lHvewpmellt
Chapter X - BuUding and Housing
\\-\\~
Page 40
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
H. For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each 9.00
heating appliance, refrigeration unit, comfort cooling
unit, absorption unit, or evaporative cooling system,
including installation of controls regulated by this
Code
I. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 9.00
compressor up to and including three horsepower, or
each absorption system up to and including 100,000
Btu's
J. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 16.50
compressor over three horsepower to and including
15 horsepower, or each absorption system over
100,000 Btu's to and including 500,000 Btu's
K. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 22.50
compressor over 15 horsepower, or each absorption
system over 500,000 Btu's to and including 1,000,000
Btu's
L. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 33.50
compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50'
horsepower, or for each absorption system over
1,000,000 Btu's and including 1,750,000 Btu's
M. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or 56.00
refrigeration compressor over 50 horsepower, or each
absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu's
N. For each air handling unit to and including 10,000 6.50
cubic fee per minute, including ducts attached
thereto
O. For each air handling unit over 10,000 cubic feet per 11.00
minute
P. For each evaporative cooler other than portable type 6.50
Q. For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct 4.50
R. For each ventilation system which is not a portion of 6.50
any heating or air conditioning system authorized by
a permit
Master Fee Schedule
PIJI't 11 - DeveUJpment
CluJpter X - BuUding and Housing
Il-lll
Page 41
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
S. For the installation of each hood which is served by 6.50
mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for each
hood
T. For the installation or relocation of each domestic 11.00
type incinerator
U. For the installation or relocation of each commercial 45.00
or industrial type incinerator
V. For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated 6.50
by this Code but not classed in other appliance
categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this
Code
W. In addition, in situations similar to those listed
under the subsection titled "Other Inspection and
Fees" of Section X.C. (Building Permits), the fee
shall be the same.
.
X. For the plan review of mechanical work 25% of total
mechanical
permit fee
[Resolution 16579]
I. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting plumbing permits shall be as follows:
A. For issuing each permit $19.99 ,$20.00
B. For issuinl! each supplemental permit 10.00
C. For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of ~ 7.00
fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage
piping and backflow protection therefore)
D. For each building sewer and each trailer park 8,00 15.00
sewer
E. Rainwater system - per drain (inside building) ~ 7.00
F. For each cesspool 8,00 25.00
G. For each private sewage disposal system ~ 40.00
\\.-1\8
Page 42
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part JJ . IHvelopment
Chapter X . Building and Housing
H. For each water heater and/or vent &eG 7.00
I. For each gas piping system of one (1) to CaliF (f) &eG 5.00
five (5) outlets
J. For each additional gas piping system af five (e) 1.00
aF maFe outlet. per outlet
K. For each industrial waste pretreatment &eG 7.00
interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting
kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as .
fixture traps
L. For installation, alteration or repair of water &eG 7.00
piping and/or water treating equipment
M. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent 3.50 7.00
pipine. each fixture
N. For each lawn sprinkler system on anyone &eG 7.00
meter, including backflow protection devices
therefor
O. For atmospheric-tvoe vacuum breakers ef &eG 5.00
haekllev." pFeteethge QfJ'"..iees 9a tanks, ":ate, ete. SF
{aF iflstallatieH. SF} \iFl]3F9teetecI pll:H&l:liag Rxtu.Fes
iFleh:1diBg- BeeeSBaFY ....:step pipiBg aRe (1) te faliF
{4j not included in N. above - (1) to (5)
P. liWe Over (5) aF meFe, each 1.00
O. For each backflow protective device other than
atmospheric tvoe vacuum breakers:
2-inch diameter and smaller 7.00
over 2-inch diameter 15.00
P. In addition, in situations similar to those listed
under the subsection titled "Other Inspection and
Fees" of Section X.C. (Building Permits), the fee
shall be the same.
[&solution 16579]
Master Fee Schedule
P/JI111 - Development
Chapter X - Building and Housing
\.l-\\"
Page 43
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
CHAPTER Xl
Enltineerinll
A. DEFERRALSlWAIVERS
1. Deferral of Public Improvements
$234 fiBag fee
.!h ,$250 filin!! fees for sin!!le family residential
b. ,$335 filin!! fees for multi-family residential. commercial. and
industrial
~ ,$ 30 filin!! fee for extension of a deferral
d. ,$200 apneal fee
!Resolution 16579]
2. Deferral of Undergrounding Utilities
$aae Baag fee
The fee shall be a deposit to cover the city's full cost includin!! overhead
in review and processinl!' of the deferral reauest.
!Resolution 16579]
3. Waiver of Public Improvements
$281. Baag fee
.!h The filin!! fee shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost
includin!! overhead incurred in coniunction with review and
processin!! of the waiver.
b.
~200 apneal fee.
!Resolution 16579]
B. PLAN REVIEW
1. Adjustment Plat Examination Fee
a. ~ ~ per plat resulting in adjustment of property lines
b. $l4S ,$360 per plat resulting in consolidation of two or more
parcels.
lI-I~O
PflI~44
(R~v. IHc~lItMr 10, 1992)
MtI$ur F~~ SCMdllk
PtII111 . IHHI11J11M"t
Clttlpur Xl . ElIgill~~riIIg
c. The adiustment Dlat fee and consolidation fee shall include a
certificate of comDliance. if needed. at no additional cost.
lRaolution 16579]
2. Certificate of Compliance
$ae $200 filing fee
[Resolution 16579]
3. Final Map and Improvement Plan Fee
Prior to the submission of a final map and improvement plans or any
portion thereof to the Planning Department and/or the City Engineer for
processing, the property owner or subdivider shall submit a
deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead incurred in
conjunction with review and processing of said map and plans. Any
required adjustment shall be made prior to City Council consideration
of the Final Map. [Resolution 16579]
4. Final Map Recordation Fee
Upon the filing of the final map with the City Council, the property
owner or subdivider shall deposit with the City Clerk a sum sufficient
to cover the cost of recording the map.
[Resolution 16579]
MIlS'" F" Scadule
Put II . DeHlopIMllt
CItiJp", XI . E",iM,riIIg
n-t~\
P." 4S
(RIP. Deeelllbe, 10, 1992)
5. Plan Review and Inspection, Encroachment and Construction Permi~
PIeR
PN'....SR Special
Estimated Private It Investigation
Construction Plan Pf'IeIimi~ CellMPaeRBR Encroachment
Cost Review 8w-:ey 81lr:e~.s Inspections Only
0-104 36 8i 8i 18 30
105-144 36 43 . 43 22 36
145-194 36 U U 29 45
195-254 36 as as 40 57
255-329 36 83 83 50 69
330-419 36 &:l &:l 68 81
420-529 36 ~ ~ 86 93
530-659 54 ~ ~ 108 108
660-809 54 H8 H8 133 123
810-989 54 I6ll I6ll 162 135
990-1209 54 ~ ~ 180 150
1210-1479 54 ~ ~ 198 165
1480-1819 72 aaG lIlMl 220 183
1820-2259 72 ~ ~ 241 201
2260-2699 72 263 263 263 219
2700-3139 72 a8l a8l 281 234
3140-3579 72 a99 a99 299 249
3580-4059 72 3l-'1 3l-'1 317 264
4060-4579 90 8M 8M 331 276
4580-5139 90 lI63 lI63 353 294
5140-5739 90 au au 374 312
5740-6339 90 89G 89G 396 330
6340-6979 108 G8 G8 418 348
6980-7659 108 439 439 439 366
7660-8379 108 ~ ~ 461 384
8380-9119 126 48a 48a 482 402
9120-10,000 126 iQ4 iQ4 504 420
ever 19,999 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(All figures shown are in dollars unless otherwise noted)
For estimated construction costs over $10,000 the fee shall be a deDosit
to cover the City's full cost includinl!" overhead incurred in Dlan review
and insDection for encroachment Dermits and construction Dermits.
Special investigation application fees are not refundable.
!Resolution 16579]
MlJ!iur Fee Sclledllk
Pm 11 . De.-eIi1/HfUtat
Cltllpur XI . E"Iilleerillg
\\ - \ ~
Page 46
(Re.. December 10, 1992)
6. Preliminary Parcel Map Fee
Prior to the submission of a preliminAry parcel map to the city Engineer
for processing, the property owner shall submit a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. Should the map be withdrawn at
any time the deposit shall be adjusted to cover the City's actual costs
including overhead up to that time. Said deposit shall not include
checking of any required improvement plans or inspection of
improvements. Fees for encroachment permit, plan review and
inspection shall be computed pursuant to Section XI.B.5 (Open Space
District Enroachment) contained in the master fee schedule.
lRaolution 165791
7. Public Works Inspection
a. Following Council approval of the final map but prior to the
recordation of said map, the property owner or subdivider shall
submit a deposit to cover the City's full cost of inspection, and
administration during the construction phase of the project,
including plan revisions and any special investigations including
soils and geology reviews and City consultants. The deposit shall
be adjusted to cover the City's full cost, including overhead prior
to acceptance of improvements and/or release of bonds.
b. In addition to other fees contained in the Master Fee Schedule
relative to Public Works inspections, subdivider or contractor
shall pay to the City, prior to the acceptance of public
improvements in any subdivision or street right-of-way or
easement for public purposes, the sum U 1.5 times the
inspector's hourly rate of pay (not including fringe benefits) per
hour for those Public Works inspections undertaken outside of
regular working hours on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays
during the course of construction of any public improvements.
lRaolution 165791
C. PERMITS
1. Construction Permits
An $ee .$82 administrative fee shall be collected with each application
for a permit to construct public improvements, provided however, that
no such fee is required for the application for a utility construction
permit. Plan Review and Inspection fees shall be collected as
appropriate. [Resolution 165791
MlISter Fe, SCMdllle
Ptu111 - DePlloptMn'
CltDp/lr Xl - Engineering
\\-\d-3
Page 47
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
Z. Construction Permits - Utilities
A. The fee for a utility construction llermit for a lob for which the
cost of relllacement of the surface imDrovements (includine- the
too three (3) feet of anv trench or other excavation) within the
Citv rie-ht-of-wav. is estimated to be less than ten thousand
dollars ($10.000) shall be ~
B. The fee for a utility construction permit for a lob for which the
cost of reDlacement of the surface imDrovements (includine- the
too three (3) feet of anv trench or other excavation) within the
Citv rie-ht-of.wav. is estimated to be ten thousand dollars
1$10.000) or more. shall be a cash deoosit in an amount sufficient
to cover the City's full cost of administerine- the llermit and
inspection of the work. includine- overhead. [Ordi1l411Ce 2521]
3. Construction Security Deposit Bookkeeping Fee
A fee of one percent (1%) of the total amount deposited with the city for
each construction security deposit shall be submitted with each such
bond. [Resohdion 16579]
4. Driveways; Excessive Width
a. $4e 1M filing fee
b.
$200 ~250 appeal fee
[Resohdion 16579]
5. Encroachment Permit, Application
The application fee referred to in Section 12.28.050 of the Municipal
Code shall be:
a. ~ ~105 for those permits reviewed by the City Engineer; and
b. ~ .$250 for those reviewed by the City Council.
[Resohdion 16579]
6. Temporary Encroachment for storae-e ofbuildine- materials in City rie-ht-
of-wav Permit Application
~ ,$30 nonrefundable application fee
Masur Fee Seltedu/e
Part 11 - De.elqpnunt
CluJpur XI . Eltlineering
\.\-\:>4
Pllge 48
(Re.. DeeemHr 10, 1992)
IT materials are placed in the street by the applicant prior to issuance
of a temporary encroachment permit, the application fee shall be
doubled.
{Ruolution 165791
7. Watercourse and Grading Permit Fees
Watercourse and grading permit fees shall be deposits to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. Prior to release of bonds the
deposits shall be adjusted to cover the full cost to the City including
overhead for processing, plan check, inspection and any soils or geologic
reports by City consultants.
[ResoluJion 165791
D. STREETS
1. Street Marking Fees
TaB felle.1f.ng fees &Fe Bepehj. 8etB.Blisfted feF sweet m&PkiBge te 13e
plaeed ea ae'N City streets ia s\lhllh<isieas &Rd eel'taiR Iltreet epem&gs.
a. The fee for eaM aew street legeall paiated (e.g., step, limit liBe)
will he ~
h. The fee feF eaM liae mile ef aaw street stFiped will he $683.
e. The fee feF eash ae,,' 69 feet eF9sswalk paiBted win he $&9.
II. The fee for aaM Me (stripe) mile ef Msed pll".'emeat -I'Fkets
iastaUed wiD he ~
lh Strioinl!
Per mile of double yellow centerline
.$1.024.95
~857.37
~773.58
11
Zl
ID
Per mile of sinl!le solid line strioinl!
Per mile of skio line strioinl!
b. Lel!ends <Painted Lel!ends)
11
Per each word: stoo. Yield. ri~ht
turn onlv. etc.
~ 41.50
Muter Fee Swdll1e
Pan 11 . IHHIDpllUlI1
Clt4pter Xl . ElIgilleering
\ \ - \~.5
Page 49
(ReF. IHeernber 10, 1992)
~
ID
Per each: crosswalk per lane
~ 14.17
~ 28.34
Per each: limit line per lane
.!"- Reflective Pavement Markers:
All mes installed (each)
~ 3.42
d. Non-reflective Pavement Markers:
Bott's dot 4" round ceramic installed (each)
$ 2.40
&. Painted Curb
12 Curb Loadin!!" Zone
See Section IV.C.1 - Curb Loadin!!" Zone Permit Fee.
~ Painted Curb - Other than yellow
New
Repaintin!!"
;J1.30/lineal foot
;J .66/lineal foot
f. Parkin!!"
12 Parkin!!" stalls: $5.03 per line. $10.06 complete
~ Parkin!!" T's: $4.70 each
ID Parkin!!" meter poles installed: $61.38 each
2. Street Name and Regulatory Signs
The rellS?lnag fees &Fe kerehy eMel3lieheEl fol' street nigRs te Be ereeteEl
is 8\lluti-JisieB8 &Be eeFt.....:- sweet epe-':-gs.
JL. ~tpeet name sim.s. witH 'B9le. fee 'Bar 8iEtR..................~
~. Street 8--8 sims withey! B9le. fee 'Bar 8ie:a................~
.!:. ~ruJ8t9rr sims. with Bele. fee Bar sim...................~
L ~M8t9"- sieBe. ~9lit B91e. fee Bar sia:l................~
(Resolution 16579]
Maskr Fee ScINduk
PfJI1l1 . Develo~nt
CNzp"r XI - Engineering
\\ - \ d.~
Page 50
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
JL. Relrulation. Wamine- and Guide Sims:
(Does not include DOle or DOle installation)
Size Sim Only Sim Only Installed
12" U.OO $ 35.00
IS" 7.00 3S.00
24" 19.00 50.00
30" 30.00 61.00
36" 42.00 73.00
4S" 75.00 106.00
b. Street Name:
$ 50.00 tier blade
$ 40.00 simes) only installed
~ Pole Pricine-:
11 2" ill round steele-alvanized metal
-OR-
Tel-Soar Perforated SQUare Tubine-
$1.40 oer foot
$2.30 oer foot
U-channel tlerforated metal oosts
~
ill
Pole installation
$47.00
~ ~10 additional for Tel-Soar Break-Awav Post installation
Ql $50 additional for installations reauirine- core drilline-
3. Street Vacation Fees
The fee shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead
for street closings or vacations or easements for public purposes,
including investigation, costs of services provided by the City in
processing the application, and the preparation of maps, plats or legal
MIISU, Fie Sc1l6dull
Part 11 - DeNio""..",
CltiJpU, XI . ElIg/nlering
l t -1;11
Page 51
(Rtf. Decembe, 10, 1992)
descriptions, shall be paid to the Engineering Department at the time
of filing of the application for said closing or vacation.
[Raolution 16579]
E. TRAFFIC
1. Street Overload/l'ransportation Permit
a. Single-move $e.OG J 8.00
transportation permit
(non-house)
b. House move .$55.00
c. Multiple load $2li.99 .$40.00
transportation permit
for a period up to six
months
El. DQtllieate sapies sf $ 1.Q9 eaek
eeBaBlBag
tF8ll8J1ertatieB pePlBit
d. Emergency move permit fees shall be double the
single-move fee
[Raolution 16579]
2. Traffic Signal Participation Fee
~ lli for each trip generated by intended land use description
according to SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) trip
generation rates. {&solution 16579]
Master Fee Scll4dule
PtJI111 - De~eloJHIUnt
CluJpter XI - EngiMerillg
\\- \d-8
PGge 52
(Re~. December 10, 1992)
F. TREES
Street Tree Deposits
a. For all interior lots having $110 per lot
less than 75 feet of street
frontage
b. For all other interior lots $216 per lot
c. For all corner lots whose $216 per lot
street frontage is less than
175 feet
d. For all corner lots whose $430 per lot
street frontage is 175 feet or
more
[RuolutiDn 16579]
G. REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS
1. Reimbursement District Formation
a. The costs of the formation of the reimbursement district shall
include as I"stimated by the director of public works:
1) The costs of all notices published or mailed pursuant to
Chapter 15.50 of the Municipal Code.
2) The cost to the city of associated staff time, preparation of
the estimated costs of the facilities, determination of the
benefited area and estimate of the proper assessment.
b. The fee for formation of a reimbursement district shall be a
deposit to .:over the City's full cost including overhead. In the
event a reimbursement district is not formed, the actual costs
shall be nonrefundable, but should they be less than the deposit,
the balance shall be refunded. In the event a district is formed,
the costs shall be considered an incidental cost of the
improvements to be recouped by the terms of the reimbursement
agreement.
[RuolutiDn 16579]
MUler Fee ScINdlde
Ptut II . Depclopment
Cltilpler XI . E"IiMerillg
l \ -l ~~
Page S3
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
CHAPTER XI!
Enlrlneerinlt . Sewer
A. CONSTRUCTIONIDEVELOPMENT
1. Minimum Front Footage Charge
The payment of $16.00 per front foot of the lot or parcel sought to be
connected shall be required, but such front foot charge shall not be
imposed upon a person who constructed or paid for the construction of
the sewer line into which he seeks to connect.
[Resolution 165791
2. Sewer Construction and Connection Fees
a. An Administrative fee of $17.99.$30.00;
b. For construction of a four-inch diameter lateral in a street or
alley containing a single sewer main intended to serve abutting
properties on both sides, $88f.9Q .$3.015 plus $2f.QQ .$86.00 per
foot of chargeable length in excess of 35 feet. Chargeable length
in this case shall be one-half of the ultimate dedicated street or
alley width in feet except as noted in subsection d;
c. For construction of a four-inch diameter lateral in the street or
alley containing two sewer mains, each intended to serve
abutting properties on only one side, $88f.9Q .$3.015 plus $24.90
$86.00 per foot of chargeable length in excess of 35 feet.
Chargeable length in this case shall be the recorded distance
from the serving sewer to the ultimate street or alley
right-of-way line except as noted in subsection d;
d. In those cases where the sewer lateral is to be installed at an
angle of more than fifteen degrees from perpendicular to the
roadway centerline, the chargeable length determined per
subsections b and c shall be increased by the actual extra length
required because of such skew;
e. For six-inch diameter laterals, $3,OQ .$3.80 per foot of chargeable
lateral length as determined per subsections b, c and d shall be
charged in addition to the fee for installation of a four-inch
diameter lateral;
Master Fee Scludule
Part II - De~elopment
Chapter XII - Engineering. Sewer
\ \ - \ '50
Page 54
(Re~. March 3, 1993)
f. For the connection of laterals of any size to a trunk sewer ten
inches or more in diameter an additional amount of $36.00 for
extra work required to make such a connection shall be added to
the charges listed in subsections b, c and e.
g. For the placement of a tap in a sewer located in an easement, the
fee shall be ~ $317 for 4" diameter tap-ins;
$339 for 6" diameter tap-ins.
[Raolution 16579]
h. For connections made at a depth_in excess of nine feet~ .$1.251
plus ~36 per foot of ch8I'2'eable leulrth in excess of 3pJeet.
3. Sewerage Capacity Charge
a. The owner or person making application for a permit to develop
or modify use of any residential, commercial, industrial or other
property which is projected by the City Engineer to increase the
volume of flow in the City sewer system by at least one-half of
one equivalent dwelling unit of flow shall pay a sewerage facility
participation fee. The base charge is hereby established as
$2,220 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow. .
b. One equivalent dwelling unit of flow is defined to be 265 gallons
per day of sewage generation. Thtl fee for property involving a
modification in use shall reflect only the increase in sewage
generation projected from that property.
The following rates of flow for various land uses shall be utilized
in determining the total fee due for any given property:
SiBgle fft-'ly resilieBee ~
f4JarimeBt CeBde-':-':"- HV.ng o..;e
uBK
Hespital Bsli ~
Mehile Heme ~
Metel, hetellk'-g &nit 0.33
Mas~' Fit SCMdllle
PtJI1l1 - IHHIlIJllfUIIt
CItIIp., XII . Elllilwrillg . S,w"
ll-I~\
Pag' 55
(Rtf. IHc,trIbe,10, 1992)
CBWeR, theMer, alldit.ePi"- ~
Per eaeR lmit sf seatie!: eapaeitr
(eBe "-'t heiBg llQ peF8eBB ef
&BY het.ieB t.Bereef)
R.estalU'&Bt 2.67 I 1~ariEH3le
2.67 JllliB seatie!: alle88QElB Elf l.Q
feF aaeR lQ seats eF CraeQeB
thePeef
8erviee StaMeR ~
Self Sames l.a_lHy per waSBeF Orl-i
MIISUr Fee Scltedu/e
PtJI1l1 . De.,lDpmen,
CIulpUr XII . ElIgiMering . Self/IT
ll-'~~
Pllge 56
(Rev. December 10, 1992)
Land Use ..!lIl/;j,valent Dwelling Units of Flow
.1. Sirurle Family Dwellinl!S 1.00
~ Mobile Homes. trailer 0.50
~ Multi-Family Units. includinlr aDartments 0.76 ver unit
!, R.V. Parks 0.5 ver RV hookuD Dlus E.F.U. on facilities not
servirur RV &Daces
5. Commercial. Industrial. Manufacturirur CE.F.U. Dlus Process Water)
Tenant ImDrovements. and all other non-
residential facilities (See notes 1 and 2)
6. Restaurants:
Small (seatirur caDacitv < 100) E.F.U.
Larlre (seatinll caDacitv > = 100) 25 GPD ver seat
1. Carwash
Self-serve 2 EDU's ver stall
Automatic wlwater recyclinl! 6.5 EDU's
Automatic wlo water recyclinl! E.F.U. case by case
(See note 1)
~ Hotels. Motels. Inns. Boardinlr Houses. E.F.U.
Dormitories. Convalescent Hosvitals.
HosDitals. and any facility desi2ned for a
temoorary overnil!ht stay
Self Service Laundries .
~ 0.6 ver washer. olus E.F.U. for fixtures Mt
(coin overated) attached to the washers
(See note 2)
10. Governmental. Institutional. or any other E.F.U.
user not described above
E.F.U. = Eauivalent Fixture Units:
NOTES
.1. Facilities usinl! water for orocessirur OUTDOseS shall be aaseased individually by the Director.
~ Facilities with water recvclirur SVBtems shall be aasessed individually. Information reauired
for the assessment shall be orovided by the aoolicant.
S. In the case of ee--ePei&l, iM1I8Hi&l ell other developments not included above, the number
of equivalent dwelling units of flow IhaII be determined in each case by the City Engineer
and shall be based upon the astimatad volume of sewage to be discharged into the City sewer
system. The flow rate for property involving a modification in land use shall reflect only the
increase in sewage I'llneration prqject from that property which exceeda .60 equivalent
dwelling units of flow.
lI..r F" SCMdll1e
Part II . IH."liI"",n,
CIt4pt6r XII. Engine,ring . S,w"
\\-l'83
PlIg, 57
(R,v. IHCllllblr 10, 1992)
B. SERVICE CHARGES
1. Sewer Service Charges
In addition to other fees, assessments or charges provided by the City
code or otherwise, the owner or occupant of any parcel of real property
which said parcel is connected to the sewer system of the City and to a
water system maintained by the Sweetwater Authority or the Otay
Municipal Water District shall pay a sewer service charge as follows,
applicable to the first whole billing period subsequent to July 1, 1992:
a. Domestic: The domestic sewer service charge for each single
family dwelling unit serviced by a separate water meter shall be
$16.00 per month;
b. Domestic: A monthly sewer service charge for other parcels of
real property used for domestic purposes as herein defined, and
serviced by a water meter shall be at the rate of $1.61 per each
one hundred cubic feet of water usage by such parcel, but in rio
case less than $16.00 per month, nor more than $16.00 per
dwelling unit per month;
c. Commercial and industrial: A monthly sewer service charge for
premises used for other than domestic purposes shall be at the
following rates per each one hundred cubic feet CHCF) of water
usage:
Low Strength: $1.47 per HCF water usage
Medium Strength: $1.81 per HCF water usage
High Strength: $2.44 per HCF water usage
Low strength is defined as wastewater with suspended solids
content under 200 parts per million (ppm). Medium strength is
defined as wastewater with at least 200 ppm but less than 600
ppm suspended solids. High strength is defined as wastewater
with suspended solids content of 600 ppm or more.
Unless otherwise established bv an approved variance.
wastewater dischan!'e shall be assumed to be 90 percent of water
consumed. Therefore. where commercial or industrial facilities
Masur Fee Scltedllle
Part 11 . DeIlflID/HfU"t
C~r Xli . E",werillg . Sel/ler
u-\o4
Pqe 58
(Ref. Deulllber 10, 1992)
are billed on the basis of wastewater dischar~e. the rel!Ular sewer
service rate shall be divided bv .90.
Wastewater strength categories will be determined using either
the attaehea table, "Proposed User Classifications and Assumed
Pollutant Concentrations" (SEE APPENDIXES) or actual
sampling results, as determined by the Director of Public Works.
Dischargers who believe that their total suspended solids
concentration is sufficiently low to qualify for a different category
of sewer service charge billing may apply to the City Manager in
writing for a variance in accordance with Municipal Code Section
3.29.939 13.14.130. When there is a change in the rate payer,
the category will be re-evaluated.
d. Tax Bill: MaBtgemery ..~ea: .An anFNial se'".\"er seniee eooFge f-8F
}:lFemises in the feFmeF MeBtgelBeFY &Fea shall Be at the pates
gi'":'en. ahe':e mule!" PaRs a tm-SligH e.
TRese rates ....ill he ealleetea eft tRe ar.naal t&ll. hill hy tRe SaR
Diega Ca\iBty Tim ealleeter. Charges for multiple family and
commercial industrial discharges collected on the Tax Bill shall
be based on a recent 12 month hilliftg water usa~e period.
e. High Volume Dischargers: Premises which discharge over 25,000
gallons per day (gpd) are classified as high volume dischargers.
These dischargers shall be billed bi-monthly by the City of Chula
Vista. Wastewater discharge shall be assumed to be 90 percent
of water consumed, unless established otherwise by an approved
variance. A separate suspended solids concentration shall be
determined for each discharger based on either the table,
"Proposed User Classifications and Assumed Pollutant
Concentrations" or on actual sampling results, determined by the
Director of Public Works. The bi-monthly rates shall be as
follows:
RiRl8Rthly hiYiag eharge. .'\.veRlge W8f3tel"l:ater J( ..988997 : Aew
ia alii lIer 199 Number of cubic feet
(in HCF) of water usasre - !.1$1.2179
+ (suspended solids concentration in
p.p.ln. x $0.0019568)1
A~:eNge -;:aale X .~'eP&ge ,pm. BWlp8Bded selide x 8:.St
-Nater Aa":: $1,999,999 J( $16.18 iR gpd
(Sewer service rates are as listed above unless sUDerseded by ordinance)
[Resolution 16705]
Master Pee Schedule
Part 11 . Development
Chapter XII . Ellgineerillg . Sewer
11-/26
Page 59
(Rev. March 4, 1993)
2. Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Sewer Service Charges
The fee for delinquency in payment of the sewer service charge shall be
a basic penaltv in an amount equal to tweRty ten (10) percent of the
service charge. plus one and one half (1-1J2) percent per month for non-
payment of the chare-e and basic penaltv.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
[Resolution 16579]
3. Sewer Service Charges for Low Income Households
Low Income Households (as defined in Chapter I) including renters of
property who are eligible to receive a reduced rate for monthly sewer
service charges, shall be billed at the rate of$11.20 per month per EDD.
Eligiele reeiaeBts Bf the iBeBFJle!'8l;ea MeRtgemery Dismat shall he
hillea at the Fate ef $134.1.9 per yeM per EDD.
The Finance Department of the City shall make available the required
application form and process all applications. Application will require
the submittal of information on total household income, the number of
persons in the household and the type of dwelling unit. Proof of total
annual income shall be furnished.
Single family Fesideats, if eligihle fer tBe pealieea 8e~'eF senies eftMge,
shall. a9"le the epneR ef reeebiRg the reaHeea ehapge sf $11.29 a !Beath
e8 their meRtbI:Y or hi HleRthly -;.'&ter hills weHl Sweeh-;al;er Alitherity
&ReI Ctay 'Vater Distriet 9F as an annaal FeNnEl. M8Btg8IBery Mea
FesiaeRts will eBly reeei>le the reEltieea eharge of$134.49 per yeM a8 8B
anmial refliBa.
R.esiaeBts Bf 8IlartmeBts, eeRaemini"-s er HlehileheHles shall. al8e he
e8titlea te tae reaHeea se,-;er semee eRapge. :\Il eligiele eeeapants may
peeeh.e the ,eaaBed. seYlier ek8Pge as an anmial FefanEl enly. E'ti.Eisa6e
that tRey hw,,~e paid a se't.."eF sert:4ee eBBPge sf gf'eater thaa a minimum
ef$11.29 a meBtk eF $134.1.9 per yeM iR the MB8tgemery &Pea shall. he
~ehea. P'f'eef ef tstal &fIB1i6I iReo!Be shall he ellhmittea V\1\tR the
8JlJllieatieR ferm.
Requests for annual refunds shall be made by eligible households
between August 1 and September 30 of each year for the past fiscal year
beginning in July and ending in June. The applicant will be notified of
eligibility status within thirty (30) days of application and if eligible, the
refund forwarded within ninety (90) days of application.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
[Resolution 16579]
\\ - \ Otp
Page 60
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
Masler Fee Schedule
Part 11 . Development
Chapler XII . Engineering - Sewer
4. Sewer Service Variance Fees
The owner or occupant of any premises requesting a variance from the
sewer service charges pursuant to the provisions of this section and the
rules and regulations approved by resolution of the City Council shall
pay a fee in the sum of$89.99 $150.00 to cover the cost of investigation
of said request; provided, however, that no fee shall be charged for a
request for total exemption from the sewer service charge. In addition,
a special handling charge to cover the cost of billing and inspections to
be paid per building may be established in the resolution granting the
variance, provided that the minimum such charge shall be in the sum
of~~3.75.
[Resolution 165791
C. STORM DRAINS
1. Storm Drain Fees
In addition to other fees, assessments or charges provided by the city
code or otherwise, the owner or occupant of any parcels of real properly
which parcel is connected to the wastewater system of the city and to
a water system maintained by the Sweetwater Authority, the Otay
Municipal Water District or the California-American Water Company
shall pay a storm drain fee as follows:
a. Domestic, Single Family: Each single family dwelling unit
serviced by a separate water meter - $.70 per month.
b. Domestic, Multi-family, and Commercial and Industrial: Parcels
of real property used for domestic purposes as herein defined
other than single family dwellings, and commercial and
industrial establishments, and serviced by a water meter - $0.06
per each one hundred cubic feet of water usage by such parcel,
but in no case more than $500.00 per month.
c. Montgomery Area: Notwithstanding the above provisions, an
annual Storm Drain Fee for parcels in the former Montgomery
area shall be at the following rates:
1) Domestic Single Family (including mobilehomes): $8.40
per year.
Muter F" Seltldull
P/IIt 11 - lH"lDpIft'lIt
Clttlpllr Xli . E",iM,ring - S,w,r
\ \- l31
Pag, 61
(Rev. lHCllftblr 10, 1992)
2) Demestis Mtilti Family _Ii CammsFeial. ana malistrial.:
$9.ge pel' B\HlEiFea sl:lllis feet af'NatBF QBage, hassa a9 the
,fieF yeaF's setael eeBslilBfltieFl, 800jeet te anm:lal
adjl:lBtmeat reF ee":~eFage 9F WlaeFage Based 98 eti.lTeBt
year's !BaFe than $e,999 pel' yell!'. These Fates will be
sallestea a9 tae aBRaal. t8.K Bill hy tAe 88ft Diega Ca\iftty
Tax CallestaF.
[&solution 165791
b Penalty for DelinQuent Pavment of Storm Drain Fees
The fee for delinQuency in pavment of the storm drain chare:e shall be
a basic penalty in an amount eQual to ten (10) percent of the storm
drain chare:e. plus one and one half (1-1/2) percent per month for non-
pavment of the chare:e and basic penalty.
D. PUMP STATIONS
1. Sewae:e Pump Station Charl!e
The followine: are the annual sewae:e pump station chare:es relatine: to
special sewer service rate areas or zones. which haye been imposed by
the City Council pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section
13.14.100.
Soecial Sewer Service Annual
Rate Area Charsre
Candlewood $37.20
Rancho Robinhood Unit #2 $228.00
Foxhill (CV Woods) $36.00
Mission Verde $72.00
EastlakelOTC
Subarea A $12.00
Subarea B
Sinl!le Familv $12.00
Multi-Familv $9.00
Subarea C $24.00
W oodcrest Terra Nova $90.00
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
Master Fee Scludule
Part II - Devewpmenl
Chapter XII . Engineering. Sewer
\\-\a8'
Page 62
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
2. Penalty for Delinquent Payment of Pump Station Charges
The fee for delinquency in payment of the pump station charge shall be
a basic penaltv in an amount equal to tweBty ten percent of the service
charge, plus one and one half(1-1/2) percent per month for non-payment
of the chare:e and basic penaltv.
(Designated herein for administrative convenience only)
l&solution 16579]
E. INDUSTRIAL
1. Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees (Industrial)
The fee for an initial, annual renewal, or amended industrial
wastewater discharge permit shall be based upon the permit category
(Table "A") to which the permitted industry is assigned, and the average
daily volume of industrial wastewater discharged to the public sewer
system in the amount set forth in Table "B".
TABLE A
Pennit Category Description
1 Industries which discharge wastewater from a process
subject to EP A categorical standards set forth in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 403, Appendix C, as
amended from time to time. The industries currently
subject to EPA categorical standards are included herein
by reference, but are subject to change. (SEE
APPENDIXES)
2 Industries that are not subject to EPA categorical
standards but which discharge wastewater containing
toxic pollutants identified by EPA in 40 CFR, Section
403, Appendix B. The current list of toxic pollutants
identified by EPA is included herein by reference, but is
subject to change. (SEE APPENDIXES)
3 Industries not subject to EP A categorical standards and
which do not discharge wastewater containing EPA
identified toxic pollutants.
Master Fee Schedllre
Ptutll . Development
eluJpter XII . Engineering. Sewer
\ \ - t b9
Page 63
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
TABLE B
Flow (Average Daily) Permit Fee (Annual)
Industrial Wastewater Permit Category
Flow in Gallons Per Day I 2 3
More than 100,000 $2,000 $1,200 $1,000
50,001 to 100,000 1,500 1,000 600
25,001 to 50,000 1,250 600 500
10,001 to 25,000 650 500 300
100 to 10,000 500 275 200
Less than 100 25 25 25
[Resolution 165791
z.. Compliance Chanzes
Industries not in compliance with industrial wastewater discharl!e
permit requirements shall pay a fee to recover the full cost includinl!
overhead of enforcinl! compliance.
3. Penalty for Late Payment
The fee for delinquency ofpavment of industrial wastewater discharl!e
permit fees or compliance charl!es shall be a basic penalty in an amount
equal to ten (0) percent of the initial charl!e. plus one and one half 0-
1/2) percent per month for non-payment of the charl!e and basic penalty.
Maskr Fee Sclu1duk
Part 11 - Development
Chapkr XII - Engineering. Sewer
\,\ - \,-\:O
Page 64
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
CHAPTER XII!
Parks
A. PARKLAND ACQUISITION IN-LmU FEES
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
Single Family $2,1l5ldu
Attached l,830/du
Duplex 1.625/du
Multi-family l,440/du
Mobilehome 1.070/du
Residential Motels and Hotels and 980/du
Transient Motels and Hotels
[Resolution 16579]
B. PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT IN-LmU FEES
Dwellinl! Unit Neil!hborhood Communitv
DU Tvtle Park fill. Total
Single Family $l,510/du $750/du $2,260/du
Residential Hotel l,310/du 6701du 1,980/du
Duplex 1,160/du 5801du 1,740/du
Multi-Family l,030/du 520/du l,550/du
Mobilehome 770/du 3901du 1,160/du
Residential Motels and 700/du 350/du 1,050/du
Hotels and Transient Motels
and Hotels
[Resolution 16579]
C. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ENCROACHMENT FEES
The property owner/applicant desiring to encroach into the open space
maintenance district shall pay a $100 fee to cover the cost of
investigation and processing of such request; provided, however, if a
request is considered by the City Council, the fee shall be $200. Such
fee is not refundable. [Resolution 16579]
\\-\~\
Ptl/le65
(Re.. December 10, 1m)
Master Fee Sclledllle
Ptut 11 . De.elopment
Clulpter XlII - Ptuks
CHAPTER XIV
plAnninll
A. ANNEXATION
1. Annexation Deposit
The fee for petitioning the annexation of territory to the City shall be
a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
B. APPEALS AND HEARINGS
1. Appeals and Requested Actions before the plAnning Commission and
Zoning Administrator
a. For all appeals from actions of the Planning Commission, City
Council or any appeal filed pursuant to Chapter 19.12 or 19.14
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the fee shall be eBe half ef
the eFigiBal applieat;iea fee, wit.h a -:-i-..- ef $129.99, 1iBI.ess
the eFigiBal fee W88 a depesit te eever the Ci~"'8 full eest
melllEling 8"lerBeaEl, iB whiM eaee the fee feF 8B appealsltA11 alee
Be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
b. Miscellaneous request for action by the Planning Commission
1) If a public h"aring is not required: $350
2) If a public hearing is required: a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead
c. Recreational Vehicle Regulations - Appeal of Zoning
Administrator's decision on front yard parking
$25 appeal fee
lRaolutwn 16579]
C. CONDmONAL USE VARIANCES
1. Conditional Use Permits and Variances
a. Variance or Conditional Use Permit - Zoning Administrator
MIlS"' F.e ScMdllk
PtIIt II . De,elofHMnt
C""',., XlV . Pkuuting
\\- \ 4~
Pflge 66
(Re,. Decelflbe, 10, 1992)
For conditional use permits and variances which do not require
a public hearing, the fees shall be;
1) $350 filing fee for a conditional use permit
2) $ 25 filing fee for a satellite dish antenna variance
3) ~ ,$350 filing fee for any other variance
b. Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
Applications for conditional Ude permits shall be made to the
Planning Commission in writing on a form prescribed by the
Planning Commission and shall be accompanied by plans and
data sufficient to show the detail of the proposed use or building.
The application shall be accompanied by a deposit to cover the
City's full cost including overhead. The Director of Planning
shall cause the matter to be set for hearing in the same manner
as required for setting zoning matters for hearing. The Director
of Planning or the Planning Commission shall have the discretion
to include in the notice of the hearing on such application notice ,
that the Planning Commission will consider classification of other
than that for which application is made' and/or additional
properties and/or uses. In those cases where the application
conforms to the requirement/, of Section 19.14.030A of the
Municipal Code, the applicatil''l shall be directed to the zoning
arhn;n;strator.
c. Variance - Public Hearing
1) $50 nonrefundable filing fee for a satellite dish antenna
variance
. 2) $HQ B9D1'efundahle The filing fee for any other variance
reauirine a oublic hearine shall be a deoosit to cover the
City's full cost includinl! overhead.
d. Conditional Use Permit ModificationlExtension
The fee for modification/extension of a conditional use permit
shall be as follows;
. 1) If a public hearing is not required, $I tQ.QQ ~185.00
Master Fee SCMd"k
Ptvt 11 . DerewptlUltt
Clttlpler XIV . Pliulttittg
1\ -l*~
Pllge 67
(Rep. December 10, 1992)
,I
, ,
\.
2) If a public hearing is required, $289.9Q ,$380.00
e. Variance ModificationlExtension
The fee for modification/extension of a variance shall be as
follows:
1) If a public hearing is not required; $1 f9.9Q ,$185.00
2) If a public hearing is required; $289.9Q ,$380.00.
l&8olutwn 165791
D. PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION
1. Design review
a. Projects subject to public hearing by the Design Review
Committee shall be subiect to processinlr fees as follows:
1) $899 pFgeessing fee
,$390 for 1 to 4 units
,$590 for 5 to 15 units
,$790 for 16 to 25 units
,$1,000 for 26 to 100 units
For over 100 units or for commercial or industrial proiects.
the fee shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost
includinlr overhead.
2) $280 processing fee for a request for extension or
modifications to the plan
b. Minor projects subject to review by the Zoning Administrator
1) $200 processing fee for sinlrle familv residential
,$300 for 2 to 4 units
For over 4 units the fee shall be a deoosit to cover the
City's full cost includinlr overhead
2) $100 processing fee for a request for extension or
modifications to the plan
Master Fee SCMduk
Part II . Devel6pment
Chapter XlV . Pl6nning
\ \ - ,~
Page 68
(Rev. March 3, 1993)
2. Environmental Review Processes
a. A request to initiate the preparation of an EIR and candidate CEQA
findings shall be lICCDmpanied by a deposit to cover the City's full cost
including overhead.
b. Prior to the signina of an aereement for the preparation of an EIR and
CEQA finding, the prqject proponent shall deposit with the Department of
Finance the amount neceasary to reimburse the City hired consultant.
Fee Schedule
c. Selection of consultant and processilllr of A deposit to cover thA City's
an EIR and candidate CEQA findings full cost including oVllrhead
d. Consultant preparation of an ErR and A deposit to cover the City's
candidate CEQA findings full cost including overhead
e. City stsff preparation and processing of A deposit to cover the City's
an EIR and candidate CEQA findings full cost including overhead
f. Processing application for an Initial Study A deposit to cover the City's
and preparation of Negative Declaration full cost including overhead
g. Review and use of previously prepared A deposit to cover the City's
EIR and the preparation of candidate full cost including overhead
CEQA findings
h. Review of previous Initial Study and the $l4G $600
use of previous Negative Declaration
i. Appeal of Plannilllr Commission request $145
for more information
j. Review of consultants qualifications for $35
placement on the list of environmental
consul tants
k. Placement on list to receive all $50
environmental review notices
1. Copy of the Environmental Review $5
Procedures and all ERC guideline
requirements, etc.
{Raolution 16579]
3. General Plan Amendment
The fee for processing General Plan amendment applications shall be
a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead. .
{Raolution 16579]
Muter Fit Sclwduk
Ptut 11 . lHvewplflcnt
CltiJpter XlV . Plsnning
, l -L45
Pagc 69
(Rc.. lHulllbcr 10, 1992)
";,
, .~
\ >
4. Landscape Plan Review/Landscape Inspection
a. The fee for review of a landscape plan shall be $150.00 plus $35
per sheet in excess of 4 sheets.
b.The fee for inspection oflandscaping installation shall be $100
per inspection visit.
[Resolution 16579]
5. PC Zone - General Development Plan and Modifications
The fees shall be deposits to cover the City's full cost including
overhead. [Resolution 16579]
6. Planned Unit Developments and Modifications
The fee for planned unit developments or modification thereof shall be
the City's full cost including overhead.
[Resolution 16579]
1." Plan Review. Construction Chan!!es
.!h $45 - No site visit reauired
$90 - Site visit reauired
8. Precise Plan Approval and Modifications
a. The application shall include:
The name and address of the applicant and of all persons owning
any or all of the property proposed to be used. The application
must be signed by the owner/option holder, or written permission
must be given authorizing an agent to sign the application.
b. All data and maps as specified in the Municipal Code.
c. The fee for processing a precise plan or a modification thereof
shall be a deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
[Resolution 16579]
Muter Fee SeMdllk
PfII'/I1 . /HvdDpnullt
Cltapter XlV . Pliuulillg
\~-\~
Page 70
(Rev. /Humber 10, 1992)
9. Sectional plAnning Area Plan and Modifications
The fees shall be deposits to cover the City's full cost including
overhead.
lRaolution 16579]
10. Site Plan and Architectural Approval (Zoning Administrator)
The fees for site plan and architectural approval, no part of which are
refundable, are:
&. $199, BliH.3:-g -liH_tiSB $~9,999 $199,999
B. $1e9, BliH&mg valRatisR $199,991 $~99,9Q9
e. $~e9, BlIilEtiBg -JaI._tiSB $~99,9Q11
[Resolution 16579]
.l!:. .$ O. buildinl!" valuation of ~
b. .$ 45. buildinl!" valuation of ~$1.000
!::. .$ 90. buildinl!" valuation of $1.001-$10.000
d. ~135. buildinl!" valuation of $10.001-$20.000
.!l.:. .$180. buildinl!" valuation of $20.001~100.000
f. .$225. buildinl!" valuation of $100.001-$200.000
g.. .$360. buildinl!" valuation of $200.001-$1.000.000
h. .$450. buildinl!" valuation of $1.000.001-$5.000.000
i. ~530. buildinl!" valuation of $5.000.001-$10.000.000
1. .$720. buildinl!" valuation of Over $10.000.000
11. Specific Plan Development Proposal and Modifications
a. The fee for a specific plan proposal or modification shall be a
deposit to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
IdtlS'" Fee SCMdll1e
PGI1l1 . D1"loflllUlJt
CIuIpR, XlV - Pliuuliag
\\- \41
p., 71
(R". 01"11IIII, 10, 1992)
b. At the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, this deposit may
be waived for small projects in favor of a $130 flat fee.
[Resolution 165791
12. Tentative and Vesting Tentative Map Fees
Prior to the submission of a tentative map. an extension request. or a
vesting tentative map to the Planning Department for processing, the
property owner or subdivider shall deposit with the City the amount to
cover the City's full cost including overhead, incurred in conjunction
with review and processing of said map.
E. SIGNS
1. Sign Permits
8.
SigBB till te 2G BEl. ft.
21 BEl. ft. 5G BEl. ft.
In el[eeBB ef 5G BEl. ft.
All sirns except !n"ound or pole
Ground or pole sirn
Special or temporary permit, banners, etc.
Temporary real estate
Community identification signs
$ 20.00
2G.00
5G.GG
$ 45.00
105.00
W,OO 45.00
100.00
100.00
[Resolution 165791
b.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2. Signing Program Application and Modifications
a. The Planned Signing Program application fee shall be a deposit
to cover the City's full cost including overhead.
b. The fee for a modification to an approved sign program shall be
$150.
[Resolution 165791
F. ZONING
1. Rezoning
Applications for any change in zone boundaries, classification or
reclassification of zones made by one or more owners or parties of
interest in the property within the area to be affected by the proposed
action shall be filed with the Director of Planning, accompanied by
Master Fee SCMduk
Part II . Development
Chapter XIV . Planning
\\-\4i'
Page 72
(Rev. February 18, 1993)
such data and information which would insure a full presentation of
the facts and circumstances to justify the reasonableness of the
proposed action. Said application shall be in a form as approved by the
Planning Commission and shall be affirmed by the applicant. Each
application shall be accompanied by a deposit to cover the City's full
cost including overhead.
!Resolution 165791
2. Zoning Code Applications subsequent to a violation
The fee required for applications subsequent to a violation of Title 19
of the Municipal Code shall be double the amount that would normally
be required. Such double fee shall not be construed as a penalty, but
shall be construed as an added fee required to defray the additional
expense of investigation and enforcement by the City as a result of
failure to comply with the provisions of the title.
!Resolution 165791
3. Zoning Permit
$Hi Haag fee
Permits for which applications are submitted prior to
establishment of a new or chanl!ed use of any land or buildinl! lli
Permits for which applications are not submitted prior to
establishment of a new or chanl!ed use of any land or buildinl! $45
[Resolution 16579]
MlISu, Fee SCMdll1e
PtII111 . lH.elDpmelll
Cltllpu, XIV . PIDNling
\\- \'4~
Pllge 73
(Rev. Decembe, 10, 1992)
CHAPTER XV
Fire Department Fees
A PERMITS
.1. Flammable and/or Combustible Liauid Stora!re Tanks
a. Installation (per tank) ,$50
b. Removal (per tank) ,$50
Master Fee 5chedull!
Part II - Development
Chapter XV - Fire Department Fees
\\-\50
Page 74
(Rev. January 22, /993)
CHAPTER XV!
Other Fees
A. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Development impact fees shall be assessed as authorized through Ordinances
2251 and 2320 and in accordance with the City's transportation and public
facilities development impact fee programs as presently established or as they
may be updated from time to time by city council ordinance amending th('
development impact fee programs. The applicable fee amounts appear in the
development impact fee documents themselves. Copies of these documents
are available for review in the Engineering Department and Administratior.
offices.
[Resolution 16579,'
\\ - to\
Page 75
(Rev. January 22,1993)
Master Fee Schedule
Part II . Development
Chapter XVI - Other Fees
APPENDIX A
CITY OF CHULA VIST.A.
FULL COST RECOVERY MUL TIPLlBRS BY DEPARTMENT f.ND DMSION
The ffilllapliers Me as felle'....s: ERgineeriRg 2.558; Plan:HRg 2.111li; BllildiRg aRa HellsiRg 2.1ll9
fer fees set at 75% FCR aRd 2,812 fer fees set at 100% FeR.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FULL COST RECOVERY MULTIPLIERS BY DEPARTMENT AND DMSION
FCR MULTIPLIERS
DEPARTMENT DIVISION PERMANENT HOURLY
Building & Housing Permits 3.00868 N/A
Engineering Design 2.75479 N/A
Engineering Advance Planning!
Sewer/Drainage 2.78587 1.918.04
Engineering Land Development 2.51102 N/A
Engineering Construction 2.70906 N/A
Inspection
Engineering Traffic 2.88216 N/A
Engineering Traffic Signal/Lights 2.75639 N/A
Planning 2.94308 2.04766
Public Works Traffic Maintenance 2.69816 N/A
\\-\S~
:>
\ .
APPENDIX B
HUD LOV.' MODERATE INCOME ST.\NDARDS
In detePlBiBing eligibility, the fellerNing tellle based eB HUD figut'es (89% efmeElian
meame) BRan be liSed:
)le. iR Heaseheld Tet.al A\m111allneeme {epees}
1 $11,999
a IIJ,sfi9
3 It,lag
" 15, 799
(; 1&,799
S 17,669
!t- 18,8e9
8 19,8a9
9 ge,799
$1,999 armua:l iseame alle9.vea reI' eash aaditi9BaI peFS8B iB tBe a9liSeAeld afteF 11
peeple.
APPENDIX B
HUD LOW MODERATE INCOME STANDARDS
No. in Household Maximum Annual Family Income (Gross
for Eligibility
1 $14,500
2 16,550
3 18,650
4 20,700
5 22,350
6 23,000
7 25,650
8 27,300
$1,000 annual income allowed for each additional person in the household after 8
people.
Wpe,P,\HOME\GERALDY\ 185.92
\ \ - \ ~3
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA nON
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
~R~J{Th1pJl1'f...H9V$p$:
*TYPE I OR ll-F.R.
TYPE V OR 1lI (MASONRY)
TYPE V WOOD FRAME
TYPE I BASEMENT GARAGE
86.00
70.00
63.00
30.00
~ANKS;
*TYPE I OR ll-F.R.
TYPE 11 I-HOUR
TYPE ll-N
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
118.00
85.00
81.00
96.00
92.00
85.00
81.00
CHURCHES;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE 11 I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
78.00
58.00
55.00
63.00
60.00
57.00
54.00
CONY ALES CENT HOSPITALS:
,...-.--.............,.. ........'.,...,'-,.. ',-',-'--'" .....'....-.'.............
-......... -..........................-......-...,...".,-"'.........
*TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE V I-HOUR
111.00
79.00
71.00
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
:P~liit;lNQS;***
TYPE V ADOBE
TYPE V MASONRY
TYPE V WOOD FRAME
BASEMENTS (SEMI-FINISHED)
ADDmONS - WOOD FRAME
SOLARIUMS
Jt;~MH;
AIR CONDmONING (COMMERCIAL)
AIR CONDmONING (RESIDENTIAL)
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
~~T~h!9N$:
TYPE! OR III-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE ll-N
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
H9$~~S:
*TYPE I OR ll-F.R.
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE V I-HOUR
Ii... ~....~.........;?'110....1TB."'!
. y.:~~,-,~,~.._,-,-'.,..,.~.,
..._.................',..-..,-...-,..'".....,.__..__.....,....,......-.....-,.,.,-,.,-...-,...,-,..
*TYPE I OR ll-F.R.
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
""DEDUcr 11 PERCENT FOR MINI-WAREHOUSES.
"ADD 0.5 PERCENT TO TIlE TOTAL COST FOR EACH STORY OVER lHREE.
92.00
77.00
73.00
18.00
73.00
73.00
3.40
2.80
1.60
90.00
59.00
56.00
65.00
62.00
58.00
55.00
130.00
108.00
100.00
81.00
70.00
67.00
61.00
58.00
"""FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH 10 OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH HAVE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCES IN GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE, TIlE VALUATION OR THE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES MAYBE DECREASED BY 10 PERCENT.
\\ - \6'1
"'~,
\
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
lMPOQ~~IiRJJiAmS;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II (STOCK)
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TILT UP
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
45.00
31.00
29.00
34.00
32.00
23.00
31.00
29.00
~PlG~Qfm~;
"'TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
95.00
71.00
67.00
77.00
74.00
72.00
68.00
QFFICES:
TYPE I OR I1I-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
85.00
55.00
52.00
61.00
58.00
56.00
53.00
PRIVATE GARAGES:
WOOD FRAME
MASONRY
OPEN CARPORTS
18.00
22.00
13.00
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
R~IiJG...,Q.OQ!RP~yS~
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE I1I-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
99.00
74.00
71.00
83.00
79.00
73.00
70.00
PlfflJJilPGARA.GES:
"'TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE I OR II OPEN PARKING
TYPE II-N
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
39.00
31.00
23.00
28.00
26.00
23.00
Bes'I'AOQ~;
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
74.00
70.00
65.00
62.00
~~QQ!4$;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE III I-HOUR
TYPE III-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
89.00
63.00
64.00
60.00
58.00
55.00
""DEDUcr 11 PERCENT FOR MINl-W AREHOUSES.
"ADD 0.5 PERCENT TO THE TOTAL COST FOR EACH STORY OVER THREE.
"""FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH 10 OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH HAVE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCES IN GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE, THE VALUATION OR THE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES MAYBE DECREASED BY 10 PERCENT.
\\ - \55
~
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
V AWE/SO Fr.
OCCUPANCY & TYPE
VALUE/SO Fr.
~~YJ:~..$1'.l\TJQN$;
TYPE II-N
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE v I-HOUR
CAN0?TES
53.00
53.00
46.00
20.00
$ltPRe$;
*TYPE I OR II-ER.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
66.00
40.00
39.00
49.00
46.00
39.00
37.00
THEATERS:
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
87.00
63.00
60.00
57.00
54.00
\V'AReAPtl'SeS;
TYPE I OR II-F.R.
TYPE II I-HOUR
TYPE II-N
TYPE 1lI I-HOUR
TYPE llI-N
TYPE V I-HOUR
TYPE V-N
39.00
23.00
22.00
27.00
26.00
23.00
22.00
"ADD 0.5 PERCENT TO THE TOTAL COST FOR EACH STORY OVER THREE.
""DEDUCT 11 PERCENT FOR MINI-WAREHOUSES.
"""FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH 10 OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH HAVE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCES IN GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE, THE VALUATION OR THE
PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES MAYBE DECREASED BY 10 PERCENT.
It - l~1,
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
AGRICULTURAL BUILDING $14.25 SQ. Fr.
ALUMINUM SIDING $4.25 SQ. Fr.
ANTENNAS
RADIO, OVER 30 Fr. IN HEIGHT . $2,600.00 EACH
DISH, 10 Fr. DIA. W/DECODER $3,150.00 EACH
AWNING OR CANOPY (SUPPORTED BY BUILDING)
ALUMINUM $15.50 SQ. Fr.
CANVAS $6.50 SQ. Fr.
BALCONY $10.75 SQ. Fr.
CLOSE EXTERIOR WALL OPENING $10.75 SQ. Fr.
DECKS (WOOD) $10.75 SQ. Fr.
DEMOLmON OF BUILDING $23.75 SQ. Fr.
FENCE OR FREESTANDING WALL
WOOD OR CHAIN LINK $1.50 SQ. Fr.
WIRE $1.50 SQ. Fr.
MASONRY $6.50 SQ. Fr.
WROUGHT IRON $4.25 SQ. Fr.
FIREPLACES
CONCRETE OR MASONRY $2,600.00 EACH
PREFABRICATED METAL $1,775.00 EACH
GREENHOUSE $4.25 SQ. Fr.
INTERIOR PARTITION $36.25 LlN. Fr.
INSTALL WINDOW OR SLIDING GLASS DOOR $11.25 SQ. Fr.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING (25% OF VALUE OF $18.25 EACH
"SITE-BUILT" HOUSE)
PATIO
WOOD FRAME WITH COVER $6.50 SQ. Fr.
METAL FRAME WITH COVER $8.25 SQ. Fr.
WOOD FRAME - COVER AND WALLS $9.50 SQ. Fr.
METAL FRAME - COVER AND WALLS $10.75 SQ. Fr.
SCREEN OR PLASTIC WALLS $2.25 SQ. Fr.
PILE FOUNDATIONS
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE $16.00 LlN. Fr.
STEEL $38.50 LlN. Fr.
\ \ - \~..,
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
PLASTERING
INSIDE $2.00 SQ. Fr.
OUTSIDE $2.00 SQ. Fr.
RELOCATED BUILDINGS (FEE SAME AS FOR NEW
BUILDINGS)
RETAINING WALL
CONCRETE OR MASONRY $13.00 SQ. Fr.
RE-ROOFING (1 SQUARE = 100 SQUARE FEET)
BUILT-UP $100.00 SQ.
COMPOSmON SHINGLES $92.00 SQ.
FIBERGLASS SHINGLES $92.00 SQ.
ASBESTOS-CEMENT SHINGLES $219.00 SQ.
WOOD SHINGLES $219.00 SQ.
WOOD SHAKES $219.00 SQ.
ALUMINUM SHINGLES $330.00 SQ.
CLAY TILE $277.00 SQ.
CONCRETE TILE $234.00 SQ.
ROOF STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT $10.75 SQ. Fr.
SAUNAS (STEAM) $6,500.00 EACH
SHELL BUILDINGS
A SHELL BUILDING IS DEFINED AS A BUILDING FOR WHICH HV AC, LIGHTING,
SUSPENDED CEILINGS, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, PARTITION
LAYOUTS AND INTERIOR FINISH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND FOR
WHICH SEPARATE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLANS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR
PLAN CHECK AT A LATER DATE SHOWING THESE ITEMS. WAREHOUSES AND
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED SHELL BUILDINGS.
THE VALUATION FOR SHELL BUILDINGS SHALL BE TAKEN AS 80 PERCENT OF
THE VALUATION FOR THE COMPLETED BUILDING.
SOLAR
VALUE PLUS PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, WATER
AND HEATING $1,175.00 EACH
--OR--
PLAN CHECK FEE
ONE BUILDING $29.50 EACH
ADDmONAL BUILDING AT SAME LOCATION $11.75 EACH
\\ - l5e
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION V ALUA TION
BUILDING PERMIT FEE (PER GROSS FLOOR AREA OF
COLLECTOR)
FIRST 100 SQUARE FEET .47 SQ. FT.
. COLLECTOR AREA OVER 100 SQ. FT. .06 SQ. FT.
REINSPECTION FEE $17.75 EACH
SPA OR JACUZZI $5,325.00 EACH
STAIRS $10.75 SQ. FT.
STONE AND BRICK VENEER $6.50 SQ. FT.
SWIMMING POOL (pER SQ. FT. OF SURFACE AREA)
VINYL LINED $25.00 SQ. FT.
GUNITE $27.25 SQ. FT.
FIBERGLASS $29.50 SQ. FT.
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
THE VALUATION OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE $21.00 PER SQ. FT.
OR THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS
NON-ILLUMINATED ILLUMINATED
ROOF
1 FACE $19.25 SQ. FT $31.50 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $44.50 SQ. FT.
WALL
1 FACE $13.00 SQ. FT. $27.25 SQ. FT.
PROJECTING
1 FACE $18.50 SQ. FT. $38.25 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $44.50 SQ. FT.
POLE (VALUE PLUS
SUPPORTING STRUCTURE
1 FACE $19.25 SQ. FT. $31.50 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $44.50 SQ. FT.
BILLBOARDS (VALUE
PLUS SUPPORTING
STRUCTURE)
1 FACE $19.25 SQ. FT. $31.50 SQ. FT.
2 FACE $27.25 SQ. FT. $45.50 SQ. FT.
SUPPORTING STRUCTURE $44.50 UN. FT.
\ \ - l59
APPENDIX D
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
TABLE 1
Industries within these categories have been identified as potential dischargers of either prohibited wastes
or toxic pollutants. Table 2 lists the toxic pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A).
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
Adhesives and Sealants Mfg.
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Mfg.
Auto Repair
Battery Mfg.
Bottling Plants
Canneries
Carffruck Washes
Cement Mfg.
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic
Products Mfg.
Electroplating
Explosives Mfg.
Feed Lots
Fertilizer Mfg.
Food Processing Plants
Glass Mfg.
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Mfg.
Hospitals
Ink Formulation
Inorganic Chemicals Mfg.
Iron and Steel Mfg.
Laboratories
Laundries
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Ore Mining and Dressing
Organic Chemicals Mfg.
Packing Houses
Paint Formulation
Petroleum Refining
Pesticides Mfg.
Pharmaceuticals Mfg.
Photoprocessing
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Printing and Publishing
Rendering
Rubber Processing
Soaps and Detergents Mfg.
Steam Electric Power Generation
Tars and Asphalt Mfg.
Textile Mills
Timer Products Processing
\. \ - \~D
APPENDIX D
TABLE 2
LIST OF 65 TOXIC POLLUTANTS IDENTIFIED BY EPA
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony and compounds
Arsenic and compounds
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and compounds
Cadmium and compounds
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloralkyl ethers,
Chlordane
Chlorinated benzenes
Chlorinated ethanes
Chlorinated naphthalene
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium and compounds
Copper and compounds
Cyanides
DDT and metabolites
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
2,4-dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane &
Dichloropropene
2,4-dimethylphenol
Dinitrololuene
Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolites
Ethybenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethane
Heptachor and metabolites
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Napththalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons
Selenium and compounds
Silver and compounds
2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium and compounds
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc and compounds
[Resolution 16225J
\\ - \~\
PROPOSED USER CLASSIFICATIONS AND
ASSUMED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
BOD $$
USER CLASSIFICATION (ppm) (ppm)
Residential 200 200
Low-Strength Commercial
Basic Commercial 150 150
Car Wash 20 150
Department & Retail Stores 150 150
Hotels w/o Dining Facilities 310 120
Hospital & Convalescent 250 100
Laundromat 150 110
Professional Office 130 80
School & College 130 100
Soft Water Service 3 55
Medium-Strength Commercial
Bars w/o Dining Facilities 200 200
Commercial Laundry 450 240
Repair Shop & Service Station 180 280
Shopping Center 400 432
High-Strength Commercial
Auto Steam Cleaning 1,150 1,250
Bakery, Wholesale 1,000 600
Hotel with Dining Facilities 500 600
Industrial Laundry 670 680
Mortuaries 800 800
Restaurant 1,000 600
Supermarkets 800 800
Other
Septage 5,400 12,000
\ \ -I "'')- / 1I-lfD:J
APPENDIX E
.
/)..,/\
\f:
/
~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISfAAMENDING
SECTIONS 3.44.021. 9.12.160. 9.12.280. 9.13.050.
13.14.090. 13.14.100. 13.14.110. 13.14.120.AND 13.14.150
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
5.36.035 AND 15.36.015 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 3.44.021 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 3.44.021 Exemptions-Senior citizens.
A The tax imposed by this chapter shall not apply to any individual sixty-two years
of age or older who uses telephone. electric and gas in or upon any premises
occupied by such tndividual; provided the combined gross tncome of all members
of the household in which such tndividual resided wa!! less than Se\'e8 thel:lBElflEl
iY..e..I~l:HlElreEl Elellftf's tlftYP<;f~((~r"9f..t!\.~.W/;Vl.~ijf~YWi:i9~fQrtn~..t;l,~
t!9!#!l~t!9!4!l~ for the calendar year prior to the fiscal year (July 1 through June
30) for which the exemption provided in this chapter is applied. ~!I,.t!:!!tiP9m~
"~U$tf~~~1l.>e;i.$(1S~armj!~~1~!9t~9~~9M~fjq1l.ym~~PI:\tf~
NAAPyt!\l:!f~4~P~P~lH~l:!llt()(~()!#!lWg~q"YrniiID+'~iiY~~19pm~pt(:Ijyp). . ..
The exemption granted by this section shall not eliminate the duty of the service
suppliers from collecting taxes from such exempt individuals or the duty of such
exempt individuals from paytng such taxes to the service suppliers unless an
exemption is applied for by the service user and granted in accordance with the
provisions of subsection B of this section.
B. Any service user exempt from the taxes Imposed by this chapter because of the
provisions of subsection A may file an application with the director of finance for
an exemption. Such an application shall be made upon forms supplied by the
director of finance and shall recite facts veIified by declaration under penalty of
perjury which qualify the applicant for an exemption. The director of finance shall
review all such applications and certify as exempt those applicants determined to
qualify therefor and shall notify all service suppliers affected that such exemption
has been approved. stating the name of the applicant. the address to which such
exempt service is being supplied. the account number. if any. and such other
information as may be necessary for the service supplier to remove the exempt
service user from its tax billtng procedure. The certification of such application
for exemption shall be granted if the eligibility requirements of subsection A are
met. except that no exemption shall be granted to an applicant who is receiving
service from a service supplier through a master meter. or who is sharing or
prorating service with other service users even though such service users qualify
under the provisions of subsection A:, provided. however. that the person receiving
service through a master meter or sharing or prorating service with other service
users shall be eligible for a rebate of the utility users' tax tn the amount of twelve
dollars per year, or any larger amount upon a showtng of actual billtng from the
person having control of said master meter. to be paid at the beginntng of each
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraJdy\1065I.WPF
l\ -I toy.
Attachment #4-1
fiscal year for the preceding fiscal year. commencing on July 1. 1977. Such
person seeking said rebate must file the application therefor on or before
September 1st of each year to receive said rebate for the preceding fiscal year. It
Is further provided that said rebate may be prorated If the applicant has not
resided In the same location for the full preceding fiscal year. No exemption shall
be granted with respect to any tax Imposed by this chapter wWch Is or has been
paid by a public agency or where the applicant receives funds from a public
agency specifically for the payment of such tax.
Upon receipt of such notice. the service supplier shall not be required to continue
to bill any further tax Imposed by tWs chapter from such exempt service user until
further notice by the director of finance Is given. The service supplier shall
eliminate such exempt service user from Its tax billing procedure for bills dated on
or after July 1. 1976. upon receipt of such notice from the director of finance prior
to July 1. 1976. and thereafter from bills dated no later than sixty days after
receipt of such notice from the director of finance.
All exemptions shall continue and be renewed automatically by the director of
finance so long as the prerequisite facts supporting the initial qualification for
exemption continue; provided. however. that the exemption shall automatically
terminate with any change In the service address or residence of the exempt
Individual; and further provided. that such Individual may nevertheless apply for
a new exemption with each change of address or residence. Any Individual exempt
from the tax shall notify the director of finance within ten days of any change In
fact or circumstance wWch might disqualify said individual from receiving such
exemption. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly receive the
benefits of the exemptions provided by tWs section when the basis for such
exemption either does not exist or ceases to exist.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of tWs subsection. however. any service
supplier who determines by any means that a new or nonexempt service user Is
receiving service through a meter or connection exempt by virtue of any exemption
Issued to a previous user or exempt user of the same meter or connection. such
service supplier shall immediately notify the director of finance of such fact. and
the director of finance shall conduct an investigation to ascertain whether or not
the provisions of tWs section have been complied with and. where appropriate.
order the service supplier to commence collecting the tax from the nonexempt
service user.
as follows:
SECTION n: That Section 5.36.035 be added to the Municipal Code to read
l!le~OO rs.~Q.Q35 aoUstlc Health Practltlooer-Relimdable Fee
Pil.yth~~~~);fP~~=~r:::~~~~~h=thPract~tlO~:~ll
Ii~ense.. . . . .. .. .. p uan(le 0 a us. ess
WPC F'\home\wpc\genlJdy\1065J.WPF
\\-\\.D5
Attachment #4-2
SECTION m: That Section 9.12.160 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be amended as
follows:
Section 9.12.160 Bingo-Term ofUceue and fees.
A The term of a bingo license is one year and may be renewed for a period of one
year upon application therefor.
B. ~ fee fer a Biage lIeefl5e aHa a reRewellleense MaR Be as preseR1:Iy desigRated.
M m&y iB the {alblTe Be ammaeet in the IftftSter fee seheatde. The appFepfiate fee
shall aeeslBpany the s$HHssleR af eaek applIeat:lsH, ana In the ~'eRt an
lifIpllealieR Is denied. fifty pereeRt sf the fee eliall Be reftlftded.
C. For ~~~~~~PPl1C:;l\tlQQQttf9t each change In the bingo chairpersons who
will manage the bingo game. there shall be a fee for my~~gl'!~p~!;l(Qt
processing the applicant's fingerprints. as set ferth 1ft the maSter fee seaedttle.
The appr~Fiate fee ~~!;lJf~(l!!1 shall accompany the submission of each
application. ~*...~.~Yi#1fml...!i(pfJPql;tt9#J~.9~~~;..m!;Y..P~~t.pt..j:lj~...f~~~.l;l~
~tiAg~;
D. A fee ~. not to exceed one percent of the monthly gross receipts over five
thousand dollars derived from bingo games shall be collected monthly by the city.
SECTION IV: That Section 9.12.280 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
Section 9.12.280 Casino Parties-AppUcation, Fee.
An application for a casino party shall be made to the Chief of Police on forms
prescribed by the Chief of Police not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the proposed date
of the party. The application shall be accompanied by a fee fer e8ftdtlet:ing aH
invest:igatlen as set ferth ifl the Master Fee Seheatlle ftB it etlRently eJBs&!J 8f' Rl8Y in the
ftItl:1re Be ElIReRded j:lj~~q~(JF~~). The application for a casino party shall contain
at a minimum the following: ....
A A list of all volunteers who will operate the casino games or devices. including full
names of each volunteer. date ofblrth. place ofblrth. physical description. home
address and home telephone number.
B. Name and address of company or Individual that will be furnishing casino
equipment or devices.
C. The date. hours of the date. and place of the proposed casino party.
D. Casino Manager. Concurrently with the mlng of an application for !I. casino party
license. each applicant shall me a statement specifying the name and address of
two persons who shall manage. supervise and be responsible for the conduct of
the casino party. The casino managers shall be present on the premises at all
times during which a casino party is being conducted.
\\ _ \~U)
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraIdy\10651.WPF
Attachment #4-3
SECTION V: That Section 9.13.050 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.13.050 AppUcatlon and deposit for Ucense.
The applicant for any license or licenses in this chapter shall Be HHl6e 1:6 the efllef
sf ~8liee and SHaH be aee6ffipaniea By a dep86it 1ft the aIflS1:lRt sf eRe BtlIleH=e8 ftfty
E1eRllf'6, whiek E1ellElElit saaR Be RSR refHRElaBle paY~~\R<:q)"!t~E~J~). If the license is
issued, sald E1ellssit f~ shall be Bj3j3lieEliR the j3~_eRt sf the lleell6e fee ~flmq~l;!I~.
SECTION VI: That Section 13.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.090
Sewer Capacity Charge.
A: The owner or person making application for a permit to develop or modify use of
any residential, commercial, industrial or other property which Is projected by the
Director to increase the volume of flow in the City sewer system by at least
one-half of one equivalent dwelling unit of flow shall pay a Sewer Capacity Charge.
All revenue derived from such fees shall be deposited in the Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Fund. The amount of such charge shall be the Required Feels).
B. ORe eqtiF.'ll:IeRt E1wel.llRg lillit (EDD) sf Hsw is E1eftReel:6 Be 266 galISRs j3eF eay ef
se-"\'~ g€:FleFatian. The fee fer I3rspeny ift"18]viRg a mediileaY8H in HSC saail
reflect enly the ineFease 1ft ae-:.rage geaeratleH pFejeetea rFaIR that f)}:6~eHy. The
felle-.r.iHg ftltea sf 98\\- fer vaf'iSl:l5 18.R8 asee sfiall Be 1:ltili5M::a la aeteflftiniag the
tetW fee d1:le fer any gP.~fl I3rSl3eriy:
Land Use
EDDs ef Flew
81Rg.le family reslaeRee 1.0
.\pa:rtIHent/CsRseminltlffi ]y..mg tlflit
Hssj3ital Bee
Mal3i1e BeHle
Metel, aetellMRg 1:IflIt .aa
Cli1~lFeflt tHeater, 81:latteR1:l1H
Pel' each Halt sf seatlAg eapaeit?y 1.0
lORe 1:IRit BelRg lIe j3eFSeflS er
aHy ffaeYsR thereat:)
Rest:a.umnt
~.67 j311:ls seating allseatieR ef
1.G fsr eaeli 10 seats Sf fFaetisR
theFesl}
e.76
1.0
Ul
1.0
2.671
-;arIaBle
8effiee StatleR
Self sef\iee laNRelry pet' ....~fteF
Other faee Belev.1
2.60
.76
1ft the eaee sf eeRlfBeFeia,t lnatlstri8:l 811ft ether 8C1:elSjifftest:a Ret lfteltlElea 8:B€K~,
the FltlHlBeF sf eEltlY..'8Ieat th-;elling URUS sf R6\.\" sh&ll be aetefHlinea in earn ease
By the DiFeel:6r aHe shall Be Basee1:lj3eR the estiHlatee vell:lHie ef sewage tEl Be
el5ehftFgee IRI:6 the City seWeF system. The Rew Pate fer j3FSj3ef'ty IR7eMag a
WFC F,\home\wpc\jjeraldy\1065I.WPF
\\ -\~l
Attachment #4-4
medifiee.tJ.en in lana use shftR reReet enl}" the ln~e8:Se in se-.i.llge generB:tlen
prejeet €rem tflat pFspel'ty wfiieh elfE)eeas .69 eltHl?;aleRt EtJ.'eIHng ltI1I.t5 sf ilew.
SECTION VII: That Section 13.14.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.100
Sewage Pump Station Cbar,e - Disposition of Revenue -
Determination of Cbaqes
A The owner or occupant of any parcel of real property connected to a sewage pump
station which Is a part of the wastewater system of the City and situated within
a Special Sewer ServIce Rate Area established by the City Council shall pay ap
~4lij Sewage Pump Station Charge In the amount set forth In the ordinance
establishing such Area. or as amended by the City Council annually by ordinance,
as designated for administrative convenience only In the Master Fee Schedule.
=;~~~~=~~~~=~r:~~~~~T~Ir~
i!ll:14...!:\!:!ll~....I.ii*cool;dap,,*,..W!Pl~()n:....344;t.!$Q;
B. All revenue derived from sewage pump station charges shall be deposited Into a
tfte separate fund 9l;~(jutit deemed appropriate by the Director of Finance.
C. Sewage pump station charges shall be based upon run cost TeCoVe.y 9f all city
experise$.tncluding.bu,tnot1imited to. aett:lallabor, materla1$, equipment. power
and Water CQsts. emergency alarms. eReFgy and overhead costs experienced by the
City relative to each sewage pump station;~ticludingptiMSlonOf.Il...~.{(().r
=~:w~~~';:=~~~tT::~~~=:~~~a:r::;:t>;
~teriance and operation for the ensuing year elfeept fSF ilffit reM e6s~ "nhIek
shiHI Be esl:lmatea By the DlreeteF. Any deficit or excess reSulting. from a
difference between the estimated costs andacti1al.costs l!hall bt. CQl"l:'ected by
adJu,stments to the rates. charged to the Property owners <luring the. sucCeeding
year.Afterthe.r~teaches at least 25 percent, bu,t Jl9t more ihap50peri::ent.
Itsba n ~maint..inedtO prOVide necessaryta$liflow for ope1:'li.tl.onlllUid a:
{easOJlable bUtTer agalriSt~ge variations In annual aB$eBsments. Dlstnet:lMMi at
se-.\'age hit st;el:ieR ees~ Ilnl6Hg BeRefttted p&reels shall Be as speaRea 1ft the
eFdlntmee tstftBlishing tfie ..\rea, as reReet:ed fer 8Ebninia1xat:k~ t8H~~Rienee enly
==1:!=~~=:=:si~~1~t~k~
detetD1ineihe estimated cosl:& fot mamtenance.~operationof saId Pt111lpstation.
::4=en:e~~=::f=~~~=~:~:~~r:~
. Jior . ear operations or from DeveJ r;estlrtlatedto b~a1i'8JlabletiSofJuneBO
~~ FundS); Theannwuse\V'age ~ StaUon~e.shlllJ.~det!:'i'lnlned by
thefolloWiri fonnula:(Requlred FUnds tnmusACti1alFundS} dMded b the
. .... .. .. g. ... . .. ... ... ... .... . . ... .. .'1
01 I mber of customers ~~ted to the sewage pu,nipstaUon on saId June 30..For
~~~~:~=~=:;=I~~;~~=~;=r~~
gra,Vity ~tem ~b~11 be patd.froin the proceeds ofSa,ld Charge (and. DeVeloper
fund avaUable if. ). However the Charge for the lastfWl earshalInot
=:e~l:!f:~:::~~~~t:;~if~~h~
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraJdy\ 10651.WPF
\\-l\Q~
Attachment #4-5
be . ed tll ch ts 'i te1y. aidU. that. . t. tb S clal
~*~~~;a:=7~::~~~~Dfl~o!~:~:~
the amount of the ro Oaed Char e.
... . .... . p p ... g
Tt!e Chlttge shall becoUected in month'iy or bt-month'iy inStalImentsWfth the water
liim; <ll;l:UluallY on the tax bill. or otherwise as theCtty determlnes~ .SUch.annual
Charges are subject to. interest. late paymentpenaltles. and otb,erpharges. as set
(orthlnSectlon 13.14.150.
rtle c;hlirge..together with interest oosts. late charges and ~ableattl:!l)ley'S
fees shall bea charge and a continuing lien on the property served. tel>>rdlilbleand
fored.OSable in the same manner as a mortgage or by sale.pursuanttoYlvll.Code
sectionS 1367 and 2924. and enforceable in the same manner as anyd~qU:ent
tax,.lt collected on the tax bW.
It.l$..~..purpoSe and intent of thls section to apply the prOOedUretibetein ti? the
~Ungspecial sewer service rate. areas or zones. to .the end tb,at.allsuch ~s
orzon:~. present.or futuTe,shall be ~tablished. have annual Charges.assessed,
colleCted. and enforced upon default Iri the same manner. . All PtevlOU$ a eements
tUw.. or~ces relating to special seWer service rate areas or zcifui$.:~ h~by
iltnended to be in conformity with tb,eseprovislons. This sect10nis enacted
pursuant to.an exerCise by tb,e Ctlj>'CouncU of ltspciltce powers asa .Cbarter city,
and pursuant to Health and Safety COde sectlon5471; GoVernmetitCOde Sections
54300 et seq~. or any other appltcablestate law. All new special sewer service rate
areas or zones hereafter crea~.shaIl be. created by an ordlnancesubstant'RJJy in
~ccordanc:eWfthandpurspantto .<themodel . Q~coJ;J.ta.lnIrig the
requlJementsof this section prepared by the Ctlj>' Attomeyartd. approved byCily
Council.
SECTION VUI: That Section 13.14.110 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Is amended to read as follows:
D~
E
f";
Section 13.14.110
A
a.
C.
Sewer Service Ch8l1es Designated - Pa7lllent Required -
Domestic Purposes - Defined.
~Qt;ij:it In addition to other fees. assessments or charges provided by the City
Code or otherwise. the owner or occupant of any parcel of real property which said
parcel Is connected to the sewer system of the City and to . water systemmaintained by the Sweetwater Authority. the Otay Water District or the California
- American Water Company shall pay the Required Feels) for. Sewer Service
Ch 1"I:ie .Cllj>'CliilclJ... $haIl....tabllSb..iWd. .pharg...brtr...liv
~~~itqW~6iI~ted~.PMi~~!l1,.........i.....ii................. ..~y~oJ.\.PJ;J.;ori.........
Re n. E\t.ear the Director of Public Works shall detennlne the . .
-~-
=:=~~~~\:~~=!~l=-:~~=:=
WIle F:\home\wpc\geraldy\1065I.WPF
\ \ - \LDo,
Attachment #4-6
BD. All revenue deIived from such charges shall be deposited Into the Sewer IBeeffte
$l!it\iJCfl~eveifue Fund.
fOE. For the purpose of this section, real property shall be deemed to be used for
domestic purposes when such property Is used solely for single-family residences
or the furnishing of lodging by the operation of hotels. auto courts. apartment
houses, bungalow courts, housing units, rooming houses, motels, trailer parks.
or the rental of property for lodging purposes.
D. Se-\ver sef\;ee efl&Fgea t8 1:lBeFB 1H the Msat:g8fBeFy 1\.-..ReHBtiaa Area sh&ll Be
eslleetealB the fePHl ef ltr.fttlEll ebMges 'lia IlFellefty tllK elRs IlFeIllH'ea ~' !he 81tH
Dlege Cstmty.\Baesser t.llfl3agh the ens sf '91 '92 Daeal Ye&f. MeRtge&lery ....'rea.
ehMgeB skElll ee eefBIl8FftBle te tHese ef f:fte FemalBaeF ef tHe CI~. after erealt feF
tlAl:Iaea reser.~ meRies, aefjtdfea BY the CUy aariag the ..."\Fea ftIlHelf8.t:iSR }3Fseeas.
liaa hem. applied. Begia-uag Jttly 1, 1992, aey.-er servtee ehftf'ges fer the
'-feRt-gamelY ..A_-.nemtisR Mea sBaII Be emea ana eelleetea 1ft fue same mar.ner as
1ft the rest ef the City.
SECTION IX: That Section 13.14.120 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Is amended to read as follows:
Section 13.14.120
Reduced Sewer Service Char,es Permitted
Wben-AppUcation-contents-Refunds-Fees.
A. The Director of Finance shall have the authoIity to certify eligibility for a reduced
sewer service charge, In the amount of seventy percent (70%) of the rate charged
other residential users. upon Investigation. or upon application by the occupant
of a single family residence. apartment, condominium or mobilehome when the
occupant:
1. Meets the low Income eligibility cIiteIia as presently designated In the
Master Fee Schedule, or as may In the future from time to time be amended
by city council resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule, or
2. Provides proof of payment of a monthly sewer charge greater than the
Required Fee(s) for minimum sewer service charge.
B. The occupant of premises subject to a sewer charge may request a reduced sewer
service charge by filing a completed City application form. The applicant shall
furnish data regarding the type of unit. number of people In the household and
proof of total annual Income (gross) of the household. Application forms may be
obtained from the City's Finance Department. Certification of eligibility shall be
annually established with the Director of Finance.
C. Eligible occupants of single family homes subject to the sewer service charge shall
have the option of either requesting an annual refund from the City or requesting
the reduced sewer charge be applied on the sewer billing as she'>>8 eB the IBsBHily
aF 131 m8athly -..-JEltey oills.
D. Residents of apartments. condominiums or mobilehomes who are eligible for the
reduced sewer service charge shall receive the reduced sewer charge as an annual
refund only.
\\-\10
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraJdy\l065I.WPF
Attachment #4-7
\'-
E. Requests for annual refunds shall be made by eligible households between August
1 and September 30 of each year for the past fiscal year begirming In July and
ending in June. The applicant will be notified of eligibility status within thirty (30)
days of application and. if eligible. a refund shall be forwarded within ninety (90)
days of application.
F. ResieleHBs sf the iHeSlp8ratea M&flfgemery Dis1:net -.rAil Rat Be eligiBle fer eithef'
Fcfufu:ls ar a reduces sewer aERiee CHarge at the pFeaeat time: they \..'\11, he-.ve::-..er,
Be eligible far fue reableea aev:-er sernet: marge sftee they are st16jeet te the f1:1I1
ae-.ver aernee charge set by the Mastel' Fee Schedule eeeatlsc the special
31:fPJ3lement rand is euhausted.
SECTION X: That Section 13.14.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Is
amended to read as follows:
SecUon 13.14.150
Payment of Sewer Service and Pump Station Charges _
Penalty for DeUnquency - DlsconUnuance of Service _
When - Unlawful Connection - BackbUUng and Penalty.
A ~l1lffig<@d 1'ayfu~t. All sewer service and pump station operation and
maintenance charges. elfeeIlt these aeseneecllR stlSSeElt!sR F BeFeiftsellYli, shall
be eSlHputea pUled upon a monthly or bl-monthly baSIS;QrClD,t:fieTaxc~lll, as
determined by the City p()uh~llsr tae sefif'.ng water ageRey. and shall be payable
upon the billing of such charges to the owner or the occupant.
B.
Director's Report. Annually, not later than August 10. the City Clerk shall
set the Report of the Director of Public Works flled pursuant to Section
13.14.100 andlor 13.14.110 for public hearing before the CU~ Council arid
duly cause Notice thereof and of the filing of said report to be published
once at least ten days in advance thereof In a newspaper of general
circulation published Iri the City 01 Chula Vista.
2. Notice to Property Owner. When the Director of Public Works requests that
such charges be collected on the Tax BUI for the first time; the Cil~ Clerk
shall. In addition to the notiCe required by subsection B. LiCRuse to be
mafled to each person assessed for each property described In the report.
at the address shown on the last available assessment roll, Notlre of the
flling of the report and of the date, time, and place of the publicheanng
thereon. If such charges are collected on the Tax Bill pursuant to such
Notice.annuallythereaftersucb notlceneednot be given butonly the
notice by publication required by subsection B.l.
1.
C. Poundl Action. The City Council shall conduct a public heating to consider
the amount of such chargeS, and whether they shall be collected on the Tax BUI.
The first year said charges are proposed to be placed on the Tax .Bill, such action
is subject to a majority protest.
1. If a majority of the ownerS of affected properties protest placement on the
Tax Bill, the charges shall not be so colJected, but shall be established by CiI~
Counell Resolution and collected pursl'''Int to subsection D hereof.
2. If there is no majority protest and the City Council determines to place the
Charges. or some of them. on the Tax Bill, for those to be collected on the Tax Bill
WPC F:\home\wpc\geraJdy\1065J.WPF
\\ - \1\
Attachment #4-8
the City Council shall by ordinance approve .~.teportQt thePJrect9i: of Public
=~:~:~()r~:;::d~~r~==:~~~~e$~arild~
the Tax Bill. The City Clerk shall endorse thereOn that it Is the report nnally
approved by the City Council. and forward the appropriate datafurthwith to the
County Auditor for enrollment on the Assessment Roll. and ulUrtlate .eonection by
the Tax Collector on the Tax Roll in aCCOn:1ance with Health .~Saf~ Code
Section 5473 etseq.. Pursuantto Health and Safety Code Sectlon5473.S,alllaws
applicable to the levy. collection and enforcement of real property taxes including.
but not limited to. delinquency. correction. cancellatiOn. refund and redemption.
~appl1cable to such charges. .. .
a. PursuanttoHealthandSafetyCodeSect1ons5471~5473.10. the
City Council shall establish by ordinance the charges.aS.~ set forth irl
liaid report (along With ariy corrections) andhereby esW,~UsheS.th~ basic
penalty for delinquency irlthe amount.of 10% of the delinquent.l:tinourit,
ptus one and oneha!f (I-l/2) percent per month fur nonpayniellt of the
charge and basic penalty (designated f(lr adinln1stni.tiveconvemeni::e only
In the Master . Fee ~edi1le). which shall alsO be conectedby the Tax
ColleCtor on behalf of City.
b. The Director of Firlance shall give Notice to the oWner of iuly parcel
when any such charges become delinquent f()r 60 day$;~of any
penalties and interest thereon as Provided herein. arid that they sl1..11
constitute a 11en with the force. effect and priority of a judgment lien
against the lot or parcel against which it was imposed. good fo(~ years
from recordation, if recorded. The Director of Finance shall recon:1 with the
County Recorder, pursuant to Health and Safety CodeSecUonS.73.11. a
certificate specifying the amOunt of the unpaid charges and penalties and
Interest thereon. when any such charges become delinquenUor 60 days.
D. Non-Tax Bill Alternatively. ffhe charges and the billing therefor may be
combined With other uUlity bills and separately designated,. or o~~ bUled and
collected. as deterri1lned by theClty Council. Said~. tOget1l~ with P~altiel>
and interest, arid reasan.able attorneys' fees (bereaftei:~nectively refen'e<i to ~
Charge). shall be a charge on the property served and shall be. ti. eontlriuirlg lien
upon the property served. the 11en to becQme etTec~!lpOn reCQI dationofa Notice
of Delinquent Sewer SerVice (and/or Sewage Pump Station) Charge;l!:aehsuch
Charge also shall be the personal obligation of th~per$OnWho.~.theownerOf
sUCh property served at the lime when. the Charge was levied; 'l1'1epe$OJial
obligation for Delinquent Sewer Servl~ {and/or Sewage PumpStaUonlCl:!arges
shall not pass to an owner's successors in title as their persoJial obligationUtlless
expressly assumed by them.
Any Charge imposed in aCcordance with this ordinance shall be. a. debt 9t the
oWner of property served from the time the Charge is levied. At anytime ~ any
charges have become delinquent, the City EngIneer inay file for record intlleoffice
of the San Diego County Recorder, a Noticem DelinqtientSeWei'.Setvlc::e.(atldior
Sewage Pump Station) Charge as to such property serveq. which J;iOucetibalJ state
all amounts which have become delinquent with .respect to $Uch propetty.served
and the costs (including attorneys fees), late penalties ;md Interest'wl;1Jc;l::Lbave
accruel1 thereon. and the amount oIany charges relating to such propes.ty served
which 1$ dpe and payable although not delinquent The notl~alSo ~ cc)ntain
WPC F,\home\wpc'-'eraldy\l065I.WPF
'- \ - \. '\,...
Attachment #4-9
d crt ti t th . ;.mr. ed with the . f the recoro ... .. tei'l d
~... f:S P ono eprop-v!lel'Vl .. n8meO .... o,Jepu.r:ec>>r
<lWi1er of sucbprOpeI1y. and theriame.and addres$ of the. ttwi~.a~ I:>Y
the City to enforce the lien:. tfbynonjudldalforecIO$ure aspliMQedbdqW.
hnmediate1y upon recotd1ng of any Notice otDcllntttiencyputstlilnt.to the
f9regolng provisions of this Section. the amounts delinquent. asset f9rthJn such
notice; ~gether with the costs. (iricluding attol.heys' fe<\s).la'te penalties and
Interest accruing thereon. shaI1 be and become It Uen upon the p~ served
described therein, which lien also shall secuteall CO$ts (Including attorneys' {ees),
late pen. alties and tnterest accru'"" thereon. In theevenl the dAIi"""uent ch"'....e
and all other charges which ha~beCome due andpaya1:lle wtti;7t;.peCtto-llie
samepropCr:ly, together with all CO$tSllncluding attOi'h~'fees);j:atecbargesand
tnterest whichbave accruedonsllch amounts, are paid fully Or oth~sa.tlSfted
ri t th. I ti f sale held t .t1 reel th li ..........;ided .t1 In th1
P oro. e C9tnp e on 0 any.. .0 0 ose e en...;.;.. ....ot .... s
ordinance. the City EngIneer shill1 record a furiherni:ltice. sm,ilijrly8lgll:~statlng
the $llttsfact.lon and release of such lien.
Each lien may be foreclosed as and lnthes~ manner as the f<ii"ec:ki$Ui'e of a
:mortgage upon real propCr:ly under the laws of the~tate OfCA11fortlia,tir tIl.iIy' be
enforced by sale pUrsuant to &lcUons2924, 2~(b).2924(c) and 1::J~7ofthe
Cillifornia CivU Code. or any sucl:eS$Orstatute otbiw. arid b) that end; the right
to en.t1 th liby. al i hereb . nr. . ed . . the Cinr and Its tni tee
. .. ... orce . e en S e s. .. y C9. en: upon . .. . .J.. .. .... s
desigriated In. the Notice.of Dcl1nquent Charge, or 1l tnlstee substituted purSuant
to CaUfornla CivU Code SeCtlOll 2934a. .The CUy $hall hav~. the pqWer to bid for
the propCr:ly served at a forecloSUre sale. and to acquJreand hOld. leaSe. mortgage
and C9nv. the Same. . Sutt to recover a mOn . ud ent for unpaid char es.
. f:Y. ey Jgm ... . . g
costs, late penalties and attorneys' fees shaD be malnhdnable without fot ecloslng
or waiving the lien securlngthesame. .111 any lii.ction by. the CIty to collect
delinquent charges, accompanying late charges orlnterest; the pl'eValllng pilrly
shall be.ei1tiUed to recovery otits <:oStSand fe;lRonltble attOlney$'fees; .
€E. Penal~ for Delinquency. If the sewer service and/or pump station charge iEH'
l:ISeFB ether th8H these EieseFieeEi i8 Sl:IBSeetle8 F. is not paid before the close of
business or postmarked before midnight of the final date for payment as shown
on the billing. the RefttiireEi penal!:y Fee([3) a basic.penalty of ~'e81:y ten (0)
percent of the charge(s) shall be added thereto,pltlsOile ando~ba!nl*l/2)
. cent ernionthfornon aentofthe"h",.;nAaridbasij:enal .(de$i tedf6r
per.. P. .. P ~ .. -....6~. . ... pty.. gna .
adInln(strative C9nvenfenc;e onlyln the Master F~. ~hedule); provided. however.
that when the final day for payment falls on Saturday. Sunday or a legal holiday.
payment may be made without penalty on the next regular business day.
BF. ~c;eDl.scontinllance. In the event the owner or occupant of any premises shall
be delinquent in payment of the sewer service andjorpump statlap charge and
such delinquency continues for a period of five days after the final date for
payment of such charge. the city shall have the light. forthwith and without
notice. to discontinue sewer !,lild/or pump station service to such delinquent
owner or occupant. and sewer and/or pump statiOn service shall not again be
supplied to such person until all delinquent sewer service andj91:pW:nP station
charges plus the penalties thereon as herein provided have been paid. The sewer
service and/or pump statton charges may be collected by suit In any couli of
competentjurtsdlction or any other manner.
60. 1;l'pla.~pi:lili1ectiqn; In the event that any parcel or building is determined by
the Director to have been unlawfully connected to the public wastewater system.
WPC F:\home\wpc\gerakty\1065I.WPF
\\-\'13
Attachment #4-10
the City shall have the right to tennlnate sewer lUld/OT pumpstatlon service to
such parcel or building as provided in section 13.06.110. Sewer antt/~t pUinp
station service shall not again be supplied to such parcel or buildiriguntll all
delinquent sewer service and/orpiUl'\p station charges which have been
accumulated during the current ownership of the parcel or building, plus a basic
penalty of 10% of the delinquent sewer service and/or pump station charge
llenaUy fee plus one and one half (1-1/2) percent per month for non*payine:qt of
the charge lUldthebaslc penalty (designated for adminIstrative convenience only
in the Master Fee Schedule), has been paid.
F. Sev;er sept..J{ee (barges far asers in the MSfltgefBeFy ..^_-rrlelf8.Hea .-'\rea Mall Be
eelleerea in the fsf'fil ef 8:IlR1:l&l eliarges \tfa preJ3e~- tax Bills prepafea By the San
Diege CSUHt). ...'\asesaer thF81:lgH the eRa sf 1991 1992 ftaea:l year. MSRtgSIRUY
..:\Fee. ebarges shaRl3e eelB13&FtHde 18 these efthe reHlftiFu:ter afthe CUy. afkr eFeelt
feF uHusea rESef\oe maRies, 8EfItliPea By the CUy Bl1Fing the .\rea 8IlfteIf8:tiSR
13P6eess, has BeeR fl13pliecl. Begin.ilng J\:lly 1, 1992, se-\ver Berr.;ee eh8f'ges fer the
~i8HtgeHie1)" ...\..-JlelffttisR area aha:Y Be hilled ana eellttled in the same mar.nef' as
lH !:be rest ef tAt City.
SECTION XI: That Section 15.36.015 be added to the Municipal Code to
read as follows:
BeetloD .15.36.015
AppUcatlOn for Permit.
Section 4.103 of Article 4 of the Uniform Fire Code a$ it applies in the City of
Chula Vt$tats hereby amended to read as fonows:
Applications for pt:1ul.lts shall be made to the fire preventlonodMslon in such form
and deti'/l1 aspre$Crlbed by the dMslon. Application for pennlts shall be accoinpanled
by such p1aris as required by the dMslon and by the Requtred Fee(s).
SECTION XU: Effective Date. TIlls ordinance shall take effect and be In full
force on the thirtieth day from and after Its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Lyman Christopher
Director of Finance
Jv1 , Jv k JGd
D. Richard Rudolf
Assistant City Attorney
\ \ ~1 ~
WPC F: \home\wpc\gerakly\ 10651.WPF
Attachment #4-11
7
\l- \15
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 4 -
August 7, 1991
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Fine Free Day on August 18th in conjunction with Library
Centennial
The Friends of the Library have requested that Sunday,
August 18th be declared a fine-free day in conjunction
with the Library'S 100th birthday.
MSUC (ViescajWilson) that the Library Board supports the
Friends request to make August 18th a fine-free day in
conjunction with the Library Centennial.
B. Library Fine Fee Schedule Update
The City updates its fine and fee schedule on a regular
basis and has asked all departments to review the fines
and fees they collect. The Library proposes increases
in two fees it currently charges and the institution of
a new fee.
1. Increase the overdue charge for children I s books
from $.05 per day to $.10 per day.
2. Increase non-resident of California Library Card fee
from $10 per year to $20 per year.
This is a per family fee and during FY 1990-91 the
Library issued 113 paid cards. Most of the people
obtaining these cards live in Baja California. The
Library does not charge this fee to active military
personnel.
3. Institute a $5.00 processing charge for lost books
or audio visual materials.
This fee is to replace the overdue book charge on
most books that are declared lost. The ALIS II
circulation system could calculate this fee, but the
new INLEX system does not.
MS (ViescajWilson) that the Library Board support
increasing the children's overdue fee, the non-resident
card fee and the $5 processing charge.
Chairman Williams argued that he faces students that are
unable to read on a daily basis and could not support
any measure that might prevent children from reading.
Trustee Viesca withdrew his motion and offered the
following:
Attachment #5-1
--\\-\ lle
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 5 -
August 7, 1991
MSUC (ViescajWilson 3-0) that the Library Board table
the issue of the children's overdue fee until the full
Board can vote on it and support the increase in the non-
resident library card and the $5 processing charge.
C. Grant Update
1. Family Literacy Grant
The City Council has approved the Library's
acceptance of this grant
2. Appl ication for Grant to Serve Spanish Speaking
Immigrant Populations 1991-92
Library staff is working on this grant application.
If awarded, this grant could provide a total of
$12,000, $4,000 for each library building, with
which to purchase materials for Spanish speaking
immigrants to provide assistance in the process of
their adaptation to the United States.
MSUC (ViescajWilson, 3-0) that the Library Board
supports the Library's application for this grant
to serve Spanish speaking immigrant populations.
3. Major Urban Resource Library Grant
This' grant is available to any library that serves
over 100,000 people. Chula Vista received these
funds in FY 1990-91 and will use 1991-92 funds, if
awarded, to' continue services to the business
community.
MSUC (WilsonjViesca, 3-0) that the Library Board of
supports the Library's application for HURL funds.
4. Application for Grandparents and Books Programme
Development Grants
If awarded, this grant can provide $5,000 for each
of the three libraries in Chula Vista. This grant
requires that funds be used to purchase books to
encourage adults to read to children. This grant
requires a high percentage of minority population
in the library service areas.
MSUC (WilsonjViesca 3-0) that the Library Board of
Trustees supports the application for the
Grandparents and Books Programme Development Grant
Attachment #5-2
\\ - \ 11
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 3 -
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
The Trustees volunteered to "adopt" the following Council
members.
Trustee
Alexander
Donovan
viesca
Will iams
Wilson
Council Member
Rindone
Malcolm
Grasser-Horton
Moore
Nader
Chairman Williams asked the Trustees report on their
Council contacts at the December meeting.
D. Setting meetlng schedule for coming year
The Library Board will:meet on the fourth Wednesday of
each month with the exception of their November, December
and August meetings. Meetings will begin at 3:30 pm.
October 23, 1991
November - No November meeting
December 4, 1991
January 22, 1992
February 26, 1992
March 25, 1992
April 22, 1992
May 27, ...992
June 24 1992
July 22, 1992
August - No August Meeting
September 23, 1992
MSUC (Alexander/Donovan) The
consolidate their November and
December 4, 1991.
Library
December
Board will
meeting on
MSUC (Alexander/Viesca) That the Library Board accept the
calendar as designated.
E. Master Fee Schedule update- Increasing the fines for
children's books from five cents to ten cents per day per
overdue book
At their last meeting the Trustees asked that this item
be held over until it could be considered by the entire
Board. Director Lane explained that the purpose of
overdue fines is to encourage individuals to return books
in a timely manner. The Library is suggesting an increase
in children's overdue fines which will bring books back
faster. Also, the new INLEX system charges the five cent
children's fine on children's books even if adults check
I
\\-\1~
Attachment #5-3
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
- 4 -
SEPTEMBER 18, 1991
them out. Teachers and parents often take large numbers
of picture books out at one time and are not being
charged the 25 cent adult fine. The suggested increase
to 10 cents is the norm for children's fines in the
County.
The Children's Librarian is opposed to this increase as
children often have no control over when they can return
their books and have little earning power. Chairman
Williams stated that the Library should foster reading
on a children's level as much as possible, and that this
would be a bad public relations move.
MSC (Alexander/Viesca, 4-1, Donovan casting the opposing
vote) That the Library Board does not support increasing
the overdue book fee for children's fines and suggests
it remain at five cents.
F. CALTAC recognition awards application
Because these nominations occur at a bad time of the year
for the Library Board, Chairman Williams asked that
Trustees Donovan and Viesca prepare next year's
application and that this item be placed under Continuing
Matters on the July agenda.
G. Summary of Library Board Activities - FY 1990-91
Trustees determined t~at the highlights of the previous
fiscal year included: support of the Proposition 85
Grant, attendance at the California Library Association
Conference, the Public Library Association Conference,
and Legislative Day, support of the Literacy Project and
the in-house workshop for new trustees.
Chairman Williams hoped that. the Chamber of Commerce
sponsored City-wide Board meeting would be continued.
Chairman Williams asked that in the future the Board
Secretary review the minutes after each meeting and
prepare a report of the highlights for the Trustees for
this report next year.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
The letter to the editor in the Star-News
This item was discussed in the Assistant Library Director's
letter to the Trustees.
)
Attachment #5-4
\-\-Il~
November 18, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Leonard and Members of the Board of Appeals and Advisors
FROM: Kenneth G. Larsen, C.B.O., Director of Building and HOUSing~#t-
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS ACCEPT THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CHAPTER 15, CHUU VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, REUTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
AND HOUSING, AS OUTUNED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF REPORT:
Background: A comprehensive City-wide analysis of the Master Fee Schedule has been requested
by the City Manager for intended review by the City Council in December 1991. Prior to such
Council review, submittal for your evaluation and comment is the proposed recommendations to
the Master Fee Schedule by the Department. As you are aware, the Department adjusts our
valuation schedule annually at the beginnin~ of the fiscal year to coincide with the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) inflationary adjustments. TypIcally, this reflects approximately' three to five percent
(3-5%) upward adjustments, which in turn, impact fees collected via building permit issuance.
Beyond our annual valuation adjustments, the Master Fe ~ Schedule has not been adjusted
since 1987.
Discussion: The components of the package before you are recommended fee adjustments for two
classifications of selVlce fee accounts. First is fees contained in the adoption of the model codes,
such as the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and the
Uniform Administrative Code for fee adoption regarding the National Electrical Code.1 The
second classification is the operations category where services are performed beyond the scope of
routine Building and Housing Inspection activities such as COmpliance Survey Inspections,
Applications to the Board of Appeals and Advisors, issuance of Temporary and/or Certificates of
Occupancy, Foundation Only Permits and maintenance of plans via our microfilming and
microfiche of records activities. -
Proposed for the Board's consideration is the following description depicting staffs
recommendation for fee modifications: .
Item #1:
To revise our S30.00/hour rate to reflect full cost recoveJY for services rendered
outside normal business hours, assessed at a rate of the requested level of authority;
Building Inspector, Plans Examiner, Senior Building Inspector, etc.
The National Electrical Code does nol contain proviI.ions ror electric:al permit rea.
Attachment #5-5
\ \- \~O
Board of Appeals & Advisors
-2-
November 18, 1991
Item #2: Same as Item #1.
Item #3: Same as Item #1.
Item #4: Comoliance Survev - Revise from $75.00 to reflect full cost recove~ for staff
involvement.
Item #9: Foundation Only Permit - Currently staff will, at the request of the applicant, process
Foundation Only Permits at no cost. Staff has experienced numerous time
constraints in processing, tracking, logging and recording separate permit documents
for the same structure. This recommendation is premise<:1 upon the actual time
involved by staff to accommodate such a r~uest. Staff believes that encumbering an
additional 25 percent for the Foundation OriIy Permit will offset this impact.
Item #10: Aoolication for Board of Appeals and Advisors J;Jearini . The fee for filing an
application before the Board of Appeals and Advisors is intended to offset the cost
of staff time for research, report preparation and attendance at the Board of
Appeals and Advisors hearings. This fee is consistent with the amount charged by
the Planning Department to have a variance request heard at a public hearing.
Item #11: Application for an Administrative Hearing. This fee is similar to that charged by the
Planning Department for an administrative variance and is appropriate when permit
applicant requests approval of a material or method of construction not currently
authorized under the uniform codes. This fee will offset the time staff spends on
researching and preparing the reports that are required to document the equivalency
of these alternate methods or materials.
Item #12: Certificate of Occupancy Issuance - Currently staff processes Certificate of
Occupancy activity without charge to applicants. As a result of the complexities
involving Certificate of Occu!'ancy issuance, the Department has experienced time
constraints on the process of usmg occupancy clearances due to the number of
individuals/departments involved in signing-off of the project prior to authorizing
occupancy. An example for such is that each commercial building has a minimum of
Planning, Engineering, Fire, Landscape and Building & Housing Department review.
Since the process is conducted over a three-ta-fiVe day period, tbe Building and
Housing Department encumbers numerous staff hours in the initiation process, the
contact center for outside departments and the final authority for issuance and
distribution of the Certificate of Occupancy. Staff rerommenc1s a $100.00 fee,
.collected at time of permit issuance to offset this activity.
Item #13: Temporary Certificate of Occuoancv. Same as Item #12; the only difference being
that this process is a separate reouested function by the applicant to serve selected
needs. Staff also recommends a $100.00 fee.
Section 15.24.060. Electrical Permits:
Staff is recommending a revision from current fees assessed by amphre to format adopted within
the Uniform Administrative Code. The Uniform AdministratIve Code more accurately identifies
the scope of electrical installations and practices.
Attachment #5-~
H- \~ ,
Board of Appeals & Advisors
-3-
~oveDlber18,1991
SUMMATION,
Staff believes that these proposals for adjustDlents to the Master Fee Schedule are parallel with
jurisdictions in the San Diego County and Southern California Region, and necessary in order to
continue to operate the DepartDlent with the highest service level to the citizenry as possible.
In the event further inforIDation or clarification should be necessary, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
KOL:yu
(FEERDRT.DOC)
\\ -\g~
Attachment #5-.j 7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS
CI1Y OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
November 18.1991
Parks & Recreation ConL Rm.
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT,
CITY STAFF PRESENT,
Chairman Leonard, Vice-Chair Arnold, Board Members
Contreras, Gingerich, Harter, McArthur and Nash
None
Assistant Director of Building and Housing Remp and
Administrative Secretary Uybungco
MEMBERS PRESENT,
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL, Members present constituted a quorum.
1. DECLARATION OF EXCUSEnIUNEXCUSED AnSENTF.EIS~, N/A
2. APPROVAL OF MI'\t:TF.S: MSUC Gingerich/Harter (6-0-0) (Arnold) to approve the
minutes of September 23, 1991.
3. NEW nUSINESS:
A. Review of Proposed Revisions to the Master Fee Schedule:
Members of the Board received copies of the staff report depicting staffs
justifications for recommended revisions.
Assistant Director of Building and Housing Remp explained that items struck
over are recommended for deletion, items underlined are proposed revisions
and everything else is existing language on the draft fee schedule. Assistant
Director of Building and Housing Remp further explained that the fees are
based on rates and valuations which are adopted throughout the County. The
City's Master Fee Schedule has not been adJusted since 1987.
Individual questions for clarification were entertained from the Board
Members.
Board Member Gingerich suggested the inclusion of minimum plan check
fees 10 be added 10 Ihe fee schedule.
Vice-Chair Arnold questioned why the Board's Hearing fee is established at
$440 and not full cost recovery. Assistant Director of Building and Housing
Remp stated that this fee is consistent with the PI'lnning Department's for
Variance Application fee and also that a full cost recovery program could
result in extensive time constraints placed upon staff tracking time spent on a
particular appeal.
Attachment #5-" g
\ \ -\ Cjt3
Board of Appeals & Advisors
-2-
November 18, 1991
Further discussion ensued pertaining to the Board's Hearing fee. Several
suggestions/recommendations were presented by the Board.
MSUC Nash/Arnold (6-1) (Harter) to approve the draft fee schedule based on
the following recommendations from the Board: (1) Include minimum plan
check fee in schedule and (2) Staff to investigate the possibility of establishing
a deposit account for Heanngs. (Staff to return to the Board with appropriate
findings and recommendations.)
4. DIRECTOR'S COM~fENTSIREPORT:
Disabled Access Requirements - Assistant Director of Building and Housing
Remp informed the Board that the Federal Government has imposed new
requIrements regarding access for the physically challenged. The State has
been attempting to incorporate Federal requirements in the State regulations
by January 1, 1992. On Friday, November 22, 1991, Assistant Director of
Building and Housing Remp will be meeting in Sacramento with fellow
members of California Building Officials (CALBO) Disabled Access
Committee to recommend delay of CAC Title 24 adoption schedule regarding
the A.D.A. implementation.
"Permits" Tracking System. Implementation of the program is anticipated for
early January 1992.
5. CO~lMUl'IC^TIO:'\S (l'unl.lC RE~f^RKS:WRlrrEN CORRESI'ONIlF.NCF.l:
A.
B.
A. Vice-Chair Arnold informed staff that she read an article in the Eastlake
Newsletter which mentioned the new location for the Bonita Country Day
School. The article depicted the location for the school 8S if it was
permanent. Vice-Chair Arnold requested staff to investigate this case and
report back to the Board at the next meeting.
6. Chairman Leonard adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m. to the next regular meeting
scheduled for December 9, 1991.
N1i~ ~
KENNETH G. ARSEN. C.B.O.
DIRECTOR 0 BUILDING AND HO SING
SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS
Jj~c-t'
YEELIN UYBUN CO
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND HOUSING
Iyu
(1I\I9IM-DOC)
Attachment #5-~q
\ \.- \-i'Lt
Regional Fee Survey
\\-lg-5
C F
I
CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
FEDERATION
REGIONAL FEE SURVEY-1992
T be 1m ReglolUII Fee Survey by the Consauction Industry
. ~ederation provides an overview of impact fees and charges
imposed by San Diego County land-use agencies. It is the only
comprehensive guide to the myriad of fees encountered by the local
construction industry. TIle information herein was gatbered in Novem-
berlDecemlx, of 1991. This survey marks the twelfth consecutive year
of publicatiop.
The survey is nOI inlended to be a definitive analysis, nor can it begin to
display the true cost of a new home or structure. Many expenses. such
as land, on- and off-site construction costs, indirect costs, loan and
closing costs. are nol included.
Please Be Advised. CIF strongly cautions against simple comparison
of impact fee levels by jurisdiction. Each agency is unique-levels of
service differ. melhods of calculation contraSl. and legal findings of facI
vary. There is no basis upon which to compare the fees of one cIty to
another.
On The Horizon. . . Several cities are expecled to make minor
adjuslments 10 their impact and processing fees in 1992.
.
Chula Vista is examining their public facility fee base. which
may lead 10 higher fees in early 199~.
The Counly Depanment of Planning & Land Use is proposing a
new impact-fee program for animal control facilities, law
enforcement, and libraries.
The Counl)' Department of Public Works is examining a ne'"
Bridge and Thoroughfare fee program.
SANDAG is examining a $4.7 billion proposal over a 20-year
period 10 pay for transportation; jails; parks and open space; and
health and social services. .
The Clean Water Program is proposing a new capacity fee on
development to pay for reclaimed waler service.
And. although a significant San Diego city-wide impact fee
program was ultimately rejected by Council in December 1990. a
revised plan may swface in 1992.
QWI/iotu 00 1M survrJI should ~ di,.cltd '0 John ~r DJ 587-0292.
.
.
.
.
.
..--r .."_.-'.'"Y. ,",
l:Whatis the Constructioa lIIdDstIylWe.M>oo (ClP)?
~ OF ..,.......11 the COIlIlnIClioa iIdIIay wllb _1IIIiIIld voice 011
,.nJiOllllItld 10caI JqisIadve IIld poIiIicaI_ Our misIioa is to
"fcqeabUDcebelweeothe~lIldthe... . - --....~
tr..!'f~ SID Dieao .....1Il -s... -- the qudIy oIlife.
~ .' ::::"~.:..,.,..;; ~ .' .."..... .~'...: .-r
Proud Sponaor
of the Regional
Faa Survay-
1t821
~..
CONTRACTORS \lrI
\\-\R{p
TIu! cho", ~Iow show 1M ""'goilude of impact te.
incrtases over Qfive~year period for selected cities.
I rl1llll\ VI''] A
'11111
'1llIO
,.
,8Il8
'8117
$'9.229
f scnNDIDO
1'991
'990
'8119
18118
18117
122.888
$21,703
OCFANSIOf
'99'
$23.1"
11ll1O
,-
18118
11187
Sl\ti OlfGO
'991
'1llIO
,.
'8Il8
'8117
SAN IIAH(OS
'991
'1llIO
,.
'8Il8
11187
$19,240
$19._
Attachment #6-1
m CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION REGIONAL DEVEL
,;~, //~ .; /~ ~~ ~.".
~.",
~ ..JP ~.'
~ cPr <:1"'
Cl"/, {1''' ./ '/ ./ t.' ./ ./~ ./ ':."" ~ ./ ... /' --.'
el'tlflcate of $2401f101 "'. $1751 $3551.. 111101 I340l $22Sf 11Il.ll 1'00< I2Sf I .. 11851 13'" ",0D0t 11"._/
Comolillnce I500cl
12001 0' ISOO.
.- 12701 "'. "801 10 MOO 0< 1'00< 11&.. 1500< "'. "'. "'. I300f "'.
I500l " .2OOd
].,.,.1 Plan 12..... 12.00000, $1,QOOf. ",19Of 11501 12..... I'"'' .... IIOClI I30OI ., ,48Ol 16,8311 11.2001 13.00-
...........n' 14.000ll 12,"" +S1,OOOd
.,...., Aetl, 14."" 12,000ll 1500< "'. """" ..--, 13._ nIa 1100< 12501 ' ".0401' "'a 1',700f $2,6(1(,
l.velopmenl ......- .....
-
Rezone 18501 12.000ll ".0001- S1.19Ol """" 12..... 1800l IIOOll IIOClI I30OI ".5OOf $3,8011- ".eoot 12,50'
13."" _.... $7,8OOl
SIlo Plan $2,nSlor "SOlar "'. "'. 12501 -- " .000f I300ll 1500< "'a I300l "'a "'a "',
1S.53O< 12501 --
Speda.r U.e 12..... S1000d - 1500l 1A75! SIOO< 12.000ll S2.80St S650ll S100< 13751 ",0151 11,I28l ".7001 S2,6~~
'InN! (CUP) 12000ll
-
.pedf\e Plan 15,7001 S390l "'a "'. S400l $2,400d IH)l(IoIII,r"O' S8SOll S800l "'. ".C8OI 53,1301 ..... 53,0(-
-"''''
Va..".. 12801 $175' or S300f $355! S1001 $6OOd 53551 S'BOll 11001 S120l 14801 SVMe! S300f S72~
$4401 11.or
Illlve Parcel SS95! 55001 + $500 . $1,2931
"e11! $2.SOOd S1001 +$120! 1101 $1.2001 $9051 IS50ll S87Sl 19501 S100< $3.6('
M.p .. $4SOd $SIlOl S3O/lol +721/101
F!nal Perce! ",S8Ol Sl,OOOCI S3OO1 $1201101 + $3001 S5OO1 $0501 I600ll I500l ".0001 ",0001 $8371 $1.0001 S70i
M.p S100d .SSIlo! .SS6f101 ,heel
ranlatlve $1,15Ol S2.000d $1,5001 $1.7801 . S5501 $2,000t $1 1051 I800d 1600 . 12,3901 S300f $1.943 12."" $3,6Co '
IilvllIonMap S500d S30 1 101 .$182/101
Flnal 12.7801. $5.000d S400I $1.2001. $3501 I500l ..501 I600ll $1.0S0l. IS."" 12._ $0311 $1,0001 $7""
<lMtIOn Mllp $!l/llere S100d 155110' .5811101 ..,..,
w1ronmenl8l 12201 Sl.000d S2501 $295 S1001 $1,0001 S055' 1150ll 12501 $125f SIOOf 1,7011 12501 $2,5("
Initial Study
w1rtlt1me1ltal S2,21Of 1S,000ll $1,0001 $595! . S15O! $1,0001. $2,1051 S650ll $1,0C)0d 1008' . I850t . 18.112 116.000ll .?,SO~
,.... Raport ooals coalS ,.... coate
nONAl. COPIES AVAILABLE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION. (819) 587-0292
M PACT
JBLlC FACILITIES
FEES
SEWE
.I.bad 3.5'4 of building permit valuallon.
ulI VlatIi &2.1501SFO. $12.04OIcomm & Indus. ae
R..i. Con.true. Tall of $ot5O+$2S1BdRm.
condfdo 12,2591 unIt $1 .331tq.ft. non.re.idenl.ar
eenalde $1,131 I unit 54411 1.000sq.fl. non.resl
n DIeOO City (1M lioebar) j
"Marcoe - $6,452/SFO:$5,311IMF: $18,15610 I
i,493 I Indut. ecre: . 504,8391 office prot.-onal acre: $47,378
J...... pane. 8CfW: ses.063lCOmmerdel .ere. CredI1l applied
jinft ,... for the conttrvetion 01 public fadlitlel.
...... BMch 1'" 01 building permit valuation
~t11 - $ 1,1301 unit. S7,210/commercialacre,
. 7.227 1 indUllnel acre.
........_......_............,.,.~.:oJ_:- .~
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
SEWER & WATER (CMIaa' County)
RESIDENTIAL ........--..--...__.___.__
F... per EOU
SEWER
WATER
All....... hftMr-UM rHuo_ Md MldttlOl'lAI 1811 'or Cr.
F... per r
Carlabad:$nIADT outside CFO. $41/"-OT inside
CFO, Add $530 if In OverlappIng B & T area.
Chute VI..: $ 3,060
Ilnclnltas: , 90 1
EecondkSo: S 1,830
Oceenakle: $ 1.787 (indude....I...)
Powey: S680 'I, ecn Of leN, $990 over 'I. acr.
Ian DIogo City, 1_ _. .... """........ai)
Ian_, Slnclucloclinpublje'_....
_, 12,)64
y'-ta: $ 1,200
NON.RESIDENTIAl
CartllblMS: $31/AQT outstde 01 CFO
'1&1ACT inIiCIe 01 CFO
Chule Vlata: 1122,400 acre. comm.
$ 151.200 acre . H'ldus
Enclnltas: '7a'''OT.lnp~lec:tor
Eacondldo: S 491AOT; tNs are per tq.ft.
OcMnalde: $ 5OIA01 (It\CIudes lIgnal)
Pow8y: 11e,,5OIAOT
San Marcoe: $ Included in pubItC 'aclllty t..
Sentee $88.5OIAOT -comm: S 178 ACT .Indus,
Vie.: '101"'OT. comm.
'751ADT . InCIUI.
c..1abad' I 1.61. I 2.250
Chula V_ 2.220 pIlCl
~ 650 .
DelMa'" 875 1,140
E' c.jon 1.126 pIlCl
Enctn.... pIlCl pIlCl
. Ildldo 5.270 .,290
......' _ 2.... pIlCl
u.-. 1.525 pIlCl
LerftonOrow .,1159 1,895
_City . pIlCl
00MnekIr 1,565 1.095
~ 2.356-3.356 2.515
SIIn Diego' 4,0484 2,327
_DIogo ~ 2.00Q.3.ooo pIlCl
- - 2.... 2.696
- pIlCl pIlCl
_ _. _.600 pIlCl
Vlata 1,782 p
,. 0Iw __ crwv--....." 'fl4tW\...._
2 Orw_d'lWgIIIId8l1-.o..-,
3. 0Iw __dWgII dti2a:l_...,
.. 0t\Ir _ awg.. .....121-1251_..ad.
S. .~.-__~"'dlU5Otnd_
"""'_dllJOO.
.. cw._ CfWVllIIID...: '130/"'" .I8CO/"...
'-"..... .. .1U:lO h cNfga (1m)
1 w.r1d:f"".........711191. C>>wdWglt*'/.
Iknogo'
fllancho E~
Flllbroo~ .
LlIucadl,.
OIlvenhll!'
0Ity'
PMre 0111"
Pine H/lI"
Re_~
......n.
RMcho E'
Rincon tip
SIn Dleo"
Iou1h B"~
e..tw,.lr
Velecltotl
VIlleyCl!lr
YIItIlrrlg
Yuim.
I. ....
......
2, Aeclelml'
3. Aeclelmr.
WIIIowCi;'
4. Other.....
\\ -1i1
Attachment #6-2
-".-.
IELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
Proud sponsor 01 the CIF Re-
gional Fee Survey-1992:
~,..5OCl 12,375t 1"'Of SOOOf I2SOf I'"
12,825td .OOO1~,OOO
"'. "'. 01 BP '4.h.... so "'.
+",~ ."SOl
S3.000d h,e2Sd I500f . 110001 Sl.700! S3. <eo
+2.1250 $',OOOt
I2.000d $8.7250 ..- "'a $1,5001 1'40
.SS,2OOd .cUP'-
S2.5OOd 14.9250 s.m. as $1,55Ol 51,500! $2,4'0
.',SQOo GPA F..s
$2,&4Sd '1.t45-c:om
"'. .S'.5OC.o S350l "'a S800l ",54S>-m
13,3ti-API
12.050< 1&.825d 135Of_' 0007$ ,003
+Sl.5OOd 1200<"'_ aI.,.......... $1,SOOt S2.ll65
'UJOI
S13.655d Samess
S3.000d .$18.000 GF'A Fee! I' 000l "'a $3.190
d
$125 . $2,0501 $1001 S500f saOOI S302
$1,0001 .S1,5OOd
S3.6OOd $3.72M 53oo! $9001 $\ 0151 $925
+Sl,5OOd .'001 flOI
S100d not StOOt S100t $55O! SO
provided +$201: lot
S3,600d se.225d $600! I900f $2.0901 53.375
+$' .5OOd .S1l01llol
"00d S6,400d $2701 S700t '7S0! 1260
+$201/101 .$201 I 101 I
$2.SOCod " ,SOOd StOOt SJOOf SO $1,485
$7.5QOd $12,000d ColiS. 1'.110-12:500 CoalS ... S900 .
20% .12O'lio_ 8% 20% coats
~WER & WATER IS...'a' D,a.nct.)
en per EOU SEWER WATER
II! far County Wm., Autt\orttv C I.P
iorrego'
l.ncho bte..
",llbrook PUD'
S SO
"'a
"'.
S '25
705
3,661
..ucedl. 2.800 nla
>llvenh.' ,'I 1'\18 4,580
1Io" 2.SOO 800
lid... Dam 2,186 1,190
~I.. HIIII nla 1,000
~.Inbow 1.813.2,850 1,870
itmon.l 5,292 7.893
-tlftCho "weel nla 705
~11tCOn Del tMltNo nltlI 8,830
_ DMgutlo nil 3,270
;outh Bay Itrigltion nla 300
:.....1......' nla 1,170
J.I*hoa 2,400 2,500
'"ley Cente, 3,625 2,836
"11ta Irrigation' nla 2,115
~ulml nla 1,005
Je RIu'N Mil. dMMOPtlIr ~ ..ldbel: 0l.ItIide
......
~ MlerfM tMy aIIo I>> cNrged.
Aldal",*, wettf 1M 01 seoo mey aIIO blluc:ttcI.
WIIowGllin_CfWOtlItvary
OIhef"...,.ctlafgeloIS356ln1yaa.obl~
ccw:5G
CCIFAI~~
......."..'112
KEY
I loa
d _
tVa not~
pOd -t>y-
ADT a__trlp
EDU aq_'-.g uno
"F rnuIli-tamOy
SFO 1i~la"*Y Clewched
Subdiviliol"l F... I,.. tIUecf on I
proteC1 WIth len kill on ..,.. Iel'"
City of San Diego
Citywide Trull Fund F... _
TrPO 01 UN Foe Per aq.1t.
Olftce 11.04'
Hota' .1.22 "
A..arch & O'...Jln~ ._.ll '1.53 ~
Retlil '1.22 -
ManutllClUftng ".22 ..
Wa.._ " .... to....
PARKLANDS
Fees ~r SFD
Clrllbld': $1,575. SFD & Duplex
$1,313. MF (ot units or <)
$1.050. MF (5 units Of >)
5919. mobI6e homes
Chula VlltI:S4,375 lor lend & lrnprvrnnts
Enclnltal: 51,526 up to 2,000
hcondldo: 52 ,289
Imperlll8Nch: '1,100
La _, 1550
LImon Grove: S200
Hat"",' CIly" "25
Dcoonalda, 82.200
POWIIyl; $2,S50-SFD: S2OOO-MF
$1,820. motII6e hOme
Sant..: $3,II()6...SFO; $3,288-MF
$1,820. mobile hOme
San ~ CIty, (800 _'I
"n D6IOO COUnty:$0400....t county.
S8OO. mid-county; $1,000. COUlllla,..
San~: 1nCilua.d in PIi*c flCility tel
__., S800
Vllw: '1.290
1 liIC1*"'~."",*,OiIIric:Il.tIN
2, E~MMtl7,1182
\\-ti'1'
',' .'-
PlIInned u.t.llzlng Area
.. ~,.',~." ':\
....._"
t.IpiaIIIM .. .
*___Ii
.___-....iIl
._1piaIII_.'-.....1,
". .,.'. .1'"
OTHER IMPACT FEES:
SCHOOL FEES - Stall iIw
.... up to 11.58 PI" NIl-
dIntiIl per Iq.ft. end $.26 plr
lq.ft.oI_'R.~.1nduItliI1
Of Mftior rMidential pro;ectI.
MOl' dlltrlctl chl,g. the
rnuimum .nowed - tom.
diItr1cII ct\IrgI rnofl..
The III" ImpOIICI cap rnly
IncreUe In 1182.
INCLIJIIOHAIItY HOUSING - ClcMnIIdIt requftt 1~
~tw.luelnO-~: .1001rll~1fIlIOU\Cl
..,.M"ftoIIu"iI'I'Ipecl...ofIUClOperunlt OR,the
~CillIMtIuIIll"".~.unIlIIwflP*'hprojee1
PUBLIC ART - Eaoond6do ImpoHt. In '1n-Neu~
ImpeClIMa to fund an In putMle pilon. All deve1op-
ment protecta.,1 charged 10.30 per eq.ft. with the
.. 1100 aqua,. 1Mt exempt.
DlWMAGE . FLOOD CONTROL - ThaN ....
__clualobaalntypaand_.
Attachment #6-3
.............,-.-----
It 1 t6 Yj 'ohlO ..s
d"S".oa~9tt9
NOl~VllBaBd
AlI~SnaNl
NOl~:)nllUNO:)
I
d J
t661 . .(a.uns aot.f J1lUoJlaa
ENGINEERING ~ND PUBLIC WORKS
Amounts below q,re city staff's ~stima1e for a 50 101 subdivision on 10 acres, 200.000 cubic yards grading, end $1.000,000 total improvement costS.
GRADING:
Pilln Check
.......h
PUBUC _PIIOVEIIENTS:
PIon CNck ~
11.1.1\
GEOTECHNICAl.:
--
c.n_ 13.700 101' 1M 200,000 cys .. 13.100 !ror1..1oo,OOOcys.. I 22.500 "**"um a 33,750 minimum tnc.lngractlng~
1eO!Of Md'I.cktlti 100,000 S300 lor MCh aclditI 100,000
Chule VleUl S 8000d 111,000d a 10.000d 1".000d Inc. In CfI'IIdlng planNYlew
eo.on_ mSd $187.501 "'. "'. "'.
DelMar So4OOd minimum see I400d minimum S500d minimum "'.
EI c.lon SO SO . 10.500 S 30.000 10
E_ not_ ""'- ""'- ""'- ""'-
__ a 8.004 ae,138 a ".000 . 1..000 10
_BMc. 1888 use Table 70-A t888 UBC TIlb6e 1Q..8 .......- per dty engtnMr . "'.
....- I 400 rnltWnum or 2.2% 5228 1200 m6nImurn or 2.r.. 1200 mInltnum or 3.75'lf. "'.
of engineer'. ..tlfnl:l. ........ ....,... .,...,.. ""'\8
LemonQro.... S 85. 1111 . 3.000 ft. of....,.....,.. Nt coat Uoo
NM10neIChy "'. "'. K.,..,...,.. eeItrnIite "'. "'.
-.... 11.583 ... . 7.021 . 1.1163 "'.
"-" 120,0404 . 100 . 20.404 . t'.804 ".100
So. DIogo '7.1S5Od '7.850 . dddt to-=t "" --- ft.wlgrIlCI.","",~ 11.5OOd
... 0-.0 County ".13Od "'. '3.300_ --- .....
Son ...""'" ".100 ".172 S '1.1125 126.000 "'.
- . 4.250 . 7.250 "3.500 . ".000 I 300d for coati + I500t
...... BMc. S 35.800 135.800 . 35.800 . 35.too "'.
v_ "35 11.384 . 36.321 10 ".060
Attachment #6-4
\\-\i9
Phase I Agenda Statement
(
-fJ~ r- I~
\\.- ~D
comrCIL AG2HDA 8TAT2K2NT
Item: lo/J4B
Meeting Date:4/21/92
Ordinance '2.!)'Ot. Amending Titles 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the
Municipal Code relating to fees and the Master Fee
Schedule.
Resolution Il.c;1i Adopting an amended Master
Fee Schedule which reflects inclusion of fees
affected by Ordinance
8UBKITTED BY: city Attorney
Director of Financeot~
REVIEWED BY: city Kanager~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___ NO~)
IT2K TITLE:
Several fees have been added to or changed in the Kaster Fee
Schedule since its creation ten years ago, but the document has not
undergone a comprehensive review since 1987. Staff has divided
this proposed update into two phases:
Pba.. I
1). Transfer information regarding specific fee amounts
from the Municipal Code to the Kaster Fee Schedule.
2). Make several principally administrative
modifications in the Municipal Code and the Master
Fee Schedule for greater clarity and consistency.
Phase II 3). Update designated fees to account for increases in
costs; propose adoption of new fees.
Because of the importance of scheduling and advertising for public
hearings, staff is presenting this item in two parts. Pba.. I -
being considered now - a~complishes the administrative groundwork
necessary for the Master Fee Schedule update to proceed. All
changes to the fees themselves have been scheduled for Phase II of
the update to ullow sufficient time to notify the public and other
interested groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business
Association, Building Industry Association, etc.) of the proposed
amendments.
There is no fiscal impact associated with this phase of the update.
RECOKKEHDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance amending several sections of the Municipal
Code relating to fees and the Master Fee Schedule.
Note: Item 1 is directly linked to the following resolution
\\ -lCfl
Attachment #7-1
which provides for several corresponding changes in the City's
Master Fee Schedule and should. thus. be adoDted in concert
with Item 2.
2. Adopt Resolution adopting an amended Master Fee Schedule which
reflects inclusion of fees affected by Ordinance .
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS UCOMMZNDATIOlrl N/A
DISCUSSION:
Transfer of Existina Fees
As originally established in 1982, the Master Fee Schedule is a
centralized listing of the fees charged by the City for services
and administrative acts and other legally required fees. The
schedule serves as a resource for the public to determine the costs
of various types of City services without the need for extensive
research or a specialized understanding of municipal government.
For the schedule to serve that purpose, it must be comprehensive.
In its current form, the schedule omits several fees which have
been authorized by previous Council actions and are included in the
Municipal Code. If the schedule is purported to be an
authoritative collection of City fees, the general public will
assume that if a particular fee is not listed in th~ schedule, it
does not exist. In order to eliminate such confusion, all fees
currently listed in the Municipal Code should be transferred to the
Master Fee Schedule.
The process for such a transfer is as follows:
1. The Municipal Code is amended to remove the actual amount of
the fee and to refer instead to the Master Fee Schedule.
2. The Master Fee Schedule is amended to include the amount of
the fee and a cross-reference to the code.
Thus, the code retains the authorization for the fee, but the fees
themselves are all listed in a single document. Aside from the
convenience this provides for the public, it also lessens the
possibility of inconsistencies in the application or updating of
the fees on the part of City staff.
Administrative Modifications
Since the scope of this project was envisioned to be comprehensive,
staff has highlighted several secondary issues that also deserve
attention at this time. These changes are principally
administrative in nature and do not affect the level or assessment
of fees. In general, these changes fall into three categories:
vague or confusing language in the cOde, organization of the fee
Attachment #7-2
\\ -\9a-
schedule, and various other issues involving legal clarifications
or amendments.
1. Language: OVer the course of the Master Fee Schedule's
initial adoption and subsequent updates, several different
phrasings have been used in the Municipal Code to reference
the fee schedule. In the interests of clarity and consis-
tency, and on the advice of the City Attorney, staff
recommends amending existing references to authorize
collection of the "R.quir.c! 1'...." A definition of "Required
Fees" has been added to the code to complete this amendment
through reference to the Master Fee Schedule.
2. Organization: Within the Master Fee Schedule itself, staff
has designed a new organizational format to ease public use of
the document. Historically.> fees have been listed in order of
their corresponding code lIection. To the general public,
these numbers are meaningless and provide no clues to their
relevance to a particular type of proj ect. The proposed
changes would organize the schedule into chapters, provide
general information on fee assessment and waivers, and
facilitate the use and updating of the schedule through an
index cross-referenced to the Municipal Code.
3. Legal Issues: Certain older sections of the Municipal Code
authorize fees for activities which the state has since
preempted local jurisdictions from regulating. Staff is
taking this opportunity to recommend repealing. those sections
relating to ambulance and taxi driver licensing which have
thus been superseded.
Chapter 1.20 of the code p-ovides for general penalties and
for discretion on the part of the prosecutor in dealing with
those penalties. However, several code sections describing
violations of the code have variously referred to: violations,
infractions, misdemeanors, and specific fines or jail terms to
be imposed. On the advice of the City Attorney, staff
recommends amending all such references to make the proscribed
code violation "unlawful." (Note: Although the penalties for
code violations do not fit the definition of fees and are thus
not included in the Master Fee Schedule, staff feels that
these code amendments are similar enough in character to the
others contained in the attached ordinance to consider them
within a single agenda item.)
Another legal issue which has been addressed through this
update concerns certain fees the City currently charges which
have been authorized through Council resolution but not
through the Municipal Code. The City Attorney has advised
that, notwithstanding any prior resolutions, such fees should
also be specifically authorized by language in the Municipal
Code to avoid potential challenges.
Attachment #7-3
\ \ -\'13
Phase II
In consideration of the legal concerns raised above, there are some
new fees to be proposed in Phase II for which additional
authorizing language may be necessary. This language has been
included in the Phase I code amendments so that the authorization
would precede any imposition of the fees and any potential
ambiguity can be avoided. As the fees themselves would be
presented through a public hearing in Phase II of the update, this
language would have no independent effect on the City's fees.
I'ISCAL IKPACT: N/A
A: \MFS 11 3 .GWY
Attachments
\\-\,\L\
Attachment #7-4
,
I..
~
l\ - V15
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following is a summary of all public comments regarding the
Master Fee Schedule update proposal received prior to March 10,
1993. All comments received after that date will be addressed in
the public hearing. Most of the comments shown are the result of
several recent meetings held with interested community and business
groups. Immediately following is a list of all those who were
mailed notices of the proposal and the public hearing schedule.
Chamber ot Commerce. February 2
What is the reason tor the increase in sewer construction charges?
Since the time of the last update of sewer construction charges in
1987, the Public Works/Operations division has compiled extensive
labor and materials data in its computerized Work Management
System. These data were used to calculate the proposed fees.
What is the reason tor the increase in adjustment plat examination
tees? The proposed fees for adjustment plat examination are based
upon the number of times the services were provided and the total
service costs (figures from FY 1990-91). This represents the first
recalculation of these fees since 1987. (Note: Although staff is
proposing raising the adjustment plat examination fee to $420, the
County of San Diego currently charges $950 for this service and
requires an additional $100 fee for an accompanying certificate of
compliance; Chula Vista provides an accompanying certificate of
compliance free of charge.)
Are copying charges ot $.15 per page sutticient to recover the
city's costs? Yes. The fee proposal was set to recover paper,
equipment and staff time costs for making copies but not for
locating the "identifiable public records" to be copied.
Would an increase in the tee for Zoning Administrator design review
create an incentive for developers to bypass the Zoning
Administrator and thus increase the workload of the Design Review
Commission? No. Most of the projects that could be reviewed by
the Zoning Administrator would be small (1-4 units). There would
be little incentive for such applicants to go through the
additional time and expense required for a public hearing by the
Design Review Commission.
How will the proposed changes in building-related fees compare with
the fees being assessed in other jurisdictions? The proposed fees
for electrical, mechanical and plumbing permits would bring the
City's fees up to the levels listed in the 1990 National ~lectrical
Code and 1991 Uniform Code updates. At that point, Chula Vista's
Attachment fS-1
\\-\~lp
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
fees would be in line with those of other jurisdictions in the
region.
O~en Forum. Februarv 25
(Attendees included representatives from Chamber of Commerce I s
Economic Development Committee, Chula vista Economic Development
Commission, McMillin Development Company and Construction Industry
Federation.)
What is the reason for the increase in sewer construction charges?
See above.
What is the reason for the increase in adjustment plat examination
fees? See above.
What is the reason for the increase in environmental review of a
previous initial study and negative declaration? Upon staff review
of the fees charged for environmental review, it was determined
that the costs for this particular service were far in excess of
the existing fee. This fee has not been updated since 1987. The
proposed fee is based on the average staff time required of one
Senior Planner (1 hour) and one Associate Planner (8.5 hours).
Why was the basis of sewer capacity charges cbanged? Wbat effects
will this bave? The existing method of assessing sewer capacity
charges is based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs). While this
is an accepted method of calculating sewer flow, staff has proposed
incorporating an Equivalent Fixture Unit (EFU) measure as well
which would assign more weight to the number of plumbing fixtures
in a given structure. As a result of this change, capacity charges
for mobile home parks and certain commercial or industrial uses
with low sewer-use will decrease. Charges for single family and
mUlti-family residential units will remain unchanged.
If a developer installs a traffic signal, is a credit given against
the traffic signal participation fee? If the traffic signals
installed are at locations called for in the City's General Plan
and are not primarily to serve internal project needs, the
developer could be eligible for a credit.
8i te plan and architectural review fees are linked to building
valuation. Why was tbis chosen as tbe basis for tbe fee? The plan
check process involves several different departments. To maintain
consistency in the assessment of these charges, they are all based
on building valuation.
Attachment fS-2
H-\'11
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
When would a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued?
Temporary Certificates of Occupancy (TCOs) may be issued when all
safety requirements have been met but some development requirements
remain. A TCO requires that all remaining conditions be completed
by a specified date. The staff time required for a TCO includes
final inspections and interdepartmental coordination to identify
the remaining conditions to be met.
For design review fees, with only four levels of fees, the marginal
impacts of one or two additional units can be significant. Perhaps
a base fee and a separate charge per unit would work better. Staff
agrees that a further breakdown of this fee would be more
equitable.
Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Units:
1-4 $390 $390
5-15 $590 $590
6-100 $1,000 6-25 Units $790
26-100 $1,000
100+ Units Deposit Deposit
What is the net cost per dwelling unit of the proposed changes in
the fee schedule? Many of the proposed fee updates do not affect
"typical" development. In some cases, one fee may' be applicable
but not another (e.g. design review to be done by the DRC or by the
Zoning Administrator). In other cases, a fee might only be
required if a specific condition is met (e.g. sign permits, use of
a previous EIR, foundation-only permits, cesspool installations,
house move permits). Assuming a "typical" project, the impacts
would be approximately +$5,750 for a 25 unit subdivision (or an
average of $230 per unit) and -$24,000 for a 25,000 sq. ft. retail
space.
Can estimates of final costs be provided for d~posit-ba~ed
services? The final cost of deposit-based serv1ces var1es
significantly with the complexity of the project, the hearings
required, and changes made to the initial proposal. On a case-by-
case basis, these costs may be estimated at the time of the initial
deposit.
If a builder obtains a "foundation only" building permit, is the
amount of this fee credited when the remainder of the building is
permitted? No. The fee paid for a foundation only permit is not
intended to be credited to the remainder of the project at the time
of final permit issuance. This is because processing the project
in two phases creates a duplication of effort in plan review and
inspection that would not be required had the project been
processed in a single phase. Although the fee has been set at 25%
of the total building permit fee, this percentage may be reviewed
Attachment fB-3
\\-lG<ir
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
by the Building Official upon request. To clarify that this fee is
not intended to exceed 25%, the words, "following request for
review," have been added to the fee schedule.
Would a live entertainment permit apply to Don-profit
organizations? No. Non-profit organizations conducting such
entertainment for social or charitable reasons are specifically
excluded from fee and licensing requirements (C.V.M.C. 9.13.020).
When would faxing fees be charged? If a customer needs to fax a
document, and it is not possible to use an outside fax machine
(e.g. at a print shop or mailing house), City fax machines could be
made available for this purpose at the rates listed in the Master
Fee Schedule. Due to the added time and cost involved in faxing,
staff encourages copying or mailing of such documents in-lieu of
faxing.
When would an alarm permit delinquency be assessed? Is there also
a false alarm fee? All alarm users are required to carry an alarm
users permit. The proposed delinquency fee would be charged if the
alarm user is more than 30 days late in applying for a permit.
This is typically discovered after an alarm call. A separate fee
already exists for passing on the costs of excessive false alarms.
There is no charge for the first two such false alarms within a
twelve month period.
Economic DeveloDment Commission. March 3
If a builder obtains a "foundation only" building permit, is the
amount of this fee credited when the remainder of the building is
permitted? No. See above.
In-lieu of paying for sewer lateral construction to be done by a
City crew, could a homeowner hire a private contractor? Yes. A
private contractor could be hired to construct a lateral, but the
city would still need to tap this lateral into the sewer main.
While the cost of the sewer construction fee would be saved by
choosing this option, an encroachment permit would be required for
the contractor to conduct the necessary excavation.
Ouestions received bv Dhone/mail
Why are tentative maps not listed in the summary? The summary
(Attachment #1) lists only fees which are proposed to change.
There are approximately 83 fees, including tentative map fees,
which are not proposed to be updated.
Attachment 18-4
I -
PUBLIC INPUT: List of All Notices Mailed
NOTICE #1 - All Development Fees
Algert Engineering
Appel Development Corp.
Barratt
GAFCON
Ladera Villas Ltd.
Lane/Kuhn
Muraoka Dev. Corp.
Nolte & Assoc.
Odmark & Thelan
ONA
P&D Technologies
Patrick Development
Project Design Consultants
Rick Engineering
Ron Helderlein
Sammis Properties
San Miguel Partners
Stafford / Gardner
Starboard Development Co.
Sudberry Properties, Inc.
Sunbow
UDC Homes
Way-Con
Woodcrest Dev.
BHA, Inc.
Bollenbacher & Kelton, Inc.
Brehm Communities
Bren Company
Buie Corp.
Burkett & Wong
Cameo Development Co.
Century American Corp.
Craig, Bulthuis & Stelmar
Dick Kau Land Co.
Diversified Builders
Fenton-Western Properties
Fieldstone Co.
Frank E. Ferreira
Great American Dev. Co.
Greenwald/McDonald
HCH Partners
Homart Development Co.
Huffman Co.*
Hunsaker & Assoc.
Kelton Title Corp.
*Mailing returned unforwarded
WPC F:\home\WPC\geraldy\594.93
Attachment #8-5
\\.....\'\~
NOTICE #2 - Engineering Fees
A. Lambert & Assoc.
Apec Civil Engineering
Baird Engineering
BDI
Bement Dainwood Sturgeon
Benevolent & Protective Elks
C.M. Engineering Assoc., Inc.
California Engineering Corp.
Chula Vista 54 Assoc.*
Escondido Engineering, Inc.
Franklin Engineering
Fraser Engineering, Inc.
Hall Engineering
Income Property Group
J.P. Engineering, Inc.
Jones Engineers, Inc.
Kercheval Engineers
Klagge-Stevens & Assoc., Inc. *
Larwin-Rosedale Prop.
Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Inc.
Los Alisos Dev. Co.
Luke-Dudek Civil Engineers
Mdntire Group
Nasland Engineering
NBS Lowry
RBF & Assoc.
Roberts Engineering
*Mailing returned unforwarded
WI'C F:\home\WI'C\g....dy\594.93
San Diego Land Surveying & Eng.
SB&O
Sholders & Sanford, Inc.
Snipes-Dye Assoc.
SRT Engineering & Assoc.
Steen, McColl & Assoc.
Stuart Engineering
Team Five Civil Engineers, Inc.
Vista Hill Foundation
W. M. Hubbard & Assoc.
Winton Engineering
Xinos Enterprises, Inc.
Attachment #8-6
l\-a.oo
NOTICE #3 - Building and Housin~ Fees
NOTICE #4 - City Clerk Fees
tAgenda/Minutes
Subscribers}
California Commerce Bank
Roy Carlson
CCBAC
Civic Center Barrio Housing Co.
Daniel Contreras'
CV East Investment
Oscar C. Davila
Carolyn Dicerchio
Hikmat Mansour
Charles Miller'
Tucker, Sadler & Assoc.
Unocal
V. J. S. Assoc.
Warmington Homes
Western Properties
Yoshinoya West
Ace Electric
Martin Altbaum/Coin Mart
Apec Civil Engineering
Automobile Club of So. CA
Bay Cities Service, Inc.
CINTI & Assoc.
CV Elementary School
Davidson Coscan Partners
S. Gains/Crosby Mead Benton
Wayne R. Gilbert
Bud Gray
Hawkins/Mark-Tell
Hunsaker & Assoc.
Kruger Development Co.
James J. Lantry Consulting
Vicki Loginski
James Louis Matherly
Meyers Grp.
M. F. Realty Corp.
Mae Quijendo
San Miguel Partners
SDG&E So. Bay Ofc
'Mailing returned unforwarded
WPC F;\home\WPC\geraldy\594.93
Attachment #8-7
\t-,;lO I
NOTICE #5 - Business License Listin~s
(Subscribers)
NOTICE #6 - Full Fee Schedule
A-AN5-SER
A/R & Sea Advertising
AT&T
The Baldwin Co.
Bonita Business and Professional Assn.
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Chula Vista Investors
Construction Industry Federation
Crossroads/Bill Robens
Downtown Business Assn.
Eastlake Development Co.
McMillin Development Co.
Rancho del Rey Partnership
So. San Diego Board of Realtors
SoPac (Olympic Training Center)
Sunbow
Carl Cornish
Financial Services
First International Bank
Gregg Greene
Hawaiian Gardens Suite Hotel
JVT Computer Solutions
Joel A. Levy
The Money Machine
William Neff
David M. Oliver
Protection Plus
Mark Romero
San Diego Business Journal
Cheryl Strom
Telecheck
James Vickers
Video Telephone Answering Service
Wilson & Cox Insurance
WPC F:\home\WPC\geraldy\594.93
Attachment #8-8
ll- ~O~
'. .~'.' ,,"', '
Ma::Ia 10. 1993
~Maya
~~J-tB
a.,afCbv.Ja Villa
276Faartb Avenue
OllIIa VIsa, CA 92() 10
RB: FEES, FEES A.ND MOllE FEES
0.. Mayor Nadel aDd C',..".,.;I_I'lbcn:
'Ibc CoDs1r'uctloo IDdwuy Federatioo "I'....w.aes Ibis OPl""Ilwily 10 ~'lIal8 CQIIQlIJl 00
IBYelI! fee ~ JX'oposa!s coming forward ro )'011I' eo-:n iIIlbe WIY __ ClIIuR. Some 0(
lbc fee iIlcre.ase ~ ....;;J be bn"'ElI;.~ ~ withiD 30 ID 45 day..
or- 1M colll/Jwins frQ8lJe eCOMfI11 /WI 1M /mp4cJ tItat __leu tIIId III1CU NJ.. DII W bwiltus
cOlllMlUlily /WI/M COfIStTUCdoll iNiIulT], .... are IISkUIg 1fHI' c-cu liD ditl61 impkmelltalioll of
1M propt>ud let W:r0as8llor OM Jeor 0' WlIiJ Ute -"""'1 N4cItu /I -*>ill "Itealdry I rwrmoJ"
,..,.,. We rec:oaunend for yaur "'"";"""'noa ccnaio lllrSCIo"lM"",r to be R8Cbed bcfcn oew ar
incrcucd fc:c/laxes can be impIcmelllcd III suuemed 011 pase 3. '
Mo8t of tile fee iIlcrease proposals pescoIed co jlISlifiod IDd RUOIIIbIc. JJowc_, we feci any
feo 118>< inctease alibis lime aeIlds a mixed sipa!1O the l>-iDrll, COIIIlI1IClloo aDd olbcr
iIIdaarici paaticulIdy hillwd dwin& the RCeSSion.
TlwfolloWtg is" list qKNOWNI__ Uu:re",. propolll1lwllidl will HCIII hefOTWllrded ",""':
1. Cbala Visla Master Fee lnaeac &~'Jle _
'I1aia schcWle JI'~ fee 1Dcn:ases, DeW fees, IIld lOIIle feo d.... r m Ovlllllll, City Staff
lias C'l1~d""" !be IOlal impact of !be Vhorl,,]p 10 add $230 for eIch.... bome. 'Ibc busiDces
caaunanily will also be impllCled. We 8IIlgUlII -}eII1' ditltq ClfI th<lH/cu t:t111111iMd ill tile
~lNdMU whieh wUI ~dy /mpQa 1M InuiM.u /WI CIOIUI1'UaIoIt .t:ltJrs.
2. 1'IIfflc Oevciopmtont lmJlIlCl Fee IDcnue _
'Ibc C1lm2Illlallic fee ill S3 Jl6O. Tbia!"le Ii ; ""I'O"d ClII CllliIIiR,a "-/- r r I t I wilIIlialg 10
~ DeW ~ .,...;,'r~ .~ ,..~, \,-1(.~:w 1aaJc~ Tbe feo II JIIIlIlll8ed
10 be iDcreased from $3,OW 10 $3,07~. We request II --}eII1' ddtz1 /lft 1M W:n1lSC,
3. PuIlUc PlIcIIIIlm Impoct Pee IncR&ie _
TIle CIIIJeDl fee for DeW baDe COCIIlIuclioo is $2,150. S" lis ...~ III S89.oo fee
l8creuo for new baDe ClOIlSIlUClioA. The good _ ia 1b8Ilho fee for CXlIIlIIlen:lallllcl
bvIn..,.;o! ia cIcc:reuin& by $84S pel acre. W. 'eqlIUI" --1"1'dM4} "11 1M 1N:ruu..
Attachment , 8-9
\\-~3
1'1&0 Z
MartllIO. 1993
4. SR-l2S IDlSim 000-' ,-.-- Pee-.
'I1IiIlICW foe wNd peady ~ _ oommen:lII Oppwlloollllo. wlIbiua lD Joc:-.IaIio IIlo
Cit)' iIllbo - lbat lbo fee would be!mod. It WIllIId liiio Gl $l,29O lD 1be COlt vl_
IlcmeI built.wiIhiD lbo boocfiI.-. We reqIIUt __ --IIvN/rrIM IiIIuuUd panJu
lO ruolve IIJU comp/u /fUll/er.
~enmnlAtivetuBl :y;u~ ~a.''''e ~.Iidadd"l 8UiDtiw!.In~~of.newJv.n"., n.e
emIIlll.rive rYllIh: WN:lltl Ai... ~tv imfIRrJ new "'nn-..,._.I...llw
,
0tIter AgUIC} 'ee J~ OIIdw Horiw",
S. 0Iay Wit<< ~ Capecity Foei-
'!be Olay Wit<< DisIrict II JIIQpOoSiD& 10 iDcrease lbo _ ~ fooa 011 Marc:1117lb. '!be
IDcrea.x;, wiI1 alsQ pcally impIct _ ~~ dcIiriag 10 ** wldIiu hi City of CbuIa
Visla. We are ,eqwsdilg /fIOl'e dine and /nplt.lfrom ~ptll'tiuOIl'1te propou4
tJJCrease before IN NJIlU illvard b) Ih4 Ola] W..,., Bo4ITd.
6. S-It<< IIDl1 O>ula Via City Scbools Adopc a $1.00 Pee 1IIcRase-
Both DialriclS 1'CCCDlly.Jqlccd. $1.00 per sq.fllcc I-. 'lbb wIIllIIcI ~Im.~ly
$1.800 to !be cost of ocwllcmcs bulll auI40 of alildlo __ DIIbict. TctallCbool feel per
bome IIOW equal approximaldy $5,(XX)1
;." ,;~,"'.',:"'I.
cc: lo1l1l Go6s
JoIlIllJppill
. Warl)' Chase
Clay WIUtl DlatrIct Bc.d of Direclln
Attachment' e-l0
\\ - d--oL.\
PI&e 3
Mm:I110, 1993
."
1l'.N>nl>II>IC TrIgen
W.""'P""""~'Rq1IOIl,...,..c...m.:u"Jmi;l"'lP*'lfoc" Ill'. . .1Ilo~--1Y1Ild
IIlo C<lIlIIr1Iailm lDcluar)IlD to)' ......,.,.,;" iDcIk"- 0Dce 11>> ...~ - ....1WICIIocI. "IIlIIdIy ,......
_.11-..1..... feea ClOakl dwsa be ~ New ar _ f.... aIIIlaJdllDt" 1 1 ----4.ml
lIlo lIIrpll" __ or _OY~ __ ...boJllOllob)'IIboat"c:o.-II,
Begjoaal Uuemploymeut
11117- 4~'"
11'&1 - 4.390
11'89 - 3,K
1l'9O - .....
1l'l'1- 6.l."
1992- 7.....
1m (1~) : 7.890
BotIItII] _.,10_ ruuIMMltlN-'-"",_ ..".....",,,.._.
(I'Ilo s.... Emplo)'lllODl o..olo,-.r ~ will "'.. tbo..... ia,..... prior III 1lll'2- ~ 1: lllJ
~ OJ __ ill J-.1993)
Regional Raidentla1 Builrlil1g Permits
1981- 31.3Z7
1988 - 28,3\14
1989 - 18,813
1990 - lS.lKJ7
1991- 70992
1992- 6,081
B-, rqIoul ",<Id<_ illillMlo6,.,., I<....UI.. _......... u,MIII..:M.........
dwS-lHop ..-
"Real" Gross Reiiooal Product GRP (Iflct~............ nalOUillIlomw
- vlluo of p,. oad...- ~ by IoIlar oad poportr wIiIIlD..........>
11117 - 3'l. iaor_
1968 - 3.21lo u...-
1989 - 2.8.. u...-
1990- 1~"iaor_
1991- (1"~ cIoa.."
1992- 1.I'l.~
;.;._ i.j......'".!L.....''''
&.ItA] .."...' Grva ...,.... ""'-41- _ ..,..",. ..",.-.1_ :r-..
_rS-D/q. c..... 'lfC-- ..".....,.., J"~"'l_"" s..lJNp...-
\ \.-~05
Attachment. B-"
v
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
T. Pa1 Calla"la..Jg"'l
President Elect
DIane Flln~
Vice Presiden1s'
Rod Dc:,',5
Mllo'e M~::o.,e'
John F V"e' "
Members:
Pa~;:~,c. Sa";€:"
Russ 5~:,f-:-,
Steve Cc':;-,s
Chuc, De.
Robe" G2':'2
Susa~ He'~,E- ~
t"', Ja'T,~,:--
-,-,~;5 ....f'I..' :.:
Tlr':"' Lew;s
NO'!i, R::-"',-':.
Ma'y A...."'E S:.':.'
Boo TnO'Tt2~
Jli"': Wea','c'
Past Preslde:--,:
~,:"\e G'ee-'-
Exe:utive Directcr
Dona,j R Rea:
~ C ;'" F 1 ...
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
March 15, 1993
The Honorable Tim Nader &
Chula Vista City Councilmembers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Nader and Councilmembers:
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the proposed
"Master Fee Schedule" and had representation at the public workshop.
The Chamber has three major areas of concern. First, while we would
like to have increased revenues within the city, the economic reality is
that we do not. Most business, most cities and most jurisdictions are
reducing staff and overhead in order to remain fiscally solvent and
within the levels of available revenue. In contrast, the City of Chula
Vista appears to be looking at these fees as a method to increase or at a
minimum maintain staff composition.
The second area of concern is in the area of affordable housing. The
proposed fee increases will add close to $1,624.00 to the cost of a new
home. For every $1,000.00 added to the price of a home, 120 families
cannot qualify to buy that home. A $1,624.00 increase would mean 195
families could not qualify for that home. Adding to the price of a home
is not supportive of the city's stated commitment to providing affordable
housing.
Finally, there is the distinct possibility that increased fees will drive
construction out of Chula Vista. This would mean a loss of jobs to the
residents of Chula Vista and a loss of revenue to businesses in Chula
Vista, at a time when we need to fight for jobs and business revenue in
our city. If the construction industry will not build in Chula Vista
because of onerous fees, then the city will accrue no increase in
revenues because of increased fees.
The Chamber urges no increase in fees until the appropriateness of
staff/service reductions are assessed. In view of the impact of proposed
fees on affordable housing, we recommend that the City of Chula Vista
follow the County of San Diego's lead in deferring any fee increases for
at least one year. The Chamber would be pleased to work with the City
in implementing these recommendations.
Sincerely yours,
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
~f~lW-ir
T. Pat Cavanaugh
President
TPC:ce
\\ ~Otp
(619}420-6603
Attachment # 8-12
A \' E N l' E . C H U l A V 1ST A, C A L I FOR N I A 9 1 9 1 0 . TEL
.
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM
.
Item:
Meeting Date:3/l6/93
11
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager;?
,
SUBJECT: Master Fee Schedule Proposal
The Star-News recently printed an editorial critical of the
proposed master fee schedule update (see attached). The following
is a response to some of those criticisms and to some miscon-
ceptions voiced in the editorial.
1. "Chula vista is looking at raising its master fee schedule to
add an estimated $300,000 a year to the general fund."
While more revenue will be produced for the General Fund, the
purpose of the proposal is not to create more revenue but to avoid
the general taxes subsidizing "special" services, create more .
equity among the fees, etc. The impact on the General Fund, while
welcome, is not the major reason for these proposals. Also, the
editorial statement ignore that reductions in fees totaling
$290,000 a year is also being proposed.
2. "Instead of raising fees the city should look for more places
to cut."
The City has, and the City will, look for more places to cut. This
statement assumes that there is a strict "either-or" relationship
between raising revenues and cutting expenditures. In fact, the
city has always tried to do both. Even as these fees are being
proposed, staff is reviewing the budget submittal for Fiscal Year
1993-94 and considering potential cuts of 2%, 5% and 10% in each
department. While these cuts will save the city money in the short
term, staff is also working on implementing several programs that
will increase efficiency (permit tracking/streamlining, engineering
automation, geographic information system) and thus reduce the time
and expense of obtaining permits and services. Time is money, and
the City has been working hard to save both for those citizens
obtaining permits.
3. "ci ty Counci 1 at its March meeting should order staff to
report back with spending cuts before asking for more fees."
You already ordered staff to look for cuts and staff is doing .
that.
:1-/7
4. "people would pay more for dog licenses, plumbing permits,
secondary environmental studies and more."
.
Dog license fees, which could be seen as impacting a wide segment
of the general public, are proposed to be increased. What the
editorial does not mention is that the increase is graduated
depending on the number of years the license covers or that 50%
discounts are applied to all license fees for dogs that have been
spayed or neutered. For a three year license the fee would
increase from $26 to $28, but most people would only pay $14.
The plumbing permit fees are based on the 1991 update of the
Uniform Plumbing Code. Similar increases are planned to reflect
changes in the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code and 1990 National
Electrical Code. The proposed increases in these areas would bring
Chula vista's fees up to the standard level in the industry.
The term "secondary environmental studies" is a bit of a misnomer.
What is proposed is an increase in the fee for review of a previous
initial study and negative declaration from $140 to $600. This fee
covers the staff time required to adapt a CEQA document written for
a proposed project to use on a substantially different proposal.
Unlike most environmental review fees which are deposit-based, this
service has always been provided via a flat fee. But whereas the
other fees have continued to collect their full costs as
environmental review has become more complex, this fee has lost
pace with the number of staff hours required .to provide the .
service.
5. In all the city would increase 27 fees, and adjust or create
new ones in 50 other areas.
Some fees are also reduced and new ones are created because of the
demand and the receipt of new services to the public.
6. "They [city officials] admit most impact would fall on
business and development."
Many of the fees in the proposal would impact development. As is
noted above, however, some of these impacts would be reductions in
fees. For a "typical" 25,000 sq. ft. commercial project, the total
fees would fall by approximately $24,000 under this proposal. This
impact is due primarily to adjustments in the assessment of sewer
capacity charges.
Contrary to the implication of the editorial, very little impact
would be felt by new or existing businesses. While the zoning fees
paid by new businesses are recommended to increase from $15 to $45,
this higher fee would only affect those who do not apply for a
zoning permit prior to building occupancy. All others would still
pay the existing $15 fee. For existing businesses, the only impact
Page 2
.
)/-1 <;(
would be for specialized services (e.g. fingerprinting, business
license reissuance for a change of location) or for businesses with
special needs (e. g. underground storage tank removal, massage
establishment investigation).
other fees contained in the proposed schedule would pass on costs
of delinquent payment collection and returned check processing
which are currently being absorbed by the general fund.
.
7. "[They also adlni t] that 'it might not seem appropriate to
increase fees in the midst of a struggling economy. "'
Taking this quote out of the context of the agenda statement missed
the main point made in this staff report. The full excerpt from
the agenda statement that the editorial was quoting is:
"Although it may not seem appropriate to increase fees in the
midst of a struggling economy, taking no action would mean
that inflationary impacts on service costs would be borne by
the general taxpayer. Since it has been City policy to charge
for these private-benefit services, subsidizing increased
service costs would thus be a departure from previous policy."
8. "Last month the Star-News recommended cutting $50,000 out of
the budget with simple elimination of the city newsletter."
By law, cities are constrained from charging more than their costs .
for most of the services they provide. Since there is thus a very
direct relationship between the cost of services and the fees
charged, cuts in unrelated areas such as the city newsletter would
not lower the cost of the planning or engineering services
contained in the fee schedule. In fact, since a large part of the
newsletter's cost comes from Non-General Fund sources, its
elimination would not have a major impact on the overall General
Fund.
Besides the demonstrated value of the Newsletter, the City has
already made major cuts in General Fund costs and plan to do more.
Getting back to the main point -- it's a matter of equity in the
fee structure more than revenue.
9. "There are superfluous positions in almost every organillation."
While that may be an true, as a general rule the number of Chula
vista employees per capita is one of the lowest in the County and
the nation.
10. "The city can find some fat in the budget - and do it without
cuts in basic services."
Staff agrees that there is waste to be found in government spending
and is working hard to eliminate it. Aside from the efforts
Page 3
.
/{-/9
mentioned above to pare down budget requests and identify possible
cuts of up to 10% in all departments, serious attention is also .
devoted to the size of city staff. Two of many examples of recent
actions in this area include: designation of "floating operators"
to maximize staffing on existing maintenance crews instead of
hiring full crews, elimination of the position of Data Processing
Manager and use of temporary, part-time or volunteer staff to fill
roles that might otherwise be filled by full-time staff or
consultants. As part of the current FY 93-94 budget process, the
budget office will also be conducting a study of development-
related staffing levels in light of the current slowdown in
building.
11. "Or maybe the Council needs a reminder -- it serves the
taxpayers, not the city staff."
That I s right! And we are recommending that the taxpayers not
subsidize services provided to the developers.
Attachment
JY
.
Page 4
.
) ( - ;2rJ
mentioned above to pare down budget requests and identify possible
cuts of up to 10% in all departments, serious attention is also .
devoted to the size of city staff. Two of many examples of recent
actions in this area include: designation of "floating operators"
to maximize staffing on existing maintenance crews instead of
hiring full crews, elimination of the position of Data Processing
Manager and use of temporary, part-time or volunteer staff to fill
roles that might otherwise be filled by full-time staff or
consultants. As part of the current FY 93-94 budget process, the
budget office will also be conducting a study of development-
related staffing levels in light of the current slowdown in
building.
11. "Or maybe the Council needs a reminder -- it serves the
taxpayers, not the city staff."
That I s right! And we are recommending that the taxpayers not
subsidize services provided to the developers.
Attachment
JY
.
Page 4
.
J(-J(
'.
.
.
~~/I
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM
Item:
Meeting Date:3/16/93
TO: The Honorable Mayor and city Council
FROM: John D. Goss, City ManagertY
SUBJECT: Master Fee Schedule Staff Amendments; Additional
Attachments
Three sections of the Master Fee Schedule proposal before you
tonight have been changed. Although decisions on these fees were
reached some time ago, they were not reflected in your current
draft. Updated copies of the relevant pages and the resolution are
attached for insertion into you agenda packet. Each of these
proposed. changes would result in lower fees than appear in the
current draft.
A.
Closing Out Sale
B.
~ ~ filing fee for first 60 days
~ ~ filing fee for one extension
of 30 days
certificate of Occupancy ~ i1Q
C. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ~ i1Q
Also attached is a copy of the editorial which was mistakenly
omitted from a previous information item and a copy of a written
correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce. This letter was not
received until midday on March 16 and thus was not included in your
initial packet. This item should be inserted at the end of
Attachment #8 (Public Comments).
JGjjy
I j- /J. :2
'.
.
.
CHAPTER IV
Business Fees
A. GENERAL BUSINESS
1. Business License - General
a. Duplicate License
$5 processing fee
[Resolution 16579]
b. Change of Location
$e lli processing fee
[Resolution 16579]
c. Home Occupation Permit
$25 filing fee
[Resolution 16579]
2. Sales. Special
a.
Closing Out Sale
$2e .$30 filing fee for first 60 davs
~ $15 filinl! fee for one extension of 30 davs
~
[Resolution 16579]
b. Special Sales Event
$de $45 application fee
[Resolution 16579]
c. Temporary Outside Sales Permit
$&Q $45 application fee
[Resolution 16579]
B. SPECIFIC BUSINESS
1. Art Figure Studio
a. License Investigation
Application - $100 nonrefundable fitiBg investil!ation fee
[Resolution 16579]
Master Fee SCMdule
Part 1 - General
elulpler IV. Business Fees
Page 13
(Rev. Marcil 16, 1993)
11- 023
b.
Work Permit
-':
Model Permit - $ 25 nonrefundable filffig investie-ation fee
[Resolution 165791
2. Bath House - License Investigation
$100 filffig non-refundable investie-ation fee
[Resolution 165791
b Bine-o License Investie-ation Fees - New and Renewal
Chairperson ,$50
Co-Chairperson ,$27
In the event an application is denied, fifty percent of the fee shall
be refunded. Applicant shall also pay the required fees for
fingerprint processing for each change in the bingo
chairpersons. [Ordinaru:e 19871
4. Card Room
a.
License Investigation
$500 nonrefundable investigation fee
~
b. Work Permit
New: $50 - card room managers
$30 - card room employees
Annual renewal:
$20 - card room managers
$10 - card room employees
[Resolution 165791
5. Casino Parties
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 134391
6. Fratemal Society Gameroom
a. License Investigation
$50 investigation fee
[Resolution 165791
-..,
Masler Fee Schedule
Part I - General
Chapter IV - Business Fees
Page 14
(Rev. January 13, 1993)
Il-)'Y
Other Inspections and Fees:
.
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours $3G-eP
full cost recovery
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) $3G-eP
full cost recovery
3. Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum $3G-eP
charge - one-half hour) full cost recovery
4. Compliance Survey Inspections (minimum chanre - one hour) full cost recovery
5. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or $3G-eP
revisions to approved plans (minimum - one-half hour) full cost recovery
6. Stronl! Motion Instrumentation PrOl!Tarn fees per California per State reauirements
Health and Safety Code
7. Applications requiring additional plan review to confinn
conformance with California Administrative Code Title 24
requirements for Energy Conservation shall pay an additional
15% for plan check and an additional 15% for inspection.
8. Applications requiring additional plan review and inspection
to confirm conformance with California Administrative Code
Title 24 requirements for disabled access shall pay an
additional 10% for plan check and an additional 10% for
inspection.
9. Foundation only permits (not credited toward buildin!! 25% of buildin!! permit
permit) fee or as otherwise
determined followin!!
reauest for Buildin!!
Official review
10. Application for hearin!! before Board of Appeals and full cost recovery
Advisors
11. Application for Administrative Hearin!! to evaluate full cost recovery
alternate methods and materials
12. Certificate of Occupancy issuance ~ $70
13. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issuance ~ $70
14. Plan maintenance char!!e (retention mandated bv 2% of buildin!! permit
California Health and Safety Code Sec. 19850) fees
(bId!!.. mech. plmb &:
elect)
(min. $5)
15. Permits for mobile home installations and accessory per State reauirements
buildinl!S and structures
..
[Resolution 165791
.
Master Fee Schedule
PtuI 11 . De.ewpment
Chaprer X . BuUding and Housing
Page 35
(Re.. Marr;/t 16, 1993)
II-::<~
D.
DETERMINATION OF VALUE
",,",.
The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this
master fee schedule or of the building code have been made by the building
official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building
plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the
permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical,
plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and
any other permanent equipment (SEE APPENDIXES).
lRuolution 16579]
F. ,ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Fees for processing and inspecting electrical permits shall be as follows:
A. For issuing each permit
For issuine: each supplemental
permit
$19.99
~15,00
4,50
B. Ne..v 98llGtreetieB, fer ea. ampere
sf main aeroee, B'l,-iteli, mae, 8F
hreaker
SiBgle Phase
ThPee Phase
..w
.GG
c.
Ne\': senies BF! enstiag hailetiBg,
fer saeh "'-peFe Bf i>>epease ill maiR
sernas, si.v4teh, fuse, 8F Breaker
SiBgle Paas.e
Tmee Phase
..w
.GG
"""'
D. Remsdel, altePBtisB, BS ehange iB
8en'iee, faF eaeh "'-pere sf merease
SiBgle Paase
ThFee P.aase
..w
.GG
~
E. Temp9F9.l1" senies lip te and
inehulffig 299 --pere
F. TelBJl9FBFy sanies 8......81" 299 ....-per8
per 19Q --pere
~
C. la aadibeR, in sitaas8BS s=-=lm- te
t.Base listed \IResI' the s1ISseea9B
titled "Other T--peeti91lB BRa Fees"
sf Seet;isB 18.98.979, the fee SBall
he the s--e.
lRuolution 16579]
"""
Muler Fee Scltedllw
PlUtl1 - Development
elulpler X . Building tut4 HOllsing
Pllge 36
(Rev. Decelllber 10, 1992)
j(-J&
.
.
.
I
~
f'\
Fees can take a hike; cut instead
City governments aD over the ltate are ""und a drowning bl1';~""-_"'1 neck. _
hurting. So it's no shock Chula Vuta is ADd there ;. another way to Ave the tax-
llooking at raising its master fee schedule payen' alreadY~ahoulders.
. to add an estimated $300,000 a year to the The Bt4r-NefI)' laat month recom--
general fund. meaded cutting $50,000 out of the budget
~:' But there are two lides to every bal- with limple .1im;"-tion of the city news-
anced budget - re~ues and apendi- letter. Tack on the cost of the department -
tures. Instead of raising fees the city that produces it and the Avings adds up 0'
should look for more places to cut. The to more than '100,000. That's one-third of _
City Council at its March 16 meeting what the fees would add. Two or three
.. should order stafr to report back with more cuts in higher-lever city aa1r and
spending cuts before ...1;"g for more fees. &here', the difrerence.
Under the proposed fee hikes people There -.re luperfluOUl positions in a)-
would pay more for dog JiM" lei, plumbing most every orpnization _ certain people
permits, secondary environmental atudies ).hat are Dice to have around because they _
and more. In all the city would increase 27 make life more comfortable, inf.er-ti..,. or
fees, and acijust or create new ones in liO atiafyine. But those are for the pod
other areas. , J. 0' o_,7"~ ,Ia;~ timet '1OUhave *' cut _
..,_. :n~i~evi:~~~1~~~~~-e,..~,. ", "
be shouldered by tupa1WL They A' the more I.DC1 we dCIII't think the tapayen -'0
hikes are needed because the fee lChIdule either. The city can find IOme fat in the
is outdated - the last ~or revision wu budget _ and do it without cuta in buie
in 1987. ' -n....~ :;,'_ "
At the same time, however, they admit o~ City '~ II!fY _ like having to rec-
most impact would fall on buain.. and 41111mend eaU:iDg &;ends in other depart-
development, for licenses and inapeetions, menta but council members should not ae-
and that "it might not seem appropriate to . cept the lIhiItinr bf responaibiIity. It's _
increase fees in the midst of a struggling their job to demand performance. Or
economy." maybe the council needs a reminder _ it
Bingo, You don't hang another millstone serves the tazpayers, not the city staff.
'- - .......,- --- ~'~~:..r:.'t~~/",,;w~~____I I'.. ",..~'_ ._. ~__.-
11 - J??
v
~ ----
.. AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
March 15, 1993
The Honorable Tim Nader &
Chula Vista City Councilmembers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
T Pal Cava",a"9h
Dear Mayor Nader and Councilmembers:
~RFEESCHEDULE
President Elect
Dra'1€ FII"1:
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the proposed
"Master Fee Schedule" and had representation at the public workshop.
The Chamber has three major areas of concern. First, while we would
like to have increased revenues within the city, the economic reality is
that we do not. Most business, most cities and most jurisdictions are
reducing staff and overhead in order to remain fiscally solvent and
within the levels of available revenue. In contrast, the City of Chula
Vista appears to be looking at these fees as a method to increase or at a
minimum maintain staff composition.
ViC~ Presidents:
ROd O&.',s
Milt€' Mc;.~ s.
Jon" F V_e
Members:
Pa~'::,& 82....02:
RU5~ 8.... ';f"-
Steve CO' -.S
Chuc~ Da:.
Robe"': Ga':'8
S.;sa", He'-E-}
11'"'. Ja...., ~~-
.sc...,_
, Le'.',2
No'r", R ':"~ ""':
The second area of concern is in the area of affordable housing. The
proposed fee increases will add close to $1,624.00 to the cost of a new
home. For every $1,000.00 added to the price of a home, 120 families
cannot qualify to buy that home. A $1,624.00 increase would mean 195
families could not qualify for that home. Adding to the price of a home
is not supportive of the city's stated commitment to providing affordable
housing.
Me')' A...."'f 8:"_
B:::c ;n::-'2~
JIM WE-5.'C"'
Past Preside :.:
t\1_ ~.~ G'o:,--2"
Finally, there is the distinct possibility that increased fees will drive
construction out of Chula Vista. This would mean a loss of jobs to the
residents of Chula Vista and a loss of revenue to businesses in Chula
Vista, at a time when we need to fight for jobs and business revenue in
our city. If the construction industry will not build in Chula Vista
because of onerous fees, then the city will accrue no increase in
revenues because of increased fees.
Executive DirectN
Dooa ~ R Rea:
The Chamber urges no increase in fees until the appropriateness of
staff/service reductions are assessed. In view of the impact of proposed
fees on affordable housing, we recommend that the City of Chula Vista
follow the County of San Diego's lead in deferring any fee increases for
at least one year. The Chamber would be pleased to work with the City
in implementing these recommendations.
.
Sincerely yours,
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
1f~(W.if
T. Pat Cavanaugh
President
TPC:ce
r C .. F 1 I'" A VEt. I.' E . C f-l U l A V I $' T A, C A l I FOR N I A 9 1 8 1 0 . TEL ( tI 1 51) . 2 0 . 6 6 0 3
Attachment # 8-12
/ ( -)9
.
.
\
.'
~ 16, 1993
1II1L._~b II8)u
~_bea
CltyofOlala V"1IlII
216Pc.daA_
ClIuIaV_CA 92010
REI SPIlCIFIC F1lIlS w.ulUl'll\lASTBR lIBB SCllEDVLE
DeIr Mayor N..1IlId rn.-Ilnoembe<s:
ClF appreciaks tI:i8 OWuobail.i III UpllI8'" c:oncem ClIl specific fee iJIc:rcuo pIOJlOIIIIs
~ned with lbc Cily'. MuIcr Foe Srloedult.. AIao ......bed is oar MIn:b 10 IclIer 0IIIIlnlIIg
__ CIIl a wide varial.y ofqpcom"POpwodfe6IDaeuea.
GiwII,. ~fi'a8ik -fIt1IfrJ l1li4 1M impacl tItat -feuflltd _/rave 011 the btuinus
,:Q_Lt,./d()o l1li4 1M _1iD1I iItdIu/rJ. M."., tukUt& }OIITCOIIIIdlIO _toy ~ Il/
t!IIrtLIbI fll<<ifIU' ft!e iluntuufJ81Uted bdqw frw "'" ,",or IIIIIil/M econonry readlua curalll
"1rttIltk] { IIImIII1l" fewl.
1. Rp~andB......... FHI_
-dcc:lricaI )ICmliII
- bouskI& peIIIIiD
-pmmhhwprrmilB
rnn,ptl__ Suney Tnopootioa
-- "_01 I" .
---pe.-y''''''
2. ~F.I_
-1II\l_pIIl...A...L.Ao;.....
- CCIli6l:alc of ,,,....u...--
CCldoll...A.u pennlt
- public lmjl<<).aaenls filIDa feel
- c1dYOWl)'l.Il~c alii.... widdt filIDa feel andllppCll1 feel
-..~_PI:nDit
- __ ScI'vlce Villi......
-111M!: CaIIaImctiooI Lalaa1 PermirlIII4 Tap-laa
-..--..,. :JiDano<o~P'wmit
3. PIaJmiDa-FH/~
-enviroumeDIaJ Review PI-.
-.....1_/&............. ofaJPorVlIrilmce
-...., Pemaila
I
If - "50
"
PlF2
MIrdIl6, IIlP3
4. u.........
-1pllCial plIIIIIila <..........-r oalIidc __ tI: 1IpCCIa\___>
s. ~,A"_ToBlUltn,rPUl
,-deIip Rmew
-...._Rly 'lIdlCtioD
-lip penDiII
-1iIe plIIII_ ...1....... ....'1IIIPI'O'8I
- .........
'- zca., ......iftl..... cle8Ip cIIaDae
6. Rno~8IlCI1Jan<lolc-NewF<<.r
: - boII1I ~ IIJPCIIa -lIIImiIIIIIIBIh Iaring
'-c:enIfie8Ieafoc. ''1'''''''' ,
- foundaliOII CIIIIy plIIIIIila
-mer~'" ~d81pcmdt
-""lP-..cJ.-.'--1S
7. PIlmDiIlll-Nft'F.,
~cIumpe AdoHtlOlllllpllnRlYlew8IlCI In~
-1IlImI dmiu cIDIiuqucucy fee
ne feelDcrease l&ul'ulllIUppl'ar juIIified 8Dd '...."...hLo, nm.e-. we Way fee I fu.
m..-... Ibis,lime lIIlIIIalllixed lipIlliO Iho Im_-., CllIIIlI'lIl:li IDd odw loduakI..
)8IicuJarly bit luill durinc dIC Rlr....9I
n..t: )'Ill1l1r',ogr lXIIIIlIdInIIoo
Y~.ti
.::t;. - '-
.Ifwo~
CIP:w.i:h 10 Ieaor
loey 01>><011';' tdgcn
11-3/
C()NSTRuqrWN
L.NDU STRy
P<E D ERA 11'6 N
"''\1,:\':>1;\''
'Son I>ogo Co.m<y Rcrkl'roduan
t,~1W:~~tion">;:!~';;L;;,':;
;'.1
---r
March 10, 1993
Honorable Mayor
COWlcilmembers
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
.+
RE: FEES, FEES AND MORE FEES
Dear Mayor Nader and Councilmembers:
The Construction Industry Federation appreciates this opportunity to express scrong concern on
several fee increase proposals coming forward to your Council in the very near future. Some of
the fee increase proposals will be brought to Council within 30 to 45 days.
Given the cOlllilWingfragile ecollOmy and the impact thai MW fees and taxes have on the business
community and the CO/lStruI;tion industry, we are asking your Council tQ delay implemelllation of
the proposedlee illcreasesfor one year or until the ecollOmy reaches a certain "healthy IlIOrmal"
level. We reconunend for your considecation certain target "triggen" to be reached before new or
increased fee/taxes can be implemented as suggested on page 3.
Most of the fee increase proposals presented are justified and reasonable. However, we feel any
fee / tax increase at this time sends a mixed signal to the business. construction and other
industries particularly hit hard during the recession<
The following is a<list of KNOWN fee increase proposais which will soon be forwarded to you;
I. Chula Vista Master Fee Increase Schedule _
This schedule proposes fee increases, new fees, and some fee decreases. Overall. City Staff
has calculated the total impact of the schedule to add $230 for each new home. The business
community will also be impacted. We suggest a one-year delay on those fees cOn/alned in the
schedule which will directly impact the business and constructwn sectors.
2. Traffic Development Impact Fee Increase -
The current lraffic fee is $3.060. This fee is imposed on existing businesses wishing to
expand, new businesses wishing to relocate and new home construction. The fee is proposed
to be increased from $3,060 to $3,075. We request a one~year delay on the increase.
3. Public Facilities Impact Fee Increase -
The current fee for new home construction is $2,150. Staff is proposing an $89.00 fee
increase for new home construction. The good news is that the fee for commercial and
industrial is decreasing by $845 per acre. We request a one-year delay on the increase.
/1- '37
.",,-.............;;. .
,<Ii . '-~
. .
;r; .'
, .
,
"
Page 2
March 10. 1993
,-~.:,r,-;Ji
_.~..,I"
, '''"'l.
,~-:~':.'If'~\
4. SR-I251nterim Development Fee-
This new fee would greatly iriipact new commercial ~ti'es wishing to locate into the
City in the.~ tMt the fee would be levied. ~t would ~1Sif,~~~p90 to the cost of new
homes built within the benefit area. We req.Jsl more time anil"tJipUl from inlereSled parlks
10 resolve lhis complex maller.
Y"',j''''-''''
",..~-'.
kf':i;;,o_:;:';'4~"
';&j~~~'l
The cumulative total of the above would add $1. 624 in fees ~ f.!le cost of a new home. The
""""-'''',,:'~-
cumulative totals would also greatly impact n~w busi~s.:~~'j)l'1iti,es.
'~;JIi4t,g;: '
tf~'!;;~Y~;:'.
Olher Agency Fee Increases Onlhe Horizon:
5. Olay Water District Capacity Fees _ .
The Otay Water District is proposing to increase the water;fa'!i3City fees on March 17th. The
increases will also greatly impact new busines~;desiring toJ<1\'~I~within the City of Chula
Vista. We are reqyesting !tWre lime and inpUl'trom~~f,~~~*~P~/he proposed
increase ~?Jj~~~J~~~;ft;ff-'J ,!!:Ihf.~\)f~fjf~f:1r'$'~~rY~lt;;;"iI""
-'~.~ii'''>~. f1h~~~\"",;\'I-"hl') 'I .' t' ,.~ \'> ~,.1-.":1''',,h '~i-:*~~I~~to;\\._",
)~"':>f.~.r'i;Wt~;~-,j,..,i~-;A~'''''':'' ~" .,.. " -~ . '- ".J'!{J' .'"
6. Sweetwater and CbuIa Vista Oty Schools Adopt a $1.00 ~crease-
Both Districts =tly adopted 11 $1.00 per sqit fee inaeaSe:Ttus will add approximately
$1,800 to the cost of new homes built outside of a Mello R~~~t Total school fees per
.., ,c, . "'-.t'(',1,*:U,,R:
home now eqllli1 approxunately $5.000!; . '1'
cc: John Goss
John Lippitt
Marty Chase
Olay Water DIstrict Board of Directors
)/ -33
COUNCIL INFORMATION
DATE:
January 14, 1993
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manage~
Lyman Christopher, Director of Fil)'l1'\ce;t r;
Cheryl Fruchter, Revenue Manager {Jr(;.J-. ,
Gerald Young, Administrative Analyst I~.
DRAFT OF MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
The agenda package for Phase II of the Master Fee Schedule update
has been completed and is attached for your review.
Phase I of the Master Fee Schedule update, which included technical
and administrative changes to the Municipal Code, was completed and
approved by Council on April 28, 1992. At the time of final
approval of the FY 1992-93 budget, Council directed staff to
complete and bring forward Phase II which includes updating
existing fees to account for changes in costs, making equity
adjustments for certain fees, and proposing adoption of new fees
for recently evolved or special services. .
Due to the size of the overall package, staff has prepared a
summary chart which groups the proposals by type, fee level and
fiscal impact. Although this chart contains several explanatory
annotations, it should be considered in conjunction with the
remainder of the agenda report.
Both the agenda report and the summary (Attachment #1) categorize
the update proposals as: A) adjustments in fees to support changes
in service costs, B) adjustments to fees to provide for greater
equity, C) new fees for recently evolved services, and D) other
miscellaneous adjustments to clarify fee authorization, collection
procedures and Municipal Code language.
Staff is planning to release the attached draft on January 25,
1993, for public comment and response. Copies will be sent for
comment to all developers and business groups who have a general
interest in City fees.
After receiving comments and meeting with interested parties, staff
intends to notice a public hearing for a future council meeting,
probably sometime in March 1993.
If any Councilmember has comments or questions prior to the public
release date of January 25, please let me know.
Lc/eb
Attachment
1/-3~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date:
ITEM TITLE:
Ordinance Am end i n g S e c t ion s
9.12.160, 9.13.050, 13.14.090, 13.14.100, 13.14.110
and 13.14.150 of the Municipal Code and adding a
new section 5.36.035 of the Municipal Code relating
to fees and service charges.
Resolution Amending the Master Fee
Schedule to effect changes in designated existing
fees and addition of new fees.
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Finance
Revenue Manager
Administrative Analyst Young
REVIEWED BY:
city Manager
(4/sths Vote: Yes___ No X I
The Master Fee Schedule update completed on April 28, 1992 amended
several titles of the Municipal Code and made related changes in
the Master Fee Schedule document. This represented Phase I of the
first comprehensive review of the City's fees since 1987. At the
time of final approval of the FY 92-93 budget, Council considered
several revenue options and directed staff to bring forward the
second phase of the Master Fee Schedule update. Having obtained
recommendations from various Boards and Commissions, solicited
feedback from interested community and business groups, and
advertised the public hearing, staff is now submitting Phase II of
the update to:
1). Make several administrative and technical changes in the
Municipal Code relating to the assessment of fees.
2). Update designated existing fees to account for increases in
costs; Make adjustments in fees to provide for more equitable
and accurate cost assessment; Propose adoption of new fees
for recently evolved services or for special services
currently being provided at no additional charge.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
1. Adopt Ordinance amending several sections of the" Municipal
Code relating to fees and service charges.
2. Adopt Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to effect
changes in designated existing fees and add new fees.
" -1J~
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Proposed changes in Building
and Housing and Library fees have been submitted to and recommended
for approval by the Board of Appeals and Advisors and Library
Board, respectively. (See attached minutes dated August 7,
September 18 and November 18, 1991.) Proposed changes in Parks and
Recreation to adopt non-resident fees were submitted to the Parks
and Recreation Commission but were presented to Council separately.
DISCUSSION:
1. BACKGROUND
While a primary mission of government is to satisfy community needs
such as police and fire protection, many city services solely
benefit specific individuals or businesses. It has been the
general policy of the City Council that the public at large should
not subsidize activities of such a private interest through general
tax revenues. Therefore, the City has established user fees to
best ensure that those who use a proprietary service pay for that
service in proportion to the benefits received. with few
exceptions, such as those services provided for low-income
residents, fees have been set to enable the City to recover the
full costs of providing those services.
Although it may not seem appropriate to increase some fees in the
midst of a struggling economy, taking no action on the matter would
mean that inflationary impacts on service costs would be borne by
the general fund. Since it has been City policy to charge for
these private-benefit services, subsidizing increased service costs
would thus be a departure from previous policy.
Types of Fees
Typically, fees take one of three forms: flat fees, multi-level
fees, and variable fees based on costs (deposits).
Flat fees are preferable in most cases due to their ease of
administration and collection. Where the annual volume of an
activity is high and the per-project costs are reasonably stable,
flat fees have been based on the average transaction costs for
services provided (e.g. $50 processing fee for satellite dish
variance). Since the time of the last comprehensive update of the
Master Fee Schedule in 1987, however, inflationary factors have
diminished the ability of certain flat fees to recover the City's
costs. If flat fees are not subject to regular updates and service
levels are maintained, then as costs' for providing services
increase, general tax dollars will increasingly subsidize the
City's costs for providing these services.
Page 2
Il~31
Variable fees adjust for inflation automatically by requiring a
deposit from which actual costs are debited and any unspent balance
is refunded. If the costs of a particular service differ with the
size or complexity of the project, deposit-based fees provide for
a more equitable assessment of those costs than would be possible
through a flat fee. Thus, for example, citizens who petition for
annexation to the city are charged for only the actual staff time
spent on their projects rather than paying "average" processing
costs. variable fees are difficult to administer, but since they
automatically correct for changes in service costs, increased
efficiency, and fluctuations in requested or mandated service
levels, they seldom require updating.
Multi-level fees serve as a convenient middle ground. These fees
are used when the cost of service provision is closely correlated
to a specific project factor. Two or more fee levels are set and
the level of the fee is determined by objective measurable criteria
(e.g. site plan and architectural approval fees are recommended to
range from $0-$720 depending on building valuation) Multi-level
fees thus offer the stability and administrative ease of flat fees
and the enhanced equity of deposits. As with flat fees, however,
these fees must be updated periodically to ensure that the city's
general tax support for these services remains at a consistent
level.
Update Process
A prime consideration in this update has been how changes in fees
would impact local citizens and businesses. Staff has endeavored
in its recommendations to maintain equity through variable and
mul ti-Ievel fee structures and to keep increases in flat fees
moderate wherever possible.
Proposals for flat and multi-level fee revisions in the attached
resolution were formulated in terms of staff time, hourly salaries,
benefits, administrative overhead, and postage and material costs.
To ensure that these figures provided the most accurate cost
estimates, the indirect cost allocation (overhead) factors were
recalculated in conjunction with this update using current budget
figures for salaries and benefits. For the most part, the fee
proposals reflect the effects of inflation on salary and supply
costs since 1987. In some cases, however, increases in efficiency
or streamlining efforts have mitigated the effects of inflation by
reducing the amount of staff time required to provide the service.
Variable, deposit-based fees were similarly reviewed for equity and
cost recovery. These fees required few adjustments because charges
are based on actual hours worked given the employees' current
hourly and overhead rates.
Page 3
Jd'7&r
To prepare for the public hearing, notices were placed in the Star-
News and Union-Tribune and copies of the proposed fees were sent to
individual users of the services or specially impacted groups (e.g.
Chamber of Commerce, Building Industry Association).
A complete list of those noticed and of comments received on the
basis of this noticing have been included in this packet as
Attachment #8.
Equity and Fee Waivers
Despite staff's attention in the fee schedule to maintaining or
enhancing equity, there may be cases down the road in which
additional consideration will be warranted. Recognizing that,
staff has incorporated the Municipal Code section regarding fee
waivers into Chapter I of the fee schedule for easy reference.
According to Code section 3.45.010, all waiver requests must be
submi tted in writing and considered through a public hearing.
(Such a public hearing does not require publication of legal
notices.) Waivers larger than the greater of $2,500 or 25% of the
original fee must be considered by City Council. By following this
policy for all fee waiver requests, the City will ensure that all
those deserving of waivers receive proper and fair consideration.
It should be emphasized, however, that by granting waivers, the
city does not make the costs disappear. Unless the level of
service is reduced or the costs for providing a given level of
service are reduced, the City continues to incur those costs. But
rather than passing on the cost of that service to the party who
receives the benefit, the City is subsidizing the service with
general tax revenues. As more waivers are granted or the as the
City goes longer without adjusting fees, the percentage of that
subsidy grows.
2. FEE PROPOSALS
Recommended changes have been grouped into four categories detailed
below. A complete summary of the fee update recommendations which
follows the same categories is included as Attachment #1. Staff's
cost analyses have been made available in binder form to the
Council with an additional copy available through the City Clerk
for public review. The figures from staff's analysis were modified
in some cases (e.g. returned check fees) to recognize market forces
or legal constraints which preclude recovery of all associated
costs.
For comparison purposes, a copy of the 1992 Construction Industry
Federation Regional Fee Survey has also been included (Attachment
#6). However, since many of the fees compared are deposit-based,
Page 4
U'-3 CJ
it is difficult to provide an exact comparison of fee levels in
different cities.
A. Increases in Existing Fees
In light of the fact that the vast majority of fees addressed in
this update have not been revised in five years, the analysis
outlined above uncovered several areas where the existing fees were
no longer sufficient to recover costs.
Plumbing permit fees are a good example of this. These fees were
set in 1987 to recover staff time costs for plan check and
inspection of various plumbing systems and fixtures as listed in
the Uniform Plumbing Code. Although the staff costs have gone up
since then, Chula vista's fees have stayed the same. Thus, a fee
which once recovered the cost of a half-hour of staff time may now
be recovering only 15 minutes of staff costs.
Sewer construction fees are also set at flat rates and all of these
costs have risen significantly since the last fee update.
fees have been set in consideration of the extensive
equipment and material cost data contained in the
Works/Operations Work Management System.
While electrical permit fees have been updated in response to
similar cost increases, the principal recommendation is a new fee
structure for set-ups and fixtures not specifically addressed in
the previous fee schedule (e.g. carnivals, outdoor signs). This
structure would mirror the outline of the National Electrical Code,
which more accurately identifies the scope of electrical
installations and practices than the current "per ampere" format.
The schedules and fees recommended for electrical and other
building-related fixtures are industry standards, the adoption of
which would bring Chula vista in line with charges assessed by
other jurisdictions.
The new
labor,
Public
For the processing of returned checks, the Uniform Commercial Code
allows businesses to charge treble damages. This provision has not
yet been extended to cities. until recently, cities have only been
allowed to charge a "reasonable" fee not to exceed $10. Because
the costs of internal processing and bank clearing fees are much
higher, a recent assembly bill (AB 2274) which is effective January
1, 1993, has revoked this $10 restriction in favor of full cost
recovery. Staff proposes following the lead of AB 2274 and
adopting a fee of $25 per returned check, with a discounted fee of
$15 for payments received within 10 calendar days after the first
collection notice.
Following a straight cost recovery calculation, the cost of zoning
permit processing has risen from $15 to $45. Since these permits
are required to investigate the potential impacts of new land uses,
Page 5
II-Jij@
consideration has been given to the burden these fees place
specifically on new businesses. Also considered was the extent and
significance of the proposed change in use and the variation in the
staff time required for processing routine start-ups in existing
buildings, significant changes in use, and delinquent or "after the
fact" zoning. staff's recommendation is to adopt the new $45 fee
only for those permits which are not applied for prior to business
start-up or building occupancy. All other new businesses would
remain subject to the existing $15 fee.
Al though a few of the fee increases may seem extreme on a
percentage basis, it is important to consider the changes that have
taken place since some of the fees were last updated. Review of
most environmental impacts is done by deposit due to the
significant variation in environmental concerns from one project to
another. Where a previous initial study or negative declaration is
to be used, staff felt that a deposit was not necessary. But
because the fee for such review had not been updated in five years
and the amount of staff time required for a thorough environmental
review has increased, staff has updated the fee accordingly.
Perhaps the best example of a fee in need of updating is the fee
for a certificate of compliance. This fee, which is charged to
recover the cost of verifying legal property line adjustments, was
added to the Municipal Code in 1974. Since the number of annual
requests for such work is minimal, the fee was overl~oked when the
Master Fee Schedule was first compiled and in subsequent updates.
Thus, while the increase from a $25 fee to a $200 fee might seem
inordinate, the proposed change reflects the true cost of the
service and brings the certificate of compliance into agreement
with other similar planning fees (e.g. adjustment plat
examination).
B. Adjustments to Existing Fees
A second category of recommended changes are those that will
result, not in increased fees, but rather in lower, clarified or
more equitable .fees.
Dog license fees are a good example of an area where staff has
recommended different procedures and fee structures which would
effectively reduce the cost for providing a similar level of
service. This is an optimal solution as fees do not have to be
raised significantly, but neither do general City funds have to be
diverted from other services.
The City issues one, two and three year dog licenses. While the
costs for issuing each license are the same, issuing three one-year
licenses requires three times the staff work, supply and postage
costs needed for issuing one three-year license. Therefore, a
Page 6
/t--<j I
small fee break has been given to those purchasing longer term
licenses.
In this update, rather than increasing fees across the board, staff
has recommended minimal increases in three-year licenses and much
larger increases in shorter-term licenses. This will encourage the
purchase of longer-term licenses and enable Chula vista's fees to
remain lower than those of other County cities. License fees were
actually reduced (20%) for dogs under six-months-old who can only
get a one-year license due to vaccination schedules. The 50%
discount for dogs which have been spayed or neutered is recommended
to continue unchanged. These proposed changes will not result in
added revenue, but will reduce the cost of providing the service so
fee levels can be maintained. Since compliance with animal license
requirements is important for public health reasons, fees have been
set at a level below full cost so as not to discourage licensing.
Among other fees staff is proposing to amend, the existing Master
Fee Schedule contains fees for copying of documents which charge
higher rates for the first page copied or for different types or
sizes of paper. Through more thorough cost estimation, these fees
have been simplified (to one flat rate) and the cost to the public
reduced.
Additional charges for after-hours public works inspections were
established prior to implementation of indirect cost allocation
standards. This charge is, therefore, being decreased to reflect
more accurately actual overtime costs.
Traffic signal participation fees are recommended to increase from
$10 to $13 per average daily trip (ADT). All other things being
equal, this would represent a 30% fee increase. However, since the
San Diego Association of Governments I (SANDAG) calculation of
residential ADTs has dropped from 12 to 10, the net effect is an
increase of only 8% (from $120 to $130) per equivalent dwelling
unit of development.
When golf course greens fees were updated last summer, an effort
was made to discount costs to residents. That same methodology has
also been applied to adjustments in animal relinquishment fees and
increases in charges for business-related fingerprinting. Both
these fees apply to a considerable number of non-residents. The
proposed resident rates represent a discount from the non-resident
level.
Several fees that to this point have been at flat rates are
recommended to be set as deposits or at multiple levels depending
on the amount or complexity of staff work required. This will mean
higher fees for some people and lower fees for others, but the
burden of the fees will be distributed more equitably (e.g.
processing an application for waiver of public improvements is
recommended to change from a flat fee of $284 to a deposit. Thus,
Page 7
/1-4~
if the end cost is only $200, the applicant would be able to
receive an $84 refund). The net fiscal impact for the city in most
of these cases is negligible and, where appropriate, has been shown
as "N/A" or "Minimal net impact" on Attachment #1.
Also deserving of special note among the fee adjustments, sewer
capacity charges are being updated to incorporate a more accurate
methodology for estimating sewer facility needs. Sewer flow is
typically estimated according to land use and building square
footage. Through a shift toward equivalent fixture units (EFUs) -
a measure which puts more emphasis on the number of drains, sinks
and plumbing fixtures - staff will be able to make a more accurate
assessment of the capital costs of increasing sewer capacity. As
a result, many commercial developments with low water usage will be
subject to a lower sewer capacity charge.
The revenue not collected because of these adjustments would have
paid for facility expansions which the new EFU calculations
indicate should not be necessary. Such adjustments must be made
from time to time to ensure that an enterprise fund continues to
collect its actual costs. Thus, just as inflationary and treatment
cost increases necessitated recent increases in sewer service
charges, a reassessment of the costs covered by sewer capacity
charges necessitates a decrease in the assessments against certain
land uses.
c. New Fees
A third category addressed in this update is new fees which have
not been previously adopted by the Council. While the basic City
services remain somewhat constant, new services frequently evolve
which merit individual attention in the Master Fee Schedule.
Through frequent updates of the Uniform Building Code and passage
of additional mandates, the building process has changed
considerably over the years. In order to keep up with these
changes, the language in the Municipal Code must evolve as well.
Proposed additions in this area include fees for certificates of
occupancy, foundation-only building permits and applications for
appeals hearings. Fees have also been proposed for strong motion
instrumentation, plan maintenance and mobile home park operations,
each of which is mandated by the State.
Currently, planning fees are collected for initial plan check on a
project. These fees do not recover costs for additional review
necessitated by changes made in those plans during construction.
A new fee has thus been calculated to capture the cost of both
summary and on-site review of these construction changes.
cities occupy a
preserving public
unique position in providing access to and
records. Advances in technology and data
Page 8
-11-4j
management have expanded cities' capabilities in this field to
include conducting computer searches, generating printouts and
providing copies of data on magnetic media. As the public's
demands have evolved, the city has responded by tailoring new
reports such as business license listings to annual or monthly
requests. other new services related to technological change
include fees for faxing city documents and for processing lost
library materials through the City's new automated circulation
system.
In the existing Master Fee Schedule, there are delinquency fees
assessed for late payment of sewer service and pump station
maintenance charges. These fees pass on the added processing and
collection costs to the delinquent payee instead of subsidizing
those costs through the general fund. Staff recommends extending
this provision to cover certain other fees susceptible to late
payment, namely industrial wastewater discharge permit fees,
downtown improvement district assessments and alarm permit fees.
Staff has also added a reference to delinquent payment in the
definitions section of the fee schedule introduction to standardize
the application of these fees.
D. Other changes
Annual subscriptions to agendas and minutes for the City's various
commissions are a special case in that they actually fit into all
three of the above categories. Based on the new copying cost
estimates, the recommendation for this item involves an increase in
one fee, a decrease in another, and the addition of two new fees.
The new fees are being proposed to recognize the fact that some
people wish to subscribe to either the agendas or the minutes but
not both.
Al though fees for swimming classes are shown as increasing and
daily and annual swimming passes are shown as new fees, these
proposals are just a reflection of what is already listed in the
department program brochure. These fees have been assessed under
the general authority provided for all Parks and Recreation
activities and classes and, with the other recreation fees, listed
in the seasonal brochure. What differentiates swimming fees from
other recreation classes and programs is that they recover far less
than their full cost (for pool maintenance, .utilities,
lifeguarding, etc.). To avoid confusion with other fees which have
been set to recover costs, these swimming fees are being
incorporated into the fee schedule. No changes have been
recommended in these fees and their inclusion in the fee schedule
will carry no fiscal impact.
Street marking fees do recover their full cost and are shown to be
increasing. Most street marking, however, is done by contract with
developers at the time of street dedication. Since these
Page 9
I/'~
agreements are written to require the work be done or to have city
crews do the work and assess the full project cost, individual fees
have seldom been necessary. The proposed change in the fees will
have no direct bearing on day-to-day operations and no significant
fiscal impact, but will allow for current costs to be assessed when
there is no formal agreement.
Several other fees being added to the fee schedule do not represent
increases in fees but rather administrative corrections or
refundable charges. Bingo license fees and casino party fees have
been authorized since 1982 and 1988, respectively. Their inclusion
in the fee schedule document formalizes investigation fees set
administratively and through Resolution #13439. In the case of
live entertainment licenses and holistic health practitioner
business licenses, new refundable fees have been proposed to
recognize the fact that most applicants are legitimate business
people. If a police department investigation finds cause to deny
a business license, however, that fee will be forfeited.
3. MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGES
In consideration of recent and proposed changes in the Master Fee
Schedule and of previously anticipated changes in the sewer billing
process which have not been implemented, staff recommends amending
certain sections of the Municipal Code to avoid ambiguity or
confusion in the interpretation of fees. Four of these changes are
to provide the general authorization or proper reference to the
Master Fee Schedule for fees discussed above (bingo fees, et al.).
None of these changes would have any independent effect on fee
levels.
with the completion of Phase I of the Master Fee Schedule update,
the table assigning equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for various
land uses in the computation of sewer capacity charges now appears
in the Fee Schedule. Since the table still appears in the
Municipal Code as well, any changes in the table would require both
documents to be amended. To avoid any possible confusion with the
proposed revisions in the master fee schedule, staff recommends
that the relevant text in the code be stricken. This change would
have no impact on the assessment of fees. Similarly, the changes
in 13.14.100 simply clarify the administration of sewage pump
station charges and add a reference to the Master Fee Schedule.
Sections 13.14.110 and 13.14.150 of the code detail fee collection
methods to be implemented on July 1, 1992. As the collection
methods did not change on that date as originally anticipated,
staff recommends deleting these references.
Lastly, the proposed formal adoption of federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) median income figures to
determine low-income discount eligibility led staff to review other
Page 10
11-15
low-income discounts in the city. staff is recommending a change
in the Municipal Code relating to low-income senior citizen
discounts on utility user's tax to remove the specified maximum
income threshold of $7,500 (set in 1976) and instead adopt the
annual HUD low-income standards as currently listed in the fee
schedule. This change will broaden eligibility for the discount
and maintain fairness by tying the standard to annual changes in
median area incomes.
4. FUTURE UPDATES
While this update addresses most of the
Master Fee Schedule, there are some
unresolved.
issues pertinent to the
which are temporarily
Negotiations are proceeding with San Diego County on the provision
of health-related services. These services are generally covered
by Title 8 of the Municipal Code. The anticipated agreement would
continue the County's role in performing inspections and other
duties as an agent of the city. Since the City is not directly
involved in the billing for these services, the impact on the
Master Fee Schedule and Municipal Code would be primarily
administrative.
Several other fee-related items which are subject to periodic
update have been incorporated by reference into the appendices of
the Master Fee Schedule. As new indirect cost allocation factors
are calculated by Finance, new construction valuations calculated
by Building and Housing, new low-income standards published by HUD,
or new industries or pollutants listed by the EPA, these appendices
will be updated.
As for the fees themselves, the reorganization of the fee schedule
and the shift toward more multi-level or variable (deposit-based)
fees are anticipated to mitigate the need for regular comprehensive
updates of the fee schedule. Instead, as individual fees are
proposed or revised, they will be processed according to the form,
context, and procedures developed through this update. While
future comprehensive updates may not be necessary, staff will
continue to reexamine the individual fees on at least a biannual
basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated fiscal impact of the above changes is an increase of
approximately $289,400 in annual general fund revenues, an increase
of approximately $10,000 in annual traffic signal fund revenues and
a decrease of approximately $237,600 in annual sewer fund revenues.
This yields a net impact across all funds of $61,800. The impact
Page 11
J/~
on current year revenues would be prorated from that total based on
an effective date 60 days after adoption of the update resolution.
The primary sources of general fund revenue increases are
development-related services which have been updated according to
current staff time costs (e.g. Zoning Administrator design review,
$22,000 impact) or changes in the National and Uniform Codes (e.g.
electrical, $46,075; plumbing, $55,450).
The decrease in sewer fund revenue is due to the restructuring of
sewer capacity charges (-$290,000). This figure represents the
difference between current estimates for facility expansion costs
and new estimates based on the level of expansion indicated by the
revised (EFU) rates of flow. The overall impact on the sewer fund
is lessened somewhat by the fact that several developments have
already been assessed at these new rates via rebates granted on a
case-by-case basis following official appeals.
Categorizing the proposals according to their impacts, this update
would result in annual net impacts of approximately: $27,600 on
development (e.g. plan review, inspections, sewer construction),
$5,200 on businesses (e.g. business license - change of location,
street overload, fingerprinting), $800 on general services (agenda
subscriptions, sewer service variances), and $28,200 on specialized
services (e.g. business license listing, animal impoundment,
returned checks). While the City would receive these revenues on
an annual basis, the impacts on residents, non-residents and
businesses are primarily one-time.
Impacts of individual fee increases, adjustments or adoptions are
shown on Attachment #1.
Attachments:
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
A: \MFSl13ILJY2
Page 12
Summary of Updates/Additions
Resolution
Proposed Master Fee Schedule
Ordinance
Board and Commission Recommendations (Minutes)
Construction Industry Federation
Regional Fee Survey - 1992
Council Agenda Statement, Master Fee Schedule
Update, Phase I
Public Input (To be included following hearing
notification process)
1141
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
The City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule has not undergone a
comprehensive review and update since August, 1987, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section
66016, notice was mailed at least 14 days prior to the public
hearing to all parties which filed a written request for
notification of new or increased fees, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections
6062a, 66018 and 60629, notice of the public hearing was published
in a newspaper of general circulation twice within 10 days prior to
the public hearing and said notices were published at least five
days apart, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section
66016, estimated cost data was made available for public review at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing,and
public hearing was held on
.,.~ &~--9
WHEREAS, the Council wish~to adopt the amended Master
Fee Schedule, as set forth in A-ttatl.."el.t "B" I attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full,
WHEREAS,
the noticed
1993, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the amended Master Fee
Schedule as attached hereto, and hereby repeals all earlier
versions of said Master Fee Schedule, said changes and repeal to be
effective 60 days following adoption, in accordance with Government
Code Section 66017, except for the changes in Chapters I through
VIII, which are not subject to Government Code 66017 and shall
therefore be effective upon adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
,l),'L"L.' V-/
D. Richard Rudo ,\ Assistant
City Attorney
Lyman Christopher, Director of
Finance
Attachment #2-1
/1--4'
PHASE II
A IT ACHMENT #1
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
FEE UPDATES/ADDITIONS
~>>
P
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
ANIMAL CONTROL
1. Animal Impoundment Fees
First Offense $20 No change
Second Offense $30 $40
Third and Subsequent $30 $60
Fiscal Impact: $2,830
BUILDING AND HOUSING
2. Electrical Permits
Permit $10 $15
Supplemental Permit $4.50
NetJ.Jrate schedule/or individual systems, fixtures or units; asper1997UnifqtfJt
AdI1linistrativeCode
Fiscal Impact: $46,075
3. Housing Permits
1-6 units $62.60 $78
7-10 units $85.30 $106
11-15 units $102.40 $127
16+ units $102.40 + $127 +
$2.30/ea $2.90/ ea.
Fiscal Impact: $17,400
4. Plumbing Permits
Permit $10 $20
Supplemental Permit $10
New rate schedule for individual fixtures; as per 1991 UPC
. Fiscal Impact: $55,450
II~O
Attachment 1-1
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
5. Business License - Change of $5 $12
Location
Fiscal Impact: $250
6. Closing Out Sale $25 $30/first 60
days
$25/ extension
of 30 days
Fiscal Impact: $75
7. Massage Establishment/Technician
Investigations
Work Permit $25 $30
Establishment $100 $150
Fiscal Impact: $50
8. Pawnshop Employee ID Card
Investigation $20 $30
Change of $10
Address/Replacement
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(low volume)
DOCUMENTS
9. Engineering Documents
Annexation Plat, $.40/SF, $.65/SF,
Legal Description Minimum $2 Minimum
$3.25, as per
misc. maps
Charges4,mexatioIJplats .and l~gals .at same rate asotherengill~erfngl11tJPsalJ4
drawings
Fiscal Impact: $100
10. Master Fee Schedule $2 $6
Reflects current copying cost
Fiscal Impact: $40
11-5/
Attachment 1-2
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
11. Meeting Tape Set-up $3 $5
Fiscal Impact: $50
ENGINEERING
12. Adjustment Plat Examination Fee
Adjustment $231 $420
Consolidation $148 $360
Fiscal Impact: $6,518
13. Certificate of Compliance $25 $200
(independent of adjustment plat
examination)
Feehasnotbeenupdatedsince its adoption ill 1974 (Or,;l.#1$40J. Pr9Ppsedfe~
reflects actual staff time required and current hourly costs.
Fiscal Impact: $525
14. Construction Permit $62 $82
Fiscal Impact: $1,620
15. Deferral of Public Improvements
Filing Fee $234
Single Family $250
Multi-family, $335
Commercial, or
Industrial
Extension $30
Appeal $200
Fiscal Impact: $1,351
16. Driveways, Excessive Width
Filing Fee $46 $58
Appeal $200 . $250
Fiscal Impact: $120
/1-51-
Attachment 1-3
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
17. Encroachment Permit
Reviewed by Engineer $81 $105
Reviewed by Council $220 $250
Fiscal Impact: $528
18. Sewer Service Variances
Variance $80 $150
Minimum handling charge $2 $3.75
Fiscal Impact: $140
19. Sewer Construction Permit
Permit Fee $17 $30
4" lateral $884 + $24/ft. $3,015 +
in excess of $86/ ft. in
35' excess of 35'
6" lateral, in addition to costs $3 $3.80
for 4" lateral
Tap-ins 4" diam. $180 $317
6" diam. $180 $339
Fiscal Impact: $52,240
20. Street Overload/Transportation
Permit
Single Move $5 $8
Single House Move $55
Multiple $25 $40
Copies of Permit $1 $.15/pg.
Fiscal Impact: $1,431
21. Temporary Encroachment Permit $15 $30
Fiscal Impact: $110
22. Library Fines and Fees
Non-Calif. Resident Card $10 $20
Fiscal Impact: $1,800
ll- ~?>
Attachment 1-4
A. INCREASES IN EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
PLANNING
23. Environmental Review Processes
Review of previous initial $140 $600
study and the use of previous
Negative Declaration
.f'iii~#llt~#!~_~i#,i~~Il~i:";*'t~S'i1ffii!t~~l'#!t~ii4~t#fftime
r~ir~ftit~tWiri!~~l.~i
Fiscal Impact: $3,600
24. Modification/Extension of
Conditional Use Permit or Variance
No Hearing $140 $185
With Public Hearing $280 $380
Variance; Miscellaneous
No Hearing $200 $350
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
25. Zonirig Permit $15
Obtained prior to occupancy $15
Obtained after occupancy $45
Fiscal Impact: $1,200
,
PROCESSING FEES
26. Fingerprint Request
Residents $6 $8
Non-Residents $8 $10
Fiscal Impact $3,400
27. Returned Check Processing Fees $10 $15 if balance
paid within 10
calendar days;
$25 otherWise
Fiscal Impact: $1,500
ll--SL/
Attachment 1-5
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
ANIMAL CONTROL
,
1. Animal Impoundment Fees
~~'.(if~..ftir~iff#jf.#!~.~.'.Pff..!#VItl!f~"'nj)f.Pff.##irnIll
Fiscal Impact N/A
2. Animal Relinquishment
At Shelter $10
At-Home Pick-Up (Residents $10
only)
Resident
At Shelter Licensed $5
Unlicensed $15
Picked Up Licensed $15
Unlicensed $25
Non-Resident @ Shelter Only $25
Fiscal Impact: $17,600
3. Boarding $4/day
Dogs and Cats $5/day
Birds and Fowl $3/day
Goats, Sheep and other $8/day
Fiscal Impact $1,440
H-55
Attachment 1-6
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
4. Dog Ucenses
One Year $10
For dogs 6 mo. old or $8
younger
For dogs over 6 mo. $18
old
Two Year $18 $24
Three Year $26 $28
1)'ounger dogs .Clln only hOld a one year licimse dueJo .$hOrtercterfl1t1flCtf1!tlti01Z
ilChedules.
for SpayedprNeuteredl:Jpg, c1utrge shall (Je.5Q% Ojlici1ising fees
Penalty Ilate application $1.50 $3
License Replacement $1 $2 in person,
$3 by mail
License Transfer $2 $5
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
BUILDING AND HOUSING
5. Additional Plan Review, Inspection $30 or deposit Deposit
Fees
Mcstprojects(llrendiCg'Dered1Jy4eposit;prgposIJ1~Ull##qJtisiiJt~P)fZJ!~flBtJ~
m favor..fJj4ftwzl cost
Fiscal Impact: $1,000
6. Additional Plan Check and + an + an
Inspection - Energy Conservation additional aClditional
15% for plan 15% for plan
check and check and an
inspection additional
15% for
inspection
~t!tic..flqijfic4Jicm}.~~si;lii~tiJj..~.WJll..np.tCMnge.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Il-5li
Attachment 1-7
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
7. Additional Plan Check and + an + an
Inspection - Disabled Access additional additional
10% for plan 10% for plan
check and check and an
inspection additional
10% for
inspection
$&n4nHcciarifU:ation; assessment oJIeeswiJl.l'Jot ~hitl'fgt
Fiscal Impact: N/A
8. Compliance Survey Inspection $.75/SF, min. Deposit
$75
Fiscal Impact: $375
BUSINESS
8. Special Permits
Temporary Outside Sales $50 $45
Special Sales Event $35 $45
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
DEFINITIONS
9. Delinquent Payment
Mds ii~finitiol'!;nOl'le prepiollsly e~i$ted
Fiscal Impact: N/A
10. Low Income Standards
City standard,.has beenH!lP. sta1144td{NiW4efinitiofftO"ccepflllJP..$ta1144t4~
ti$updateq ead! year,
Fiscal Impact: N/A
II. Bid Documents
Postage/Handling $3 cost, $3
minimum
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
I cost)
11-51
Attachment 1-8
B.
ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES
12. Copying Fees
First page
Additional pages
Fiscal Impact:
Existing
$.75
$.15
Proposed
$.15
$.15
Impact
Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
13. Adjustment Plat Examination Fee
Shall include aCerlijiaJteoj C~mpliant;e,iJ nel'dedAltno extra cost; nocoonge
in base fee
Fiscal Impact:
14. Deferral of Undergrounding Utilities
Fiscal Impact:
$556
15. Plan Review, Encroachment and
Construction Permits
Plan Preparation and
Construction Survey Fees
$36-$504,
depending on
valuation
Construct Cost @ $10,000+
% of building
permit cost
Fiscal Impact:
16. Public Works Inspections - After
Hours
2.5 x hourly
rate
Deposit
Fees
eliminated; no
longer
applicable
Deposit
1.5 x hourly
rate w /FCR
Fiscal Impact:
P/I sal ad.ustsfdr.a . . Ie Werti1ne costreeo
.. -....-. --...-. ,....",..."......"...,....."",,-....,..._,....-.-,-,-'--,""""-'
OPO 1. ippTOpHlI . ... . .. very
( l-8Y
N/A
Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
Minimal net
impact
Attachment 1-9
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
17. Sewer Capacity Charge
Rropo~ildPP~~}#?!-lflii!iPi#~twi.i;~~S~{~uwr~~rat~~~ijI#itiqn
pf$lfJi!~mqjlitytJep4Jqif4~##ifi1?P$~iYJ4#EfiijiJ@9SJ~
Fiscal Impact: -$290,000
18. Street Name/Regulatory Signs
NlfJi!tatC St::1/.iduleuysiZi 4it4 fJiimi1J$igiifjit,td poles: ...F~.fMl~Wm...l1illed...at
cost
Fiscal Impact: N/A
19. Traffic Signal Participation
Fee per Average Daily Trip $10 $13
(ADT); ADT factors as
adjusted by SANDAG
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
20. Waiver of Public Improvements
Application $284 Deposi t
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impac
(enhanced
equity)
PLANNING
21. Appeals and Requested Actions 1/2 Deposit
application
fee, minimum
$125
Fiscal Impact: $4,000
22. Design Review $500 Fee Units
$390 1-4
$590 5-15
$1,000 16-100
Deposit 100+
Fiscal Impact: $21,000
ll-SCf
Attachment 1-10
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING FEES Existing Proposed Impact
23. Sign Permits
By Size $20-$50 $45
Ground and Pole Sign $105
Special/Temporary $50 $45
Fiscal Impact: $4,000
24. Site Plan and Architectural $100-$250 $0-$720
Approval
F<<...VlUieSd~ingilii...bU.ildirig...mIUidiOn
":-:-",-,,;,;,,-,,,:,;-,,;,;-;,:,,-;,;-;,'-";-:'.-'-;..;-' ,,;.;-;',;.:,'-,-,',-,'-',:' ..;-;.,:-:.::.'.;-:.::-,.,.;.,...,_._'...._,. ,-.,"':-"::,-""', .....
Fiscal Impact $16,000
25. Variances - Miscellaneous, requiring $440 Deposit
a Public Hearing
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(enhanced
equity)
26. Zoning Administrator Design
Review:
Processing Fee $200
Single Family Res. $200
2-4 units $300
5+ units Deposit
Fiscal Impact: $22,000
c. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
BUILDING AND HOUSING
1. Board of Appeals - Administrative Deposit
Hearing
Fiscal Impact $2,400
ll-{,O
Attachment 1-11
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
2. Certificate of Occupancy
Final $70
Temporary $70
Fiscal Impact: $9,100
3. Foundation-Only Building Permits 25% of permit
fee or as
otherwise
determined
following
request for
Building
Official review
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
4. Mechanical Permits
Supplemental permit $4.50
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
5. Mobile Home/ Accessory Structure Per state
Permits requirements
Fiscal Impact: N/A
(currently
collected)
6. Plan Maintenance/Microfilming 2% of permit
Charge fee,
Minimum $5
Fee reCovers. cost . oj$tate ..maml4tt?4Ijt4iI'#~qoL1m}je:~Jpldnspi4
mfdofilmitfg
Fiscal Impact: $20,000
7. Strong Motion Instrumentation Per state
requirements
qo$ts...tlrl..C!lrrtntlY...fJe:ihg.~....t11!o,.,g1i;...pi~.Wilr..iii#..ilff~(t...P$~futnt..9J
fees
Fiscal Impact: N/A
ll-Ctl
Attachment 1-12
---r-~
C NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
BUSINESS
8. Holistic Health Practitioner
Refundable investigation fee $100
J>t#P<!tf#tiiimt#&~ppJ!f~~#Vt$ffgqtic#~~liij:jp!tfi#!ti$i'iqt4J~glt#flt!te
WfSf,i~~~
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(refundable;
low volume)
9. Live Entertainment
Refundable investigation fee $150
,!j>~tiiiiUi!~P9~I(j'~i~.~lg4~6#~t~~Ii!j:jp!i~ti$nq~4!,Si:~ffi'i4t,
bUS...........................
........ m($$per$4~
..::.;-:.,...,'..:.;.;.,.;-,-..'-:...,.:..,-,....-:'........:..
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact
(refundable;
low volume)
10. Mobile Home Park Annual Per state
Operating Fee requirements
!lri1t@l$af~ty#jt.ik.#~#4te#;~~t4gi'#bYt4~?t4t~
Fiscal Impact: N/A
(currently
collected)
DOCUMENTS
1 1 Computer Records
Printouts $5, +$.04 per
page
Data media 3-1 /2" disk $1.00
5-1 /4" disk $.60
8" disk $2.50
1200 ft. tape $8.50
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
I impact (low
volume)
ll-lo;}-
Attachment 1-13
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
12. Engineering Documents
Street Design Standards $3.00
Policy
Annual Traffic Flow $3.00
Resale of Publications @ city cost
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
13. Faxing $.4O/page;
$.50/ page
outside SD
County but in
US; $4/first
pg.,
$3 / additional
pgs. for
international
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
14. Delinquency Fee 20% of
assessment
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volUlIte;
enhanced
equity)
LIBRARY
15. Processing Fee for Lost Books or $5
Audio/Visual Materials
Niw..aptofri4tfit .9itcqI4t(~n.~Y~~i~~~~gq..qllitWsfoffedpf1qY...iJf..rWzil..pric!
plus..fil1(!,S;f~~...ifp1i#(!,Sijfl;Rl~fi#~...t~riu~wft.Jfhi$..fHrr~ijJ'fl.b#fngiost
Fiscal Impact: $2,500
1[-43
Attachment 1-14
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impact
PLANNING
16. Construction Changes; additional
plan review and inspection
..---.,
No site visit required $45
Site visit required $90
Fiscal Impact: $900
POLICE
17. Alarm Permit - Delinquency Fee 20% of fee
Fiscal Impact: Mini~n(d n:1t
impa;" t ('en\!
volume;
enhanced
equity)
18. Waiver of Public Improvements
Appeal Fee $200
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume)
ENGINEERING
19. Industrial Wastewater - Delinquency 20% of fee
Fee
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume;
enhanced
equity)
20. Industrial Wastewater - Compliance Pass through
Charges costs
Recovery of compliance charges billed to Chula Vista for treatment t#$an mego
facilities and of City's costs to bill non-complying industries directly
Fiscal Impact: N/A
J l-utJ
Attachment 1-15
C. NEW FEES Existing Proposed Impacl
21. Storm Drains - Delinquency Fee 20% of fee
Fiscal Impact: Minimal net
impact (low
volume;
enhanced
equity)
FIRE DEPARTMENT FEES
22. Flammable and/or Combustible
Liquid Storage Tanks
Installation $50
Removal $50
Fiscal Impact: $10,000
U-u5
Attachment 1.16
D. OTHER
BUSINESS
Existing
Proposed
.
Impact
1. Bingo License Investigations - New
and Renewal
Chairperson $50
Co-chairperson(s) $27
~tfgI1Pf~~mgm~pyr4m~!ftwti;##~#Jf:4!'Y{i:!t4i~~~87
Fiscal Impact:
2. Citywide Business License Listings
Full Listing $40
Monthly Listings $10
Subscription - Picked $50
Up
Subscription - Mailed $80
fei$.fgrmali#...pr<ro~igl1...pf...1;epgtt~Ptifi#p@ly...J@ti4l?4....m9...~I..r~tqh;
reqUests
Fiscal Impact: $525
N/A
DOCUMENTS
3. Agenda and Minutes Subscriptions (per year)
g!"!#n-Ci1;...P1&ti#ing.gg!ml1iSSigtj...o/~el()fJfiiC#t...;.1gmfY
Agenda and Minutes $70 $90
Agendas Only $30
Minutes Only $65
Other Boards $20 $12
Fiscal Impact:
$540
ENGINEERING
4. Construction Permits - Utilities
Adoption oj existing feqby resolution;Ord. #2521
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
ll-ulP
Attachment 1.16b
I
\.
D. OTHER Existing Proposed Impact
5. Street Marking Fees Existing rates
added to
M.F.S.
Fiscal Impact: Minirr,al net
i.nj:Jdct
(currently
assessed by
agreement)
6. Sewage Pump Station I Existing rates
added to
M.F.S.
,
Fiscal Impact: N/A
(CU.'~1 'h.
.......... .-J
asses&ed by
ordinance)
RECREATION
7. Swimming Classes
Beginners $10.50 $18
Advanced $16.50 $18
Tiny Tots $16.50 $19
Parent and Tots (per pair) I $16.50 $19
Existing fees in Master Fee Schedule are out of date. Fees.. currently charged as
per Parks and Rea-eation program brochure.
Fiscal Impact: NiA
ll- Len
Attachment 1-17
D.
OTHER
Existing
Proposed
Impact
8. Swimming Fees
Daily Pool Admission
Adult
Child
$.75 per
person
.----..-
$50
$30
$40
. - - _.
$15
er Parks and Recreation program brochure -
, ..
~-
Annual Passes
Family
Senior
Fees currently charged as p
Fiscal Impact:
FISCAL IMPACT TOTALS
General Fund
Traffic Signal
Sewer Fund
Net Annual Impact
$299,400
$10,000
-$237,600
$71,800
11-& 8'
A.!-:-~:"!.""-r::~\' c_'~ I ~
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item IJ
Meeting Date 3/16/93
ITEM TITLE:
Report: Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, EIR-90-02 (SCH
#90010155)
Public Hearing: PCM 93-14, PCZ 93-H; Application by San Miguel
Partners for approval of a General Development Plan and Planned
Community Pre-Zone for San Miguel Ranch, located southeast of
Sweetwater Reservoir, west and south of Mother Miguel Mountain, and
northeast of Proctor Valley Road - San Miguel Partners, applicant
Resolution
Miguel Ranch
Approving the General Development Plan for San
SUBMITTED BY:
Ordinance Establishing the Planned Community Pre-Zone
Director of Planning/Ji!l{
Ci~ """'f
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.lO
REVIEWED BY:
With concurrence of the applicant, staff requests continuance of this item to iApri 1 13, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council continue this item until Ap r i 1 13, 1993.
1..2"/
M
~J'!.( J"""
I ;:.
e
,
BRIAN R BILBRAY
CHAIRMAN
IU~RVtSO~ "..IT D1ITlIltC1
IAN OliGO COUNTY Q()AR(l OF SUPERIJlSOAs
March 16, 1993
The Honorable Tim Nader
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
27fJ Fourth Avenue
Chllln Vista, California 91910
RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PROPOSED
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Dear Mayor Nader:
The County appreciates the opportunity to review the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan. We have also
received the responses to our letters of comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
and Supplement.
We remain very concerned with this project and its impacts to the circulation system in the
unincorporated area of Sweetwater. The impacts to the County's roads that would result
from this project are not being mitigated. and are being put off until some future date when
the SPA will be prepared. The County believes that these transportation impacts and
llppropriate mitigation should he addressed at this stage, and not put off into the future.
We continue in our p()~ition that transportation impacts are significant and not mitigable.
SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION CONCERNS
The County's main concern remains that access for the project is totally inadequate. The
project relies on c:vemual construction of II planned four lane road, Rancho San Miguel
Road, for direct access. This road would be wholly within the County's jurisdiction. The
/) -~
COVHTY AOMINISTft&TtON CDlTER 1800 PACIFIC "IGHWAY . ROOM 335 BAN DIme. CAft10t-a470 fl1. ",..a" "AX ",.,..7-4025
(:.totUlA YllTAOfFJCe'. 430OAvtDION ITNn, 8UfrI D -CMUI"A'ttITACAb01..M11 ..'.......,..
C"
7 Ii -'...l :"' i ti '0 ~,I C (1 ~ ~ i c- F._' CI T ..J 'E' ItJ
6~toq- 1>:>;-619' ON l3l __
I~t:n
-2-
County's Circulation Element designates San Miguel Road as a two lane light collector west
of one of the possihle routes for SR-125. This plan does not envision the magnitude of
traffic that would be generated by this project, and the road would not provide for even a
portion of the project's traffic. The County has no plans to upgrade this road to a higher
classification nor are any funds identified to construct improvements.
The project will also use Bonita Road and will generate significant new traffic that will use
the road system in the unincorporated area of Bonita. The County's concerns regarding
impacts to the County's circulation system have essentially gone unanswered, with any
possible solutions being left to the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) stage. This is not
acceptable. The time to address these issues, and to determine whether or not
transportation impacts could render the project as proposed infeasible, is now, not some
undetermined point in the future.
The interchange of San Miguel Road and SR 125 also presents problems. Interchange
design is a concern, but the bigger concern is that the applicant assumes this interchange
will be in the location he prefers. There is currently no agreement on where interchanges
in this area will be located, and no guarantee that an interchanie will be located at this
intersection.
QYERRIDING FINDINGS
The Statement of Overriding Considerations contains a number of "benefits" that appear to
be just the fulfillment of typical subdivision requirements and/or are mitigation measures
for this project. For example, the construction of roads through the project and fair share
contribution to off-site roads hardly seems to be a benefit over and beyond what would
normally be required of any subdivision. Additionally, the preservation of open space is
mitigation for the negative impacts to biology caused by this project and should not be
considered as a condition for an override. Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are either
mitigation measures or typical project requirements and should not be considered as a basis
for overriding considerations.
The override makes a number of statements and claims regarding benefit, but does not
provide a rationale for these statements. Each statement should be amplified on to provide
further information on why and how these items really are benefits.
1:2 ~$
cn....l 7Ti:'__nl\l ('ii.,....,. C.::_.QT lPLI
C.f'oh(')_Tt"'..r' ~T"..,.Mo...L_....."
-3.
CONCLUSION
The County remains concerned with the environmental impacts of this proposed project and
the lack of responsiveness on the pan of the City of Chula Vista to meaningfully address
these concerns. Issues raised in the February 5, 1992 and February 10, 19931elters from the
County should be resolved now, prior to approval of the General Development Plan for this
project. More effective and thorough planning needs to be done at this stage so that well
reasoned decisions can be made and later problems can be averted,
Sincerely,
~n~..q ~
Chairman
San Diego County Roard of Supervisors
BB:TC:jb
cc: Robert Leiter, Director, ChuJa Vista PJarming Department
ChuJa Vista City Councilmcmbers
;:/-5
'O'd ZlC'ON ~D:~l is'91 JeH
6~'9-1~S-619'ON l31
HltJl
~~~
:-l!!t:.. ~
~~~~
.............,~
QQ
_-I
-<-< :::u
THE CITY OF ~~ "" ITl
.....e"') · (')
CHULA iisrfA ~
....,,- 'Cl C
. c=5~ ~
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICll(fION
--
~
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
11 ,fi & II 8W
nji
II.. .'. i 'liIir~ 0,
,"4.(' .JIIlII'fll~_
II Pi
, -
,: .~~
-,-..~
.-,..;;
-...._--..~
Please Indicate Your Interest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s)
If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest
_ Board of "-als
Ch it d Care
_____ Cmsm on Aging
_ Elderly & Handicapped COlt
_____ Int. Friendship emsn
_ Montgomery C.P.C.
_____ Planning emsn
_____ Town Centre Proj. Area Cmt
Chuta Vista 21
Board of Ethics
Civil Service Omsn
_____ Design Rev Cmt
_____ Growth Mgmt. Cmsm
_____ Library Board of Trustees
______ Otay Valley Proj. Area trot
~ Resource tonsv emsn
_ united Nations Day cmt
UC - CV
Charter Revi ew
Cultural Arts
Economic Oev.
Hl.IMn Rel. emsn
Mobi Lehane Rent Review Cmsm.
Parks & Rec emsn
_____ Safety emsn
Youth Cmsn
OTHER
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME: c."~a
HOME ADDRESS: e...
RES. PHONE NO. ..... BUS. PHONE NO.
c..hlAl" V,'S~ ZIP: q 1910
REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: ~ _
YES NO
DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA?
YE'S NO
Ilh. 'f eP.. rS
.Youth commission Applicants ONLY: School Attending
Grade:
,
E>S '" f!"'a'o')l ~"o""" Scin I'\~" S{...f.>
r'\S ,'^ Gc..-.e.J.,<"
PRESENT EMPLOYER: r'\ 0\ e..c..u. \;r e, ,'" 5'1 'So t".l'V\S POSITION:
WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY RNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S)
TO THOSE AREAS? ,
k"ocu\~A~<> ,', 1,-,.",-I-e.J b...~ .I: do k",o,,>
ClV\ e ~c.{.s 0" r\,,-I-\v< ~<..
Unl'ver-s"7
COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD:
s+a ~ f(e.s~rch. Il~"f\('. 7f
~
(ll>..Dflo
,
SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRING
~
-k. <:'0" {,.,..:t
.
WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH BY YOUR PARTICIPATION?
-f In"",,"'1 S" ~or.. a.~cl -Cau....a
e,<<.~.,... l!..t\"..rO>'1"'.."-t" :tro+ecc:~-,b"
cl.o r\O +- be CD""",- e..h a. "jP r- e.&,
Q~
I am familiar with the responsibilities assigned to the Board/Commission/Committee on which I wish to serve.
cy~ i? H/V-" AP-", -""'.(}
SIGNATURE
. . . PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THI
+..~ 7~(")q3
//1,. _; OAT CC-Oll
7 tc. lERf IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION * * *
.::-._.....
MJE:MOMND1UM
COUNCIL COMMENTS
March 3, 1993
FROM:
Legislative Committee
sid W. Morris, Assistant city Manager /GA
tJM~\ .JJ
Daniel D. Beintema, Senior Management Assista~
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Legislative Analysis
REQUIRING COUNCIL DISCUSSION/ACTION
1. AB 193 (Goldsmith): prevailina Waaes - Exemptions
AB 193 proposes to allow local jurisdictions to adopt an
ordinance exempting them from public works project prevailing
wage requirements, as specified.
RECOMMENDATION:
and to permit
flexibili ty.
SUPPORT in an effort to clarify existing law
other non-chartered jurisdictions needed
cc: Advocation, Inc.
File
15'4-'/
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
March 3, 1993
BILL AUTHOR TITLE INTRODUCED AMENDED
AB 193 GOLDSMITH PREVAILING WAGE 1/21/93 --
CITY POSITION LEAGUE POSITION RELATED BILLS ADDRESSED BY LEG. PROGRAM
PENDING SUPPORT AB 192 NO.
STATUS: ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
BACKGROUND: EXISTING LAW GENERALLY REQUIRES PREVAILING WAGES TO BE PAID ON PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS. CHARTER CITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY PREVAILING
WAGE RATES FOR PROJECTS WHICH ARE "MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS", AND DO NOT
CONFLICT WITH SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVELY ESTABLISHED POLICY UNLESS
REQUIRED AS A PERMISSIBLE CONDITION OF STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING.
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 2504 ON 4/7/92, ELEVATING
EXISTING POLICY REGARDING PREVAILING WAGE EXEMPTIONS TO THE LEVEL OF
AN ORDINANCE, THEREBY CLARIFYING THAT THE COUNCIL IS NOT WAIVING ANY
OF ITS HOME RULE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO IT BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION
AS A CHARTER CITY.
AB 193 would: SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE A CHARTERED OR GENERAL LAW CITY OR COUNTY TO
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE EXEMPTING THE PUBLIC WORKS OF THAT
JURISDICTION FROM PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT IN THOSE
CASES WHERE THE PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES IS REQUIRED BY THE
TERMS OF A STATE OR FEDERAL GRANT, OR THE WORK IS OTHERWISE A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.
FISCAL IMPACT: NONE LOCALLY. MUCH-NEEDED SAVINGS COULD BE REALIZED IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS WHICH CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT
SUCH AN ORDINANCE.
DATE TO COUNCIL
Legislative Committee
3/3/93
RECOMMENDATION
SUPPORT
LETTERS
YES
C:\(ANAl YSESI\AB193.ANA
I~ --,)..
,
CALIFORNIA LEGISL\TURE-I993-94 REGUL\R SESSION
ASSEMBL Y BILL
No. 193
Introduced by Assembly Member Goldsmith
January 21, 1993
An act to amend Section 1771 of, and to add Section 1771.1
to, the Labor Code, relating to public works.
LEGISL\TIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 193, as introduced, Goldsmith. Public works:
prevailing wages: cities.
Existing law generally requires the payment of prevailing
wages to all workers employed on public works.
This bill would authorize a chartered or general law city or
county, by a majority vote of its governing body, to adopt a
resolution or ordinance exempting the public works of that
city or county from prevailing wage requirements except in
those cases where the payment of prevailing wages is
required by the terms of a state or federal grant, or the public
work is otherwise a matter of statewide concern.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 1771 of the Labor Code is
2 amended to read:
3 1771. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) or
4 for public works projects of one thousand dollars ($1,000)
5 or less, not less than the general prevailing rate of per
6 diem W8.g~s for work of a similar character in the locality
7 in 'which the public work is performed, and not less than
8 the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday
9 and overtime work fixed as provided in this chapter, shall
)'>A-,:J
AB 193
-2-
1 be paid to all workers employed on public works.
2 (b) This section is applicable only to work performed
3 under contract, and is not applicable to work carried out
4 by a public agency with its own forces. This section is
5 applicable to contracts let for maintenance work. This
6 section shall not apply to a public work of a city or countv
7 that adopts a resolub'on or ordinance pursuant to Section
8 1771.1, unless the payment of not less than the general
9 prevailing rate of per diem wages is required by a state
10 or federal grant or the public work is otherwise a matter
II of statewide concern.
12 SEe. 2. Section 1771.1 is added to the Labor Code, to
13 read:
14 1771.1. The governing body of any city or county,
15 whether charter or general law, may adopt, by the
16 affirmative vote of a majority of its members, a resolution
17 or ordinance Providing that the wage requirements of
18 Section 1771 shall apply to a public work of that city or
19 county only if required by a federal or state grant or if
20 that public work is otherwise a matter of statewide
21 concern.
15,,-~'f
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
f- ),/
t/ .C[
Item: ..?. tf
J
\
i
~
Meeting Date: April 7, 1992
-,' .-1.;'
Ordinance Nc., "..' :,:>,;"'j- AJc:.:.n':l Sectiori 2.58.060 to the
Chula Vista Municipal Code regulating the payment
of prevailing wages. for contracts let by the city.
Resolution No. 1&..5/{, - Announcing the Council's
Intent to Award the Bids on the Fifth Avenue
Project, Naples to Orange, on the Basis of the Bid
Alternate A, without Requiring the Payment of
Prevailing Wage. 1l,J)
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney ~ ~
John P. Lippitt, Public Works Director~
.Reviewed by: City Manage7L:-
[/
Agenda Classification: Action Item
Item Title:
Submitted by:
4/5ths vote: ( ) Yes (X) No
~' The proposed ordinance will elevate our existing policy on the
payment of prevailing wage, now contained in Resolution 12493, to
the level of an ordinance, t~~r~by cl~r3fying that the Council is
not waiving any of its ho.m:~i,:" (.'.t~.. ~.t ty gram:.ed to it by the
State Constitution as a charter city.
The proposed resolution will create a condition of ripeness
that will permit opponents to our determination not to pay pre-
vailing wages on the Fifth Avenue project to litigate that issue
prior to our having become contractually obligated to the bidder to
whom the project is let.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Ordinance which permits maximum flexibility
to the City in deciding whether to pay the prevailing wage rate on
pUblic projects. I
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Not applicable
DISCUSSION:
4J.
wages8.wp
April 2, 1992
I.' '. re Fifth Avenue Project
Page 1
~/~"S
..
. "
Labor Code section 1770 et seq. purports to require a public ~
entity to pay prevailing wages on public works projects. A ,
chartered city is not required to pay prevailing wage rates for ~
projects which are "municipal affairs," and do not conflict with
significant Legislatively established policy (matters referred to
as "statewide concerns") unless required as a permissible condition
of state or Federal funding.
I have opined in the attached Legal Memorandum that the City
is not required to pay prevailing wages in connection with the
Fifth Avenue project.
A recent case on this subject suggests that a charter city may
waive its home rule authority to pay prevailing wages. The
attached Ordinance is designed to make it clear that the Council
has not waived, and does not waive, such power.
On May 20, 1986, the City adopted Resolution No. 12493 (copy
attached) limiting payment of the prevailing wage to projects
required to have the prevailing wage due to their funding by state
or Federal programs. :."
The attached Ordinance adds section 2.58.060, further
elevating the policy determinations inherent in Resolution No.
12493, by limiting, as a matter of ordinance, the City's duty to
pay the prevailing wage on city public works projects which are a
city's municipal affair only where: 1) required by Federal or State
grants; 2) there is a conflicting "statewide concern" otherwise .
requiring the payment of prevailing wages; or 3) the prevailing
wage is authorized by the city Council.
The Ordinance better conforms to current law and should
benefit the City by reducing project costs.
The reasons for adopting the attached ordinance is to raise
the policy choice of not requiring the payment of prevailing wages,
except where required to do so, to the level of an ordinance.
As such, it will make it clear the Council does not waive the
home rule authority that a charter city has with regard to its
choice not to have to pay prevailing wages.
An explanation of the l~w in th3s ,rea, and the reasons for
'this exercise of authori~y ~~3 'O~. :~!:y set ~ut in the Legal
Memorandum attached hereto.
The project which brings this matter to the public agenda is
the proposed improvement of Fifth, Avenue, between Naples and
Orange. The legal issue is whether, a local road project funded
with Trans Net funds is a municipal affair protected from intrusion
wages8.wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Fifth Avenue Project
Page 2
.
~ /~4." /,
"..""'....""". :J
""' ,
)'t;.//
, by the state Legislative requirement for the payment of prevailing
wages.
i'~
'\.
,;I
IJ)
The legal issue is a matter of first case impression in this
state, and although I am thoroughly convinced that it is a correct
interpretation of the law in this area, if this Office is wrong
with regard thereto, I would like that determination made prior to
subjecting the low bidder to a Division of Labor Standards
enforcement action, and his employees, and the employees of his
subcontractors, to the paymen~, ,of a lelii.s~:r: wage than that to which
they are legally entitled., ,',' '0 :.;,.,:<,
Thus, in order to make this issue ripe for litigation if any
party so desires,V in advance of having to become contractually
bound to the lowest bidder, I request that the Council adopt the
attached resolution announcing their intention to award the bid on
the basis of Bid Alternate A (without the payment of prevailing
wage) to the lowest responsible bidder, reserving the right to the
fullest extent of the law, to waive any bid irregularities.
Fiscal Impact:
If the City is able to avoid the payment of prevailing wages,
as regards the Fifth Avenue Project, there will be a savings of
about $50,000, or about 6%, based on the difference between the low
bidder's submittal of Alternate A and Alternate B. '
If the same ratio of savings can be expected throughout the
Local Road Portion of the Trans Net funding scheme, the city may be
able to generate a savings of $1,200,000, or get $1,200,000 more in
the way of road improvements accomplished for the same money.
1. The attorney for the second lowest bidder, Errecca, Inc., under
the prevailing wage bid, Bid Alternate B, has represented that they
may desire to contest my determination that the City does not have
to pay prevailing wage on this project. The attached resolution is
intended to make such a lawsuit ripe for determination without
actually having to award the bid.
wages8.wp
April 2, 1992
Al13 re Fifth Avenue Project
Page 3
~ J~-7
CONFIDENTIAL
May 29, 1992
To:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council
John D. Goss, City Manager fl.\.l
Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney\~
Non-Prevailing Wages Paid on Public Works Projects
Funded in Part with Gas Tax Revenues
From:
Re:
I have recently been consulted by the Public Works Department as to
whether or not projects funded in part with Gas Tax require the
payment of prevailing wages.
The projects which makes th~~ ~ m~cl~l u~ some urgency are the
Orange Avenue from Loma Lane to Max Avenue and Cross-Gutter Removal
Hilltop Drive and Naples street project estimated to be bid out at
approximately $90,000.
Upon review of the "Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures"
and a telephone conservation with one. Mr. Al Porras (1-818-575-
7078), who is in the office of the state Controller and administers
on behalf of the state the Gas Tax Program, there is no requirement
in the state law or Guidelines requiring the payment of prevailing
wage and in his twenty or so years of administering the program,
the question has not been asked before as to whether projects by
cities funded in part with Gas Tax require the payment of
prevailing wage.
There is, therefore, no logical reason to believe that a different
rule would be applied to Gas Tax funds than there would be applied
to Transnet funds. In other words, if our legal theory is correct
that the use of Transnet funds does. not require the payment of
prevailing wage even though it may be an extraterritorial source of
funding, the use of Gas Tax funds also would not require the
payment of prevailing wage.
However, despite the previously adopted policy by the City Council
regarding the payment of prevailing wage, I would request the
deference of the Council to not create the legal battle around the
uSe of Gas Tax funds but would rather prefer to engage the legal
battle around the use of the Transnet funds to avoid drawing
statewide opposition to our practice. From a strategic standpoint,
it would be best, I believe, to litigate the validity of this new
legal argument in the context of Transnet funds and if we are
successful there, we can apply it on a broader basis to other
extraterritorial funding sources such as Gas Tax funds.
I~-Y
C SACRAMENTO ADDRESS
5T A 'iE CAPITOL
~3ACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-2484
;--. DISTRICT ADDRESS
12307 OAK KNOLl. SUITE A
POWAY, CA 92064
(619) 486-5191
J\ssemhl~
(llalifllrnia 1fi.egislarur:e
JAN GOLDSMITH
TRANSPORTATION
JUDICIARY
LABOR &. EMPLOYMENT
CONSUMER DROTECT10N,
GOVERNMENT ::::FFICIENCY,
3: NEW TECHNOLOGy
ASSEMBLYMAN, SEVENTY-F1FiH DiSTRICT
~~
7~::>-'f~~ 7),......
I;;:;'~."w';
~'-." . c::.-." ". .......
C. :~;t1':~~J.r._,-,E
~~~~':t:.
-{l-"Y~<"~
~
February 19, 1993
Mayor Tim Nader
City of Chula vista
P.o. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
Dear Mayor Nader:
I am writing to request your city council's endorsement of AB-193
regarding prevailing wage.
I'm convinced that California's taxpayers are getting ripped off
on public work projects and financially strapped local government
is being held hostage to outdated wage formulas -- all at a time
when our economy can ill afford it.
California is one of only two states in the country to require
union wages be paid on virtually all public works projects.
mandate applies to construction of schools, public buildings,
and more- even if no state funding is involved.
that
This
roads
This mandate drives up the cost of public projects by some 20%,
including projects in your city and regional projects such as
construction of Transnet highway and transit proj ects. What's
more, it imposes administrative burdens and paperwork on local
governments.
AB-193 would allow counties, cities, school districts and other
special districts the choice of exemption of the prevailing wage
law on local proj ects . This would give more control to the
jurisdictions above to save revenues. Having taken money from
local government last year, the state must stop driving up the
costs of local government projects.
Enclosed is background information explaining prevailing wage, a
copy of AB-193, a letter of support from The League of California
cities (who will be contacting you soon regarding this bill) and
a copy of an article which I authored discussing this issue.
I would appreciate it if you would share the information I have
enclosed and please include this matter on your agenda at your next
city council meeting. Letters of support should be sent to:
Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith
Room 2002, state Capitol
sacramento, CA 94814
Attn: Jot Condie
I~ -'1
"r: ::,~ ~;n .-~eCiCfe,J ,;::J,,-C~!
" ,
.
I look forward to working with you on this and many other issues
to benefit the citizens of San Diego County and the people of the
State of California.
Sin erely,
:J GOLDSMITH
5th Assembly District
Enclosures
cc: city Manager
JG/kr
Is;". -/ P
.
BACKGROUND
The term "prevailing wage" is often confused with "minimum
wage." In fact, the two are extremely dissimilar. The nation's
minimum is set a specific level for every employee in virtually
every industry; prevailing wage vary from federal to state, from
region to region and only apply to public works construction
trade laborers.
Prevailing wage laws were first enacted at the federal level
through the adoption of the Davis-Bacon Act in 1931. Prevailing
wage regulations called for the payment of specified wages to
workers on federally-funded construction projects.
Individual states soon began adopting similar laws which
apply to state-funded construction projects. California was
actually ahead of the game by adopting prevailing wage provisions
building codes existed in the United States. Today, however,
proponen~s of the federal Davis-Bacon and the state "Little
Davis-Bacons" are still trying to argue that the laws are needed
to ensure a living wage to competent workers on taxpayer-funded
construction projects.
An unusual provision in the California law requires private
contractors working on a private building to comply with the law
if 50 percent of the building is going to be leased to the state.
Prevailing wages are set by the direc~or of the Department
of Industrial Relations. California anc Minnesota are the only
two states which calculate their prevailing wage on a "modal" or
the most often occurring wage in an area - as opposed to an
average or mean. By using the modal method, the actual
"prevailing wage" of an area is distorted. Since the most often
occurring wage is usually that of a collective bargaining
agreement, California's prevailing wages end up being the same as
union wage, not the average of the union and non-union wages.
Since the market rate for construction employees in most
areas of the state is considerably lower, the imposition of
prevailing wages on public works projects unnecessarily inflates
project cost.
RESOURCES
National Association of Minority Contractors
California Department of Industrial Relations, Prevailing
Wage Division
Association of Woman Contractors
American Legislative Exchange Council
Right to Work Foundation
National Foundation of Independent Business
University of California, Facilities and Construction
Department
Florida State Department of Education
/s;.. - ) I
'~~ai.'lornl(1 Lilies
Nork iogefher
League of California Cities
,~.
.....
iii..
....
...
....
.. ....
-.
January 26, 1993
Assembly Member Jan Goldsmith
State Capitol
Room 2002
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Goldsmith:
I am pleased to inform you that the League of California Cities supports your AB 193
regarding prevailing wage for certain public works projects.
r
In these exceedingly difficult fiscal times for all levels of government, your bill adds needed
flexibility for local governments. AB 193 would allow those local governments, who so
choose, to waive prevailing wage requirements for entirely locally funded public works
projects. Cities have estimated they can save up to 20% of costs by choosing this option.
Importantly, your bill would not force any jurisdiction to change their contracting practices
unless they wish to do so. With the Governor's budget proposing the extraction of literally
billions of dollars from local governments, allowing municipalities the flexibility to deal with
the inevitable shortfalls makes good sense.
<
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our position.
Sincerely,
r;J~tl ~
David A. Jones
Legislative Representative
ab193.spt
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE
BOX ?G05. '_AFAYETTE. CA 9..15..19
')IOIZS]-21T]
HEADQUARTERS
'400 K STRE::T. SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
(916\ 444-') 790
Is;. -/.2.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF!CE
602 EAST HUNTINGTON OR SUITE C
\1CNROV1A CAlTOH3
8181 JUS.;3':)
~:::3-1 >;-' '3:: D'?: ..!.t,
JNDAY.i'EBRUARY l~. 1993.,
, ' ....
State bows
to unions and
top dollar
prevails
JA.~ aOLDSM1TW}\u TM r;me! .4.duoca'il
It's called the
ltprevailing wage.";
But it'e r..lll' Cali-
fornia'a most "pre~:
vailing rip-off:
It'e the reason un-'
skilled flagmen have.
earned $25 per hour on Califor-
nia road~building projects, find
window deanors have earned
$26 per hour. It's the reason
. AS I SEE IT
state and local governments al-
ways pay ihe highest possible,
rate for work. And it's one of the
reasons why California faces a'
mountain of debt. .
The federal government and
most staus have Pf€veiling wage,
1aw8 that contro!'the wege raws
on public worko projects. They
figure the rate by averaiPng
union and non-union wages.
Makes .e"e., but that's not
how it'. done in California.
Here. the formula forco. COn-
tracton to pay top union wage.
California.'s mandate .;:o....ers
not only state project. but virtll-
ally every puhlic project - from
filling potholes to building li-
braries. schools and parks -
even if no 8tatl? ronde are use,
Here's how it works: The .tate
.eto the prevailing wage a, the
one paid to a majority of worken
in a field. rr a majority isn't paid
an identical wage, then the larg-
est number of workers with the
same wage eets the rate.
Because union 8cale occurea
most frequently. the reeult Ie
that prevailing wage always
equale the union wage.
Only two .tate, - California
and Minne,ota - wandat.
union wages instead of the av.r-
age market rate. Tl>e law'. pur-
pose is to protect unions Crom
competition. Under an open bid-
ding proc.... non-union con.
tracton with lower wage r.tu
!lould have an advantag.. So
l!alifornia fore., th.m to pad
their wage, to .qua! union scale
and l.vel tbe lield for union
shops.
; [I: :..:'<:::,'-:i,t GLI:,'-:i'tn"i '75TH T'::L
For taxpayer>, however, the
field i, far from lovel. According
to several studies - including
one by the nonpartisan Califor-
nia Legislative Analyet - the
pravailing wage law costs atatt:!
taxpayer! 20 percent more. So
for every school built. every road
paved, td.Xpay~rs have to ~g on
20 percent extra.
This overcharging amount, to
$340 million each year on ot"t.
projects. "''hen local projects are
included. the figure. could ex-
ceed .$700 million.
I have introduced two bills to
addre3s these iS51..1.e5. AB 192
would change California's pre~
vailing wage formula so that it
~onform9 with 48 other statM
and the federal governmeIlt. The
wage would be determined by
averaging union and non~l..mion
pay rates. ..
AB 193 would allow citie. and
counties to decide their own pol.
idea. - and be free of the stateJd
prevailing wage mandates if they
chooee - whell no .tate fur.ds
are used. Because the .tate haa
been extracting money from lo-
cal government to help balanca
the stat>3'S budget, it's time for
the state to atop requiring pt)li-
ci~s which !ai8e local gov~rn~
ment'., cosu.
Expect intense oppoeition to
AB 192 and AB 193 from Big La.
bar. I propose to end one of th~ir
pet protectionist programs.
Big Labor will trot out the
tired arguments that workers
hind at the existing prevailing
wage (read; l.:.n{on scale) are
mors skilled, better trained and
more productive. But the truth
is that because non-union con-
tractors can win public work.
job. and muat pay inflated wage,
to the same employees who a1.o
work on private commercial
construction, prevailing wage
law only increa.es co.te.
With an $8.6 billion budget
delicit, declining revenue. and
financially stretched iocal gov-
ernments, we do not have the
money to pay more than we
should for outside contract la-
bor.
In good congcience, we must
reform Callfornia'a prevailing
wage law.
Jin Gold.mlttt represents U'li& 15th
A...moly OlOtIlCl.
'"
~.. D:
~O~'l F01
a
~
8
~
~
'"
""
~
z
"
ti
~
'"
'"
/~ --1;1