HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/08/18 Item 15COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
• Item 15
Meeting Date 8/18/87
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Considering revisions to the Master Fee
Schedule
Resolution 1~3,~~/~ Revising the Master Fee Schedul e
SUBMITTED BY: Principal Management Assistant
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~,~ ` ~~% (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
,/
BACKGROUND:
On September 23, 1982, the Chula Vista City Council held a workshop to discuss
the concept of full cost recovery (FCR) as it related to Chula Vista's fees.
At that workshop, Council agreed with the concept of full cost recovery and
set a public hearing to consider revisions to the master fee schedule which
was held on September 28, 1982, and October 19, 1982. As a result of
testimony from the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), Chamber of
Commerce, and others, Council determined that the ultimate goal would be 100%
FCR for development-related fees, 75% FCR for building and housing fees, and a
range of from 50% to 100°/ FCR for public interest/demand fees (largely those
• fees connected with non-development-related departments). However, in
consideration of a request by the Construction Industry Federation, Council
determined to phase in the shift to 100% and 75% for development-related fees
and, therefore, the fees that were adopted on November 9, 1982, were set at
74% FCR for the Engineering Department, 68% FCR for the Planning Department,
and a range between 54% and 71% FCR for the Building & Housing Department.
The changeover to 100% FCR for the Planning and Engineering Departments and
75% FCR for the Building & Housing Department has not yet been made. In
addition, salaries have increased by 22.75% between FY 82-83 and FY 86-87.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Conduct a public hearing for development related fees and accept public
testimony on other fees as well.
2. Adopt the revised Master Fee Schedule. Fees relating to residential
developments to take effect on October 19, 1987, and all others upon
adoption of the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board of Trustees concurs
with the recommended library fees. No increases are recommended for Park and
Recreation fees.
•
•
DISCUSSION:
Page 2, Item 15
Meeting Date-/~
As indicated above, the master fee schedule has not had a complete revision
since November 1982. This means that various fixed fees both in development
and non-development-related departments have not been adjusted to reflect
increases in salary or CPI, depending on which is more appropriate, and in
addition that the final phase-in to 100% and 75% FCR for the development
services departments has not occurred. As part of the City Council FY 1987-88
budget hearings, the City Manager forwarded a supplemental budget report
(summarized below) detailing recommendations for increases to
development-related fees and those non-development-related fees which need
adjustment.
For the Engineering and Planning Departments, two separate and distinct items
needed to be examined. First, for fixed fees, the fees needed to be adjusted
by the amount that represented a change in salaries between FY 1982-83 and
FY 1986-87. In addition, the shift from 74% to 100° FCR for the Engineering
Department and 68% to 100% FCR for the Planning Department needed to be taken
into account.
At the Council workshop held in September 1982, Council adopted the use of a
full cost recovery multiplier that spread City-wide overhead and departmental
overhead to a fee in proportion to the direct salary cost incurred in
• providing the service related to that fee. To determine the fee for a fixed
fee permit (such as the application fee for an engineering construction
permit), the average direct salary cost for that particular permit would be
multiplied by the full cost recovery factor for the Engineering Department.
For deposit-related fees such as street vacations, subdivision maps, etc., the
direct salary costs associated with that particular project are multiplied by
the appropriate department FCR factor and the developer/applicant is then
charged the resulting amount. Because of the phase-in to 100% full cost
recovery for Planning and Engineering, the FCR multipliers in the master fee
schedul a were not set at a figure representing 100% but, rather, at a fi gure
representing 68% or 74°~ of that multiplier. The multiplier depends on budgets
for the various departments, the value of our fixed assets, etc. and should be
updated on an annual basis to reflect the correct multiplier for that
particular budget year. A spread sheet program on Administration's
microcomputer has been developed that will simplify the annual updating of
these multipliers upon adoption of the final budget including any possible
salary adjustments. It is proposed that on an annual basis after the adoption
of the budget, including any salary adjustments, that the Plaster Fee Schedule
be revised accordingly. The data used to develop the FCR factors that the
City uses to justify our figures to Federal and State auditors i s i ncl uded as
Attachment A.
The process followed in arriving at the
are included (the revised Master Fee Sch
in Attachment "B" follows: First, the
fiscal year was developed. This gave us
• fees for the Planning and Engineering
difference between the full cost recovery
fees which are being recommended and
edule is attached to the resolution)
correct FCR factor for the current
the FCR factor to be used for deposit
Departments. For fixed fees, the
factor for this fiscal year and the
full cost recovery factor that was used in FY
salaries between FY 82-83 and FY 86-87 were the
fee. In addition, each department was asked to
82-83 and the difference in
n applied to each particular
examine their fixed fees and
Page 3, Item~_
Meeting Date 8/18/87
•
make any recommendations for departures from that process. One of the reasons
for the departures was that we had a better handle on the actual average cost
per permit due to longer history of our automated time accounting system in
the development departments. Recommendations from the departments were taken
into account and are reflected in the column "Recommended 87-88 Fees" on
Attachment B. The fee that would have been obtained simply by multiplying the
current fee by the multiplication factor representing the difference between
salaries and full cost recovery factors is reflected in the column titled
"Formula Derived Proposed Fees" on Attachment B. Council will notice that in
some instances the fee is actually lower than the current fee and in some
other instances, such as sewer connection and curb loading zone permits, the
fee represents a different measurement than is currently used as the Public
Works Director believes that the proposed fees more accurately represent
actual events. Attachment B also indicates the estimated increased revenue
for FY 1987-88 by adoption of the proposed fees.
Building permit fees and building permit plan check fees are not recommended
to change by the multiplier representing the difference between salaries and
the increase to 75% of full cost recovery, but rather represent use of the
1985 UBC fees. The reason for this is that as indicated in Attachment C, the
difference between our current building permit fees and what would be
represented by the multiplier are 67.9%, while the increase due to the change
to the 1985 UBC represents anywhere from 39-42°~. Staff believes that the 1985
• UBC fees will adequately recover 75~ of our full cost for processing building
permits and do not believe that the multiplier-derived fees would be
equitable. What staff will do in future fiscal years is adjust the 1985 UBC
fees by any percent increase in employee salaries until the 1988 UBC fees come
out. It is proposed that this will return adequate costs to the City and will
be more equitable for people applying for building permits. The Acting
Building & Housing Director reports that most of the other agencies in San
Diego County have adopted the 1985 UBC fees or will probably do so within the
next month or so.
In 1985, Section 65962 of the State of California Government Code was amended
to require a 60-day interval between council action and any new or increase in
existing fees related to residential developments. Since it is simple to
determine if a development is residential, staff intends to operate with the
existing and revised fee schedule until October 19, at which time the revised
fee schedule will be used for all developments.
The supplemental budget report detailing the proposed revisions to the Master
Fee Schedule was distributed to CIF and major developers in June 1987. After
review, CIF staff reports that they are in general agreement with the report
and have not requested any revisions. They have, however, requested that the
City adjust fees on an annual basis to preclude any future large increases.
Copies of this agenda statement have also been forwarded to CIF and major
developers. Other than from CIF, no comments have been received either as a
result of the supplemental budget report in June or the public hearing notice.
• FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that the revised master fee schedule may
result in an additional $650,000 in revenue for FY 1987-88.
WPC 1724A