Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/11/16 Item 13C7 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEh1ENT Item ~~-- / 3 Meeting Date ~- ////(v~ 11 TITLE: Resolution //~~,3 Ae~ending the Master Fee Schedule Ordi nonce ~- o / / A~^endi ng several chapters and sections of the Clhula Vista Municipal Code all relating to the transfer of foe requirements as specified in the Code to the Master FPP Schec':q~le adopted by resolutio of the City Council S~COND REA[~ING AND ADOPTION ITTED BY: City Ik^anager (~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X ) 0 September 2~? ard' October 1~?, 198?, Council held a public hearing to c nsider revisions too the I`aster Fee Schedule fnr feP~ relating to land d velopment. Councifi took testimony on non-development fees, as well. Council specified the' full cost recovery levels to he implemented nor ~~arious f .es and directed that staff return with the appropriate re solution amendi r.g t ~e !~a ster Fee Sc~!edu) e. TY:erefore, i t i s my R COMMENDATION: That Council; • 1 . ,^tidopt the resolution revising the attac4"ed b1a ster Fee Schedule. Place on first reading the ordinance modifying various ordinances that refer to fees i nc~ uded t>ri thi n the i~la ster Fee Schedule. B AP.D/COMMISSION RECph1MENDATION: On October 19, the Council considere~+ i oi;t fror~ the Lib~~ar~~ Board of Trustees and file Parks and Recreation C e~missior. in its directives to City staff. SCUSSION: A the hearings held nn September 28 anti October l9, Council took testimony nn r vising the f~iaster Fpe Schedule as it relates to land development fees and on c .rtai n nor.-level oprient-related fees. As a result of those heari pas, Counci l d'rected that the moue to full cost recovery for development-related fees be p~ased in over a t,~b-year period. In addition, Council indicated specific sidelines for non-d~velopmPr.t-related foes. The attached revised blaster Fee S hedule reflects Council's instructions. The attached tables indicate what l.vel of full cost recovery various fee groups rill attain and also the amount f annual reveni.e ~stir~ated to be received under the present fees (as fleeted in the Fiscal Year 198?-83 budget) and the annual revenue that cot!ld h . expectod under tht~ revised fee schedule. General governnen.t overhead h~~ s een removed from thej formula for full cost recovery and, therefore, when the .rm full cost recovery is used in this agenda statement, it does not include neral government overhead. It should he recognized that the term "full cost • • Page 2, Item ~ ~~ Meeting Date "'~ ~~/6~F ~- r covery rate" may be '', somewhat of a misnomer since the rate exclude s not only g neral government overhead costs but also some departmental overhead costs s ch as staff meetings„ map and record keeping, public assistance, etc. T e Parks & Recreation activity fees were recommended by staff and adopted by t e City Council at 1010% of full cost recovery, with the exception of the arts a d crafts class which was adopted at 75%. These classes are somewhat unique i that they are conducted by outside contractors or officials who, for v rious reasons, may ', be replaced throughout the fiscal year. Since hourly f es vary from one consultant to another, adjustments to activity class fees a e necessary from time-to-time in order to maintain a full cost recovery e fort. For this rea$on, the Master Fee Schedule reflects the percent of full c st recovery as adopted by Council, but the schedule does not identify the e act fee in dollars. This will allow the Parks & Recreation Department D rector the flexibility to reasonably adjust _fees without the need for r curring Council action and will satisfy to some degree the concerns e pressed by department representatives. This is the process that has been u ed in the past priom to the use of a full cost recovery formula. A staff indicated i!n the full cost recovery workshop, not all fees were r viewed in terms of'full cost recovery. In an effort to expedite the full c st recovery prograt~ during FY 1982-83, those activities for which it was d'fficult to document staff time or contained policy issues somewhat in • o position to full cost recovery were deferred to the 1983-84 budget process. A that time, we will conduct an overview of the impact of the full cost r covery program and add to it any fees which previously have not been included. In addition to the aitached Master Fee Schedule, an ordinance revising various ections of the Municipal Code has been attached for Council's approval. hese ordinance chan es are simply to ensure that ordinances do not contain pecific fees but rather refer to the Plaster Fee Schedule, where appropriate. t the September 28 public hearing, Mr. Craig Beam, an attorney, requested hat the Master Fee Schedule be written in such a way as to allow Council the ption of using private consultants rather than City staff in certain ircumstances. As Z explained in my agenda statement for the meeting of ctober 19, 1982, th~,is is current practice and is not changed by full cost ecovery fees. Mr. 'Beam had also requested that the Master Fee Schedule be ritten in such a manner as to allow negotiated fees (to be approved by ouncil ) i n special 'circumstances. It i s the City Attorney's opinion that ouncil has that prerogative and can do so by approving a separate agreement ~ith a developer and, consequently, that such language is not required in the taster Fee Schedule. Lith the exception' of those fees which are currently specified in the 1unicipal Code, all of the fee changes in the Master Fee Schedule will be in ffect upon adoption of the resolution by City Council. For those fees which • re currently specified in the Municipal Code, the fee changes will be in ffect on the 31st day after the adoption of the ordinance. Any projects ~~~-I ~~ • • Page 3, Item -}~6- /3 Meeti ng Qate ~ «~~ 6/~ wt ich have previously. been submitted and for which fees have been paid gill n t have revised fees as a result of the revision of the H~aster Fee Schedule. I is important to note, however, that subdivision map processing is really tree separate and distinct steps: tentative map approval, final map a proval, and inspection of public improvements. If an applicant has paid f es for any of these three phases, then that particular phase ~~~ill be g verned by the fees i n existence at the time those fees ~rere pair!. However, s bsequent phases will he governed by fees in Pxistence at the time the s bsequent action is taken. The fees for any Parks F~ P,ecreation a tivities/classes for which people have already signed up or which have been a vertised M.~ill remain at the previously published level. However, new s .scions ~~i 11 be charged i n accordance Sri th the revised ~~1a ster Fee Schedu' e. Tie attached revised Master Fee Schedule indicates new text by underlining and d leted text by striking out. Portions of the P~~aster Fee Schedule that sere n t changed appear i n plain text. The revised Fee Schedule as adopted wi 11 h ve the struck out portions deleted and the underlining aJill be removed. Copies of this agenda statement, the revised Master Fee Schedule, and the rdinance have been ~oralarded to the Construction Industry Federation, Craig eam, and the Chamber'of Commerce. ISCAL IMPACT: Tire .additional revenue received by the City ~~~ill, for the ost part, depend o~n development activity for the remainder of the year. owever, on a prorated basis, about $lOC,000 in additional revenue is expected o be received duri n~ FYf.':2-83. [i : nr C OQ83I by the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated l~'~~~ ` ' ~~~ ~~~~~~ by the City Council of Chula V/ista, California C-:.;tad /~ /~O ~~~ --~---~ ~~,t1 C;'