workshop cost of services study 02-29-16

8/20/2019 Workshop Cost of Services Study 02-29-16

1/345

I

CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA

AGENDA BILL

TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members

of

the City Council

Mike Calhoun, Interim City Administrator

FROM:

Sharon Friedrichsen, Director

of

Budget and Contracts

SUBJECT: Workshop: Cost of Services Study

AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE

N/A

AMOUNT BUDGETED

N/A

APPROPRIATION REQUIRED N/A

RECOMMENDATION

AB 1095

February

29,

2016

Public Hearing

Receive a presentation by Eric Johnson

of

Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC on the draft cost

of

services study and provide direction .

SUMMARY

The City currently charges fees for a variety

of

services performed by departments, such as business

registration, tree removal permits, the replacement

of

library cards, design review, and parking permits.


2/345

associated cost. The cost

o

service for five service groups (Community Building and Planning, Public

Works, Public Safety, Community Activity and Library Services and Administrative Services) was then

matched with the current amount

o

revenue to determine whether a tax subsidy existed . Based upon

this analysis, Council may consider policy options pertaining to each service center such as : (1)

reducing costs o service and any tax subsidy by reducing the level of service

or

restructuring the way

the service is delivered; (2) adjusting or instituting a fee or charge to recover all of the reasonably

borne cost ; or (3) eliminating the tax subsidy to another less deserving service to utilize the taxes to

provide a service.

In addition to identifying the cost of services and any tax subsidy that may exist, the draft study also

provides service revenue recommendations. If the recommendations are fully implemented, then

additional revenues will be available to the City. These potential revenues would be

in

the form of a fee

increase and would replace any tax monies currently making up the difference between fees collected

and the cost o services. As a result, there would be greater taxpayer equity and opportunities to

redirect tax monies to services that can only be funded from taxes.

After Council approved the agreement with RCS, departmental staff and the consultant worked in

earnest to identify services and their associated costs and develop the draft report . The presentation o

the draft report allows Council the opportunity to entertain another workshop i needed and also

consider a master fee schedule and resolution as part

o

a regular Council meeting before the adoption

o the Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget in June 2016.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

As part o the adoption o the fiscal year 2015-16 budget, Council provided direction regarding

undertaking a comprehensive review of citywide fees . Council approved the agreement with RCS for

the fee study for a not to exceed cost of $24,750 on August

4

2015 via Resolution 2015-057.

ATTACHMENTS


3/345

DRAFT

Cost of Services Study

for the

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

JANUARY 2!"

#re$ared by%

Reve&ue ' Cost S$ecialists ))C

ATTACHMENT - 1


4/345


5/345

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1

CHAPTER I .....................................................................................................................................3

BACKGROUND OF STUDY .........................................................................................................3

More Definii!e Po"i#$ M%&in' ...........................................................................................3

Fin%n#in' A()*+,en+ Per+*%n o Pro-o+iion ...............................................................De+ir%/i"i$ of Dire# Re"%ion+0i- /eeen P%$,en %n( Ser!i#e .....................................

I,-%# of Pro-o+iion+ 2 132 42 %n( 15 ...........................................................................6Te7 To-i#+ ..........................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER II ....................................................................................................................................8

IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICE CENTERS................................................................8

I(enif$in' Ser!i#e Cener+..................................................................................................8

Re+*"%n Ser!i#e Cener+ ....................................................................................................5

Con+i*ion%" B%+i+ for Co+ of Ser!i#e+ ............................................................................5T$-e+ of Co++......................................................................................................................9

S#0e(*"e 1 : Infr%+r*#*re Re-"%#e,en Co++ .....................................................1

F*""$ A""o#%e( Ho*r"$ R%e+ ............................................................................................1

CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................................13

OVERVIE; OF SERVICE REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS ................................13A##o*nin' for A"" Re!en*e+.............................................................................................13

S#0e(*"e : S*,,%r$ of Fee Ser!i#e+ %n( C*rren Fin%n#in' ............................1

T%7 Re!en*e+ .....................................................................................................................19


6/345

Table of Contents (cont.)

Co,,*ni$ De!e"o-,en Ser!i#e+ ...................................................................................8P*/"i# ;or&+ Ser!i#e+ .......................................................................................................3<

P*/"i# S%fe$ Ser!i#e+........................................................................................................31

Co,,*ni$ A#i!i$ > ?i/r%r$ Ser!i#e+ ...........................................................................3A(,ini+r%i!e Ser!i#e+ .....................................................................................................33

S*,,%r$ of Per+on%" C0oi#e Ser!i#e+ ..............................................................................3

A M%+er Fee Re+o"*ion ...................................................................................................3Po"i#$ Re'%r(in' @Ne Ser!i#e+ .....................................................................................36

Con#"*+ion .........................................................................................................................36

CHAPTER V .................................................................................................................................38

CONC?USION ..............................................................................................................................38E"i,in%ion of S*/+i(ie+ ....................................................................................................38

I++*e+ In!o"!e(...................................................................................................................38

A((re++in' of I++*e+ /$ Ci$ Co*n#i" ................................................................................38

Con#"*+ion .........................................................................................................................35

APPENDIX A : SUMMARY OF CURRENT FEES AND PROPOSED FEES

APPENDIX B : REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY ;ORKSHEETS MATCHED ;ITH

COST DETAI? ;ORKSHEETS

APPENDIX C : TAX SUPPORTED SERVICES COST DETAI? SHEETS

APPENDIX D BUI?DING > SAFETY FEE DETAI?


7/345

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Propositions 13, 4 & 218, have significantly changed California local government finance.

In the effort to provide core services, Cities find themselves in a diminishing tax revene

environment re!iring them to prioriti"e resorce otlays and explore operational

efficiencies. #his report !antifies $st ho% tax dollars are allocated and applied to assistfiscal planning.

• #his stdy has identified potential additional fee revene of '8(,)2* as reslt of

recommended ne% fee implementation and ad$stments to existing fees. In doing so this

stdy has proposed pdated fees for the most crrently availa+le costs inclded in the

-2*1'2*1( +dget. #hese are smmari"ed on Appendix A.

• )'*,*** in tax proceeds are +eing tili"ed to spport Personal Choice services that might

other%ise +e spported %ith associated fees. #his stdy has identified these s+sidy areas,

information that is presented in this exective smmary for consideration in the annal fee

setting process.

• #he City incrs an o+ligation to maintain and replace its crrent infrastrctre. #his /eporthas identified sch costs on a total replacement cost +asis, %ith reslting annaldepreciation amonts totaling almost 4.' million.


8/345

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Cost of Services Study

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK


9/345

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

0y acceptance of the /evene & Cost pecialists /C proposal, the City Concil decided tos+$ect the Citys operations to a detailed analysis to%ard see5ing alternate and more e!ita+le

%ays to finance its services. #his /eport presents the analytical advantages %hich are availa+leto the City throgh the instittion of a comprehensive system designed +y /C to implement6rticle 7III0 of the California Constittion.

Moe De!ini"i#e Po$i%& M'(in)

0ased on data presented in this /eport, the City Concil can respond to the limits on taxrevenes availa+le to the City, the constant demand for higher and more operational services andcapital improvements. e to demands made of the City, it is essential that the Concil and Citymanagement have complete information upon %hich to chart a ftre financial corse that %ill preserve the !ality of life %hich its citi"ens have come to expect.

ystematic and ocmented 6pproach. #his analysis, among other things, %as designed to provide the City %ith a systematic and docmented approach to 5no%, control, and to recaptrethe costs %hich are forced on it +y normal service demands, gro%th and general economic

inflation. #he reslt shold +e a +etter level of service provided to the longtime +sinesses andresidents of the City, as opposed to the n%itting deterioration of City services %hich cold +eexpected in the a+sence of this type of financial planning.


10/345


inancial Integrity ;sta+lished. #his text smmari"es the %or5 accomplished and presentsrecommendations. #hese recommendations, if implemented, %old firmly esta+lish the financialintegrity of the analy"ed City services and %old esta+lish a contining cost control systemfollo%ing the +siness principles %hich are generally esposed for government, +t sallyignored in application.

Fin'n%in) Ad*+,"-en", P+,+'n" "o Popo,i"ion

Proposition 4, %hich is more commonly referred to as the :o+ Initiative:, %as adopted +y ?4.3@ of the voters, of California on Aovem+er (, 1)?). It +ecame effective on >ly 1, 1)8*, retroactive to iscal -ear 1)?81)?). tattes clarifyingcertain provisions of the Proposition, %hich is no% 6rticle 7III0 of the California Constittion, +ecame effective >anary 1, 1)81.

#his /eport provides data to the City for revie%ing the reported feefinanced services +ased onfllcosting information and for implementing the :costs reasona+ly +orne: provision of thisConstittional 6rticle, %ithin presently 5no%n legal parameters and the 6thors prononced and p+lished intent.

6d$stments to inancing. 6s a reslt of this analysis, the City no% possesses, at least in part,the +asis for ma5ing necessary ad$stments to its methods of financing services for those servicesreported on herein. It can achieve a more e!ita+le and fair mix for financing those services andcapital needs, as +et%een taxes and service charges, in the direction pointed +y passage of

6rticle 7III0, and the +siness methodologies inherent in that 6rticle.

It shold +e remem+ered from the start that taxes are no% limited and controlled, and thereforethe capa+ility of sing these taxes to s+sidi"e :special: services %hich are %holly or partially


11/345

Chapter I – Background of Study

6t the same time, the City can in great part reesta+lish +asic fairness and e!ity +et%een sers

of City services and those %ho pay for them, and control those costs on a contining +asis. #hisalso assres taxpayers that their tax monies are +eing spent properly.

I-p'%" o! Popo,i"ion, 2 342 562 'nd 537

Initiative 4 of Aovem+er 1)?), copled %ith its immediate predecessor the famos Proposition

13 of a year earlier %roght the greatest changes in California governmental financing in acentry. Proposition 218, passed in 1))( and +ecoming 6rticles 7IIIC & , frther limited localgovernmentsB revene sorce options. #hose propositions have had, and %ill contine to have, a profond effect on California governments.

;ffects on the City. ne effect of these propositions has +een a constant search for ne% revenesorces to finance services re!ired +y the City. Do%ever, at the same time, tate and ederal program revenes contine to decrease. Conse!ently, the City faces the prospect of providingsteadily decreasing levels of service.

Costs ;xceeding /evenes. #he fll costs of delivering the Citys defined feefinanced services as defined in +siness terms +y the athors of 6rticle 7III0, and as applied +y the +sinessmethods of this analysis as +ased on that Constittional 6rticle are rnning at an annal rate%ell +eyond crrent or expected fee revenes. #he reslt is the diversion of tax monies to ma5ep the difference +et%een fee revenes collected and fll +siness costs incrred.

Eariety of ;!ita+le /evene orces. #his analysis presents a %ide variety of %ays in %hichrevene can srely and legally +e raised and, pro+a+ly as important, more e!ita+ly raised thanat present #he amont of ne% revenes to +e raised is of corse dependent pon the Concils


12/345


Tex" Topi%,

#he remaining Chapters of this text address the follo%ing topicsG

II. Identifying and Costing ervice Centers

III. vervie% of ervice /evenes 9atched 6gainst Costs

IE. ervice /evene /ecommendations

E. Conclsion


13/345

CHAPTER II

IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICE CENTERS

#here are three +asic steps in the process sed +y /C. #he first step is to identify the services. Aext, the service costs are calclated. 6nd finally, the revene crrently received is matched to

the cost of providing the service to determine the s+sidy from taxes. #his chapter covers thefirst t%o steps and Chapter III sho%s the matchp of revenes and costs.

Iden"i!&in) Se#i%e Cen"e,

#%o techni!es %ere tili"ed to identify the service centers for %hich revene and cost data%ere gathered and arond %hich the service cost analysis of this /eport is +ilt.

/evene 6nalysis

#he first techni!e involved gathering revene information for the past fiscal year, and thenpdating and revising the +dget estimates for the same revene sorces for the fiscal yeardring %hich the analysis %as performed +y /C.

0dgets and inancial /eports Hsed. #he 0dget for the crrent fiscal year %as secred andanaly"ed. 0dgeted and received revenes for all feespported services %ere extracted from

those reports, %here sch information %as availa+le.

ivision of /evene orces. /C has divided services into far smaller :service centers: than


14/345


Re,+$"'n" Se#i%e Cen"e,

:ervice Center: efined. #he :service revene: fee or charge for a service and the related:service cost: comprise a :service center:. ;ach service center has a ni!e :/evene and Costmmary For5sheet: and a matching :Cost etail For5sheet, %hich are fond in 6ppendix 0of this /eport. #hese :ervice Center For5sheets: are matched to one another on facing pages.

etailed 0ac5Hp For5papers. #he costs are +ac5ed p +y detailed analyses, %hich have +een

trned over to the City in several volmes of %or5 papers and detailed cost distri+tion reports.

Con,"i"+"ion'$ B',i, !o Co," o! Se#i%e,

#he costs determined +y /C for the varios service centers are +ased on the definitions ofJcosts reasona+ly +orne as tili"ed in 6rticle 7III0 Proposition 4 and as frther defined +y its6thors in their +ac5grond docments. #he 6thors of Proposition 4 intended their fll +siness costing definitions to +e sed +y California governments. #hs, the City can 5no% and

control its costs, sing those Constittionallyset +siness principles and legally set elements anddefinitions of Jcosts reasona+ly +orne.

=isting of etailed ll 0siness Cost efinitions. #hs the follo%ing are pt for%ard +y the6thors as the accepted elements of :costs reasona+ly +orne:G

1. =a+or costs.

2. ;mployee +enefit costs.

3. perational services and spply expenses.


15/345

Chapter II – Identifying and Costing Service Centers

6thors 0ac5grond. It is not srprising that the 6thors sed sch +siness definitions andelements of :cost: as !oted herein. #hey represented several 5no%n +siness organi"ationsG

• #he California #axpayers 6ssociation

• #he California Cham+er of Commerce

• #he Aational #ax =imitation Committee

• #he California 6ssociation of /ealtors

In effect, the pillars of California +siness and their thin5ing %ere represented. 6nd their ideas%ere adopted over%helmingly +y the electorate of California at referendm. #hs, +y definition,the premises of this /eport process have a California electoral mandate.

Principle Involved. 6 +asic principle involved in this /eport %as the recognition of those fll +siness costs as sed and as defined +y the 6thors of the Constittional amendment, A# $st1 those costs %hich the City might recogni"e and decide to +dgetK or 2 %hich it might decide

to se in some other cost analysis methodologyK or 3 that other $risdictions not so complyingmight seK or 4 that some acconting or conslting firm might decide it shold se, +ased onsome external, nonCalifornia legal or external technical re!irement.

T&pe, o! Co,",

#he follo%ing costs, identified a+ove as part of :costs reasona+ly +orne: +y the 6thors ofProposition 4, ma5e p the cost detail fond on the righthand page in 6ppendix 0 for each

service center.

alaries and Fages


16/345


17/345

Chapter II – Identifying and Costing Service Centers

identified in a department or division.


18/345


chedle 1 +elo% identifies these infrastrctre fixed assets and their total replacement cost as%ell as the annal replacement cost, or depreciation cost.chedle 1

TOTAL ANNUAL

REPLACEMENT ASSET REPLACEMENT

COST LIFE COST

STREETS $95,040,000 30 $3,168,000

CURB, GUTTER, & S/W $9,504,000 30 $316,800STREET TREES $2,025,000 50 $40,500

PAR TREES $450,000 50 $9,000

PE!ESTRIAN BRI!GES $225,000 30 $",500

SEAWALL STRUCTURES $36,000,000 50 $"20,000

STORM !RAINAGE S#STEM $10,348,800 50 $206,9"6

$153,592,800 $4,468,""6

F+$$& A$$o%'"ed Ho+$& R'"e,

6ll of the a+ove items ma5e p the flly allocated horly rate %hich is calclated for each position in the City. #he ma5ep of each component of the City%ide average flly allocatedhorly rate is detailed in the chart +elo%.

Fully Allocated Hourly Rate Components


19/345

CHAPTER III

OVERVIE8 OF SERVICE REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS

In the last chapter the method of calclating the costs for all City services %as identified. #hischapter +egins %ith a mmary that itemi"es the revenes and costs +y service center. #hen, anovervie% is presented of %hat %ill +e presented in the follo%ing chapter, %hich sho%s that there

is no one soltion to the CityBs financial challenge.

A%%o+n"in) !o A$$ Re#en+e,

6s an example in the follo%ing schedle, for #rac5 1 esign /evie%Mtdy 9inor **1, thecrrent fees for this service, amonting to 12,3)), are matched %ith the fll costs of providingthis service, %hich are 31,?'2. #his leaves a tax revene, or s+sidy, of 1),3'3 necessary tocover the fll cost of the service. #his s+sidy can +e eliminated +y raising the relevant fees. #o

the extent that the fees are A# increased, the difference is paid for +y general City taxes paid +y all taxpayers.


20/345


SC!ED"#E 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

SUMMARY OF FEE SERICES A!" CURRE!T FI!A!CI!#

FISCAL YEAR $%&'-$%&(

$O$# &ESO"&CES "SED

SE&'(CE $O )(**CE SE&'(CE

&E) + SE&'(CE COS$ )EES $,ES

-1 -2 -3 -4 -/

COMMU!ITY )LA!!I!# * BUIL"I!# SERICESS001 $&C 1 DES(* &E'(ES$"D5 6(*O& 7318/2 7128399 71983/3

S002 $&C 1 DES(* &E'(ES$"D5 6:O& 72/893 7138; 71280;

S003 $& 1 DES(* &E'S$"D5 &E) $O


21/345

Chapter III – Overview of Service Revenues atched !gainst Costs

SC!ED"#E 2




$O$# &ESO"&CES "SED



-1 -2 -3 -4 -/S031 6E*DED )(*# 6< * * *

S032 CE&$()(C$E O) CO6


22/345


SC!ED"#E 2




$O$# &ESO"&CES "SED



-1 -2 -3 -4 -/

)UBLIC +OR,S SERICES S00 #*DSC


23/345


SC!ED"#E 2




$O$# &ESO"&CES "SED

SE&'(CE $O )(**CE SE&'(CE&E) + SE&'(CE COS$ )EES $,ES

-1 -2 -3 -4 -/

S0; *(6# $&*S

S092 BEC! S


24/345


SC!ED"#E 2

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA SUMMARY OF FEE SERICES A!" CURRE!T FI!A!CI!#


$O$# &ESO"&CES "SED



-1 -2 -3 -4 -/

A"MI!ISTRATIE SERICES

S10 *E B"S(*ESS &E(S$&$(O*


25/345


T'x Re#en+e,

#he revenes that %ere not directly associated %ith a personal choice service are itemi"ed onchedle 3 +elo%.

SC!ED"#E 3


SUMMARY OF TA REE!UESFISCAL YEAR $%&'-$%&(

$O$#


26/345


T'x Se#i%e,

n a simplified level of discssion tax services might +e defined as any activity the City providesthat the p+lic has paid taxes for. -et, the analysis is more complex than it appears. ther definitionssggest that tax services are derived from a social contract, generally sed +y all, related to +enefitservices received, and not al%ays easily measred.

#a5ing a pragmatic vie% of tax services, they can +e nderstood to +e anything that a City Concildecides to spport +y taxes given the availa+ility of commensrate levels of revene. #his +eingconsidered, there is no one tre classification of tax services, only services that policy ma5ers havedecided to +e tax spported. In other %ords, determining $st %hat a tax service is entails J+ac5inginto those services that can +e fnded once availa+le and alloca+le amonts of tax revenes aredetermined.

#his ma5es more sense %hen one considers the alternate models that exist in charging for sometraditional tax services as exemplified +elo%G

ire erviceG ome fire athorities in rral areas directly contract %ith property o%ners in providingfire sppression services. #his follo%s a perhosehold priced s+scription +ased model that contrasts%ith the tax+ased model that typifies local government models.

Par5 ervicesG pen space is generally considered free for se yet, once facility improvements are setinto place, a degree of charging the +enefitting ser may +e set into place. ch an improvementcold +e as +asic as providing resce services to the %ee5end or offhors hi5erMclim+er.

#he a+ove noted examples in no %ay sggest that the City charge for the a+ove mentioned services +t only illstrate that policy decisions, sometimes inflenced +y past practice or ha+it, define theextent to %hich services, or at least a certain service level, is spported %ith taxes.


27/345


6s the voter initiative most concerned %ith fee services, the initiative athors of Proposition 4 %erenot concerned %ith %hat categories of services %ere +eing s+sidi"ed as long as s+sidy levels set +y

policy %ere explicit decisions made +y the athori"ing +ody %ith 5no%ledge of fll cost information.

#he follo%ing chedle 4 smmari"es, and 6ppendix C details, the #ax pported ervices.

SC!ED"#E 4


SUMMARY OF TA SU))ORTE" SERICES


$O$#


28/345


SC!ED"#E 4


SUMMARY OF TA SU))ORTE" SERICES


$O$#


29/345


annal financial reports, the costs are reported on an historical +asis and not a replacement +asis.

0t the financial pictre is mch different %ith the Infrastrctre /eplacement costs removedG

TOTAL REENUES %SEE ABOE' $18,"84,225

TOTAL SERICE COSTS %SEE ABOE' $22,298,612

LESS INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACE COSTS %$4,468,""9'

TOTAL E(PEN!ITURES $1",829,830

TOTAL REENUES IN E(CESS OF COSTS $954,392

#he +dget pictre no% loo5s mch +etter. Ao% there is a srpls of almost 1 million.Hnfortnately, the City still has to fnd its Capital Improvement Program, %hich can re!ire theCity to se nd 0alances to +e a+le to meet crrent capital expenses over 1 million. 0t nd 0alances

only last for so long and the City can still +e left %ith a crm+ling infrastrctre.

Insfficient #axes. It can +e seen from the a+ove analysis and from comparing the total taxes

necessary in chedle 4, %ith the #ax /evenes in chedle 3, that the fll cost of City services isin excess of the total revenes availa+le to the City. #he reason for this excess is that the /C fll, +sinessli5e, cost of services incldes the fixed asset replacement costs from chedle 1 of ChapterII. #hese replacement costs are real expenses +t not al%ays real annal expenditres. In other

%ords, the assets lose vale each year creating an expense +t this cost is often deferred ntil theasset mst +e replaced +y spending cash expenditre of cash.

Po$i%& Re#ie1 In!o-'"ion


30/345


Re,+$" o! A%%ep"'n%e o! Fee S+))e,"ion,

If the sggestions in the follo%ing Chapter and on the ervice Center For5sheets are adopted in fllthen a significant amont of added revenes %ill +e availa+le to the City, %hich %old providetaxpayer e!ity. 9ost of these ne% revenes %ill +e from fee increases to replace tax monies sed toma5e p the difference +et%een fees collected and costs incrred in providing the services, %hich%ill then +e availa+le for those services %hich can only +e fnded from taxes.

#hese tax :diversions: are the no%docmented tax s+sidies to potentially selfspporting Cityservices. #hs additional monies cold +e made availa+le for police services, infrastrctremaintenance, and other City services %hich are not generally condcive to service charges, there+yachieving mch closer e!ity +et%een +enefits and associated payments.

Policy


31/345

CHAPTER IV

SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS

#he prpose of this Chapter is to present the services %hich /C has initially la+eled as PersonalChoice and to sggest the magnitde of tax revenes that cold +e diverted from these servicesto Commnity pported ervices.

City Concil has inal >dgment. It mst +e nderstood that considera+le $dgmental+eitexperienced%as exercised +y /C in sggesting %hat services %ere Personal Choice asopposed to Commnity pported ervices and in sggesting that most Personal Choice ervicesshold +e paid for +y the service re!estor rather than s+sidi"ed +y the entire commnity.Do%ever, the final decision on the natre of the service and %hether it deserves to +e s+sidi"ed%ill have to +e made +y the City Concil.

Se#i%e Go+p,

/C has organi"ed Personal Choice ervices into the follo%ing five service grops for prposesof discssionG

Commnity Planning & 0ilding ervices

P+lic For5s ervices

P+lic afety ervicesCommnity 6ctivity & =i+rary ervices

6dministrative ervices


32/345


Gene'$ Co--en"'& on C0'p"e T'/$e,

;ach ta+le has eight colmns, explained hereG

Colmn 1 is the /eport /eference Am+er.

Colmn 2 is the title of the service.

Colmn 3, 4 & ' are the same amonts for revene, cost and profit s+sidy fond on the left page of the detail service sheets in 6ppendix 0.

Colmn ( is the crrent percentage of costs recovered from the ser fees and charges %ith thedifference +eing s+sidi"ed +y taxes.

Colmn ? is the percentage of ser fee cost recovery %hich might +e o+taina+le %ithot taxs+sidy. f corse, decisions regarding tax s+sidies to a service are a City Concil policy

decision on ho% to allocate its tax and general revenes.

Colmn 8 contains the estimated amont of revenes %hich /C sggests cold +e raised orredced.

S+))e,"ion, Fo Se#i%e, An'$&9ed

It is sggested that the City Concil revie% each of the services in this Chapter for the follo%ingreasonsG

• #o confirm or negate the decision that the ser ice is a Personal Choice er ice


33/345

Chapter I" – Service Revenue Recommendations

De#e$op-en" Se#i%e,

Fhen +asic City development services are spported +y general taxes, there is little reason fortaxes to also finance those Personal Choice services %hich mainly +enefit a developer or specific property o%ner. #hs, the expenses distri+ted across these service centers are primarily theincremental additional expenses cased +y commnity development. Fere no development tota5e place, most of these costs cold +e eliminated, or at least significantly redced.

T'/$e 3Co--+ni"& P$'nnin) : B+i$din) Se#i%e,

$O$# $O$# $O$#


34/345


T'/$e 3Co--+ni"& P$'nnin) : B+i$din) Se#i%e,

;Con"in+ed<

$O$# $O$# $O$#


35/345


Infre!ent ervices. #o avoid overstating possi+le ne% revene, some services are mar5ed %iththe pond sign N. #hese services have +een inclded to calclate the crrent cost +t there may +e no demand for some or all of these Jmar5ed services in any single fiscal year.

Con%$+,ion o! De#e$op-en" Se#i%e,

If the sggestions made in 6ppendix 6 are approved, approximately ''8,4** in ne% revene

cold +e reali"ed annally.


36/345


P+/$i% 8o(, Se#i%e,

#hese service centers are identified for varios private services %hich occr in the p+lic rightof%ay.

T'/$e 5

P+/$i% 8o(, Se#i%e,

$O$# $O$# $O$#


37/345


P+/$i% S'!e"& Se#i%e,

#hese service centers are identified for those %ho se the City p+lic safety servicesdisproportionately from others.

T'/$e 4

P+/$i% S'!e"& Se#i%e,

$O$# $O$# $O$#


38/345


Co--+ni"& A%"i#i"& : Li/'& Se#i%e,

#a+le 4 lists the services revie%ed nder the heading of Commnity 6ctivity & =i+rary ervices.

T'/$e

Co--+ni"& A%"i#i"& : Li/'& Se#i%e,

$O$# $O$# $O$#

ey to ym+olsGO 9ar5et ensitive

Conclsion of Commnity 6ctivity ervices #he City Concil shold loo5 at the costs of these


39/345


Ad-ini,"'"i#e Se#i%e,

9iscellaneos administrative service centers fall into this grop.

T'/$e =

Ad-ini,"'"i#e Se#i%e,

$O$# $O$# $O$#


40/345


S+--'& o! Pe,on'$ C0oi%e Se#i%e,

#he follo%ing #a+le ( smmari"es the recommendations and sggestions made in this Chapter.

T'/$e 6

S+--'&

$O$# $O$# $O$#


41/345


Po$i%& Re)'din) >Ne1? Se#i%e,

/C also recommends that the City Concil adopt a policy of not starting any ne% service %ithota cost analysis, sing the costing approach tili"ed in this /eport, so as to determine %ays in %hichthe service cold +e feefinanced, if at all possi+le. #his approach cold +e sed %hen consideringne% par5s or p+lic +ildings, improved police protection, or any other desired fnction or service.

Con%$+,ion

/C is availa+le to discss the process and reslts %ith the City Concil. In addition, %e can shareor experience of doing this for over t%o hndred cities as the City Concil determines %hataction to ta5e.


42/345


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK


43/345

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

E$i-in'"ion o! S+/,idie,

#his /eport highlights tax s+sidies and recommends that most +e eliminated as +eingnintentional. ervice sers ths can vote %ith their dollars and not se a service for %hich they aren%illing or na+le to pay. Didden s+sidies, %hich have existed for many of the CityBsspposedly selffinanced and selfspporting services, can no% +e reevalated.

I,,+e, In#o$#ed

#he +asic isse involved in vie%ing the reslts of the analysis presented +y this text is to %hat

degree fees shold +e expected to spport the costs of the services.

r vie%ed another %ay, to %hat extent shold general taxes +e tili"ed to s+sidi"e the difference +et%een the costs of each service center and the revene prodced from fees paid +y the ser of thatserviceQ

Pressre on #ax 9oney Hse. #he opposite side of this isse is the increasing pressre on the se of p+lic tax monies. #ax monies have severely decreased for local government in California. If fees

do not pay all costs, then taxes mst ma5e p the differences not paid for +y fees generated +y sersof specific services, or those services are threatened %ith extinction.


44/345


pecific Policy 6lternatives to 0e 6ns%ered. nce the a+ove cost isses are determined then theCity Concil has for clear policy alternatives availa+le as to the reveneMcost mix of each servicecenterG

• Contine any tax s+sidy %hich might +e fond.

• ;liminate the tax s+sidy +y increasing fees to cover all :costs reasona+ly +orne:.

• /edce costs +y redcing the level of service.

• ecide on an appropriate level of tax s+sidy, +eing a%are that taxes are no% limited in

rate, +ase and, conse!ently, in amonts yielded and availa+le.

Con%$+,ion

#he City has appropriately responded to the mandate and spirit of Proposition 4. It is tili"ing the passage of Propositions 4, 13 and 218 and the attention given to them as an opportnity to revie%its financial strctre and philosophy, and to institte a +sinessli5e cost control system, tailored to

the Citys needs, to spplement its governmental acconting and +dgeting systems.

#he cooperation, excellent spport and data provided in accomplishment of the %or5 reportedherein spea5s %ell of the %ay in %hich a City organi"ation can adapt to the socalled :ne% realities:of California governmental finance.

END


45/345

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY

OF

CURRENT FEESAND

PROPOSED FEES


46/345


FY 2015-2016

FEE COMPARISON REPORT

S-001 TRACK 1 DESIGN REVIEW/STUDY - MINORREF # TITLE

CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE

$395 per application$154.99 per application

S-002 TRACK 1 DESIGN REVIEW/STUDY - MA!ORREF # TITLE



S-00" TR 1 DESIGN REV/STUDY - REF TO PCREF # TITLE


$1,095 per application in addition to the base Track 1 fee$206.66 per application in addition to the base Track 1 fee

S-00 TRACK 2 DESIGN REVIEW - MINORREF # TITLE


$2,065 per application$785.30 per application

S-005 TRACK 2 DESIGN REVIEW - MA!ORREF # TITLE


47/345


FY 2015-2016


S-00$ REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONREF # TITLE



S-00% VOLUMETRIC ANALYSISREF # TITLE


$120 per application pl's $1,500 deposit )ith char*es at thef'll( allocated ho'rl( rates pl's an( o'tside costs.

$1,500 deposit )ith act'al costs

S-00& USE PERMITREF # TITLE



S-010 MINOR USE PERMITREF # TITLE



S-011 USE PERMIT AMENDMENTREF # TITLE


48/345


FY 2015-2016


S-01" RESTRICTED USE TRANSFER RE'UESTREF # TITLE


$795 per application$1,291.61 per application

S-01 WATER CREDIT TRANSFER RE'UESTREF # TITLE


$2,730 per application$1,653.26 per application

S-015 VARIANCEREF # TITLE



S-016 VARIANCE AMENDMENTREF # TITLE


This serice is no lon*er proided.$614.81 per application

S-01$ PRE-APPLICATIONREF # TITLE


49/345


FY 2015-2016


S-01& COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITREF # TITLE



S-020 SPECIFIC PLANREF # TITLE


$5,000 deposit )ith char*es at the f'll( allocated ho'rl( ratespl's o'tside costs.

/ct'al costs )ith a deposit of $2,893.31

S-021 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTREF # TITLE



+one

S-022 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTREF # TITLE


$5,000 deposit )ith char*es at the f'll( allocated ho'rl( rates

pl's o'tside costs.

/ct'al costs )ith a deposit of $2,893.21

S-02" SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTREF # TITLE


50/345


FY 2015-2016


S-025 ANNE)ATIONREF # TITLE



+one

S-026 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTREF # TITLE



+one

S-02$ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW *IS/ND/EIR+REF # TITLE


10- of contract cost10- of contract cost

S-02% ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE OF E)EMPTIONREF # TITLE


$250 per application pl's o'nt( fees+one

S-02& MITIGATION MONITORINGREF # TITLE


51/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0"1 AMENDED FINAL MAPREF # TITLE


$1,000 deposit )ith char*es at the f'll( allocated ho'rl( ratespl's an( o'tside costs.

$614.81 per !ap

S-0"2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEREF # TITLE



S-0"" LOT LINE AD!USTMENTREF # TITLE



S-0" LOT MERGERREF # TITLE



S-0"5 PRELIM HISTORIC EVALUATION - STAFFREF # TITLE


52/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0"$ HISTORIC DETERMIN,/APPEAL TO HRBREF # TITLE


$2,340 per applicationistorian #eie) " /ct'al costs )ith a $1,000 deposit

$304.82 per applicationistorian #eie) " /ct'al costs )ith a $1,000 deposit

S-0"% MILLS ACT CONTRACT PROCESSINGREF # TITLE



S-0"& PC CODE DETERMINATIONREF # TITLE



S-00 (ONING COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONREF # TITLE



S-01 TIME E)TENSION - STAFFREF # TITLE


53/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0" PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCEREF # TITLE


$760 per contin'ance$309.99 per contin'ance

S-0 APPEALREF # TITLE


$1,275 per appeal

/ppeal in the oastal one " +o har*e b( tate la)

$304.82 per appeal

/ppeal in the oastal one " +o har*e b( tate la)

S-05 SIGN APPLICATIONREF # TITLE



S-06 SIGN REFERRAL TO PCREF # TITLE


$755 per applicationin*le i*n referral to " $200 per application in addition tothe base si*n application fee'ltiple i*ns " $354.99 per application


54/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0& DEMOLITION - PC REVIEWREF # TITLE


This serice is no lon*er proided as a separate fee, as it is partof the esi*n #eie)esi*n t'd( fees.

$232.49 per application

S-050 MOVED BUILDINGREF # TITLE


$1,715 per application+one

S-051 LARGE HOME DAY CAREREF # TITLE


$670 per application+one

S-052 GENERAL PLAN UPDATEREF # TITLE


3.5- of all 'ildin* afet( per!its.+one

S-05" PLANNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCEREF # TITLE


55/345


FY 2015-2016


S-055 BUILDING SINGLE TRADE PERMITREF # TITLE



56/345


FY 2015-2016


S-061 NEW BENCH LOCATIONREF # TITLE


$955 per application pl's the act'al cost of the bench andpla?'e pl's 20- for f't're !aintenance%pl's $995 if a p'blic hearin* in re?'ired.

$154.99 per application pl's $750 per benchpl's $361.65 if a p'blic hearin* in re?'ired.

S-062 ADOPTION OF E)ISTING BENCHREF # TITLE


$335 per application pl's the act'al cost of the bench andpla?'e pl's 20- for f't're !aintenance%pl's $470 if a p'blic hearin* in re?'ired.

$361.65 per application pl's $750 per bench

S-06" REPLACEMENT OF BENCH PLA'UEREF # TITLE


$335 per application pl's the act'al cost of the pla?'epl's $470 if a p'blic hearin* in re?'ired.

$120 per pla?'e

S-06 CURB/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT PERMITREF # TITLE


$335 per per!it$95.35 per per!it


57/345


FY 2015-2016


S-06$ RIGHT-OF-WAY E)CAVATION PERMITREF # TITLE


atch 'p to 100 s?'are feet " $335 per per!it>ther " $335 per per!it pl's $3.55 per linear foot oer 25 linearfeet

treet 'tatch>penin* " $95.35 per per!itAtilit( @:caation " $95.35 per per!it pl's $1 per linear foot

S-06% STREET DUMPSTER/STORAGE POD PERMITREF # TITLE


$135 per per!it pl's $40 per da( if in the o!!ercial istrict'!pster in the o!!ercial istrict " $31 per da(tora*e od in the o!!ercial istrict " $31 per )eek#esidentail /reas " +o =ee

S-06& TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMITREF # TITLE


rane>ersiBed ;ehicle " $335 per per!it>ther " $140 per per!it

Te!porar( #eal @state i*n " $38.14

S-0$0 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMITREF # TITLE


+e) " $865 per per!it+e) " $317.82 /nn'al #ene)al " $47.33


58/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0$" PRIVATE TREE FALL IN PUBLIC R-O-WREF # TITLE


har*e the f'll( allocated ho'rl( rate for all personnel inoledpl's an( o'tside costs

/ct'al costs

S-0$ DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTYREF # TITLE


har*e the f'll( allocated ho'rl( rate for all personnel inoledpl's an( o'tside costs.

/ct'al osts

S-0$5 LOUD PARTY PUBLIC DISTURBANCE RESP,REF # TITLE


st #esponse " +o har*e2nd #esponse the sa!e da( " $165 per response3rd #esponse )ithin a calendar (ear " $495 per response

+one

S-0$6 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSEREF # TITLE


=irst 2 /ctiations in a calendar (ear " +o har*e3rd /ctiation " $854th /ctiation " $1705th and 'bse?'ent /ctiations " $255

1st /ctiiation " $41.332nd /ctiation " $62.003rd /ctiation " $82.66


59/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0$& MISDEMEANOR BOOKINGREF # TITLE


+on"ar!el bookin*s " $125 per bookin*+one

S-0%0 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE PERMITREF # TITLE


$150 per application pl's >& fees+one

S-0%1 FINGERPRINTING ON RE'UESTREF # TITLE


$30 pl's o'tside a*enc( feesCiescan#ollin* " $18.60tate >& fees " $33.07= fees " $17.57hild /b'se entral nde: fee " $15.50

S-0%2 CLEARANCE FORM TRAVEL LETTERREF # TITLE


$45 per letter $48.56 per application


60/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0%5 ANIMAL IMPOUNDREF # TITLE



61/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0&1 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH COPYREF # TITLE


photo " $5 per photodi*ital " $5 per disk

3 : 5 color pict're " $5.17 per pict'redi*ital " $15.50 per disk

S-0&2 BEACH SPECIAL EVENT PERMITREF # TITLE


rocessin* " $685 per rental#ental " $400 per rental pl's $200 ref'ndable da!a*e deposit

rocessin* " $155 per rental#ental " $400 per rental pl's $200 ref'ndable da!a*e deposit

S-0&" PARK SPECIAL EVENT PERMITREF # TITLE


rocessin* " $685 per rental /lcohol " $170#oad los'reD / #eie) " $710 it( o'ncil #eie) " $225

ark #ental eendorf and =orest ill, b't not icadill(%D =irst 4 ho'rs " $400 /fter 4 ho'rs " $300 per ho'r #ef'ndable a!a*e eposit " $350

rocessin* " $155 per rentaleendorf ark #entalD =irst 4 ho'rs " $401 /fter 4 ho'rs " $300 per ho'r #ef'ndable a!a*e eposit " $351

S-0& PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT IN ROWREF # TITLE


62/345


FY 2015-2016


S-0&6 FILM PERMITREF # TITLE


$405 per per!it$266 per per!it

S-0&$ CAR WEEK EVENT PLANNING/SERVICESREF # TITLE


The it( sho'ld recoer all costs related to these eents.onco'rs on the /en'e pa(s !ini!al fee and receies fee)aiers.ebble each To'r E@le*ance pa(s for staffin*, block clos'refees, park rental fees, and parkin* stall rentals.

S-0&% FOREST THEATERREF # TITLE


ain ta*eD erfor!ance " $500 per da(

#ehearsal " $250 per da(

o)nstairs ta*eD $100 per da(

$25 per da( for technical )ork, constr'ction, load ino't, orrehearsals )ith no ad!ission fee char*ed.

erfor!ance dates " a !ini!'! of $25 per da( for eachperfor!ance of 10- of *ross receipts, )hicheer is *reater.

S-0&& FACILITY RENTALREF # TITLE



63/345


FY 2015-2016


S-101 LIBRARY CARD REPLACEMENTREF # TITLE


$3 per card$2 per card

S-102 INTERLIBRARY LOAN PROCESSINGREF # TITLE


$5 per ite!$3 per ite!

S-10" OVERDUE MATERIAL PROCESSINGREF # TITLE


$0.50 per da(e#eaders " $1 per da(>ther ite!s " $0.25 per da(

S-10 LOST/DAMAGED MATERIALS PROCESSINGREF # TITLE


ooks, ;s, a'dio books, s, cassettes, ; " $15 pl'sact'al costa*aBines " $5

ooks, ;s, a'dio books, s, cassettes, ; " $10 pl'sact'al costa*aBines " $5e#eader " $125e#eader carr(in* case " $35


64/345


FY 2015-2016


S-10$ NEW BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROCESSREF # TITLE


=i:ed Cocation " $350 per applicationn /bo't " $20 per applicationo!e Cicense " $120 per application

=i:ed Cocation " $388.50 per applicationn /bo't " $52.65 per applicationo!e Cicense " $156 per application

S-10% BUSINESS REGISTER RENEWAL PROCESSREF # TITLE


$10 per rene)al$52.65 per rene)al

S-10& DUPLICATE BUSINESS LICENSEREF # TITLE


$5 per license+one

S-110 CHANGE BUSINESS NAMEREF # TITLE


$15 per b'siness+one

S CO S C O G#


65/345

CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA


66/345


FY 2015-2016


S-11& NOTARY PUBLICREF # TITLE


+o han*e$10 per si*nat're fee is set b( the tate%

S-120 LOCAL INITIATIVE PROCESSINGREF # TITLE


$200 per initiatie

=ee is ref'ndable to the filer, if )ithin one (ear of filin* the noticeof intent, the elections official certifies the s'fficienc( of thepetition.

This fee is li!ited b( the tate Ca) " @lections ode ection

9202b%

+one

S-121 HIGH HEEL PERMITREF # TITLE


$2 per per!it+one


67/345

APPENDIX B

REVENUE AND COST

SUMMARY WORKSHEETS

Matched With

COST DETAIL WORKSHEETS

CITY O# CARME-Y-T&E-SEA

#Y 015-016

REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY WORKS&EET


68/345

S-001TRACK 1 DESIGN REVIEW/STUDY - MINOR

APPLICATION Developer/Resident/BusinessPLANNING

Review of a Track !inor desi"n review or desi"n stud# $# staff for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards&suc% as landscapin"& fences& decks& or windows'

()*'++ per application

$154.99

#Y 015-016

SERVICE RE#ERENCE NO.

'RIMARY DE'ARTMENT UNIT O# SERVICE SERVICE RECI'IENT

DESCRI'TION O# SERVICE

CURRENT #EE STRUCTURE

REVENUE AND COST COM'ARISON

UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $1)399


FY 2015-2016

COST DETAIL WORKSHEET


69/345

SERVICE

TRACK 1 DESIGN REVIEW/STUDY - MINOR S-001

80

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE

Unit Costs are an Average of Total Units

DEARTMENT OSITION TYE UNIT TIME UNIT COST ANN. UNITS TOTAL COST

PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 0#$$ %21#1& '0 %1,()1

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 0#0' %15#)( '0 %1,2//

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 2#/5 %$$$#)$ '0 %2(,/1&

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ '0 %2,0/0

!"1#$52 !"%6.%0 ".&1TYE SUBTOTAL

!"1#$52 ".&1TOTALS !"%6.%0


#Y 015-016



70/345

S-00TRACK 1 DESIGN REVIEW/STUDY - MA+OR


Review of a Track !aor desi"n review or desi"n stud# $# staff for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards&suc% as !inor co!!ercial facade re!odels or additions to residential $uildin"s'

(*.0') per application

$40".15

#Y 015 016






UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $13)"**


FY 2015-2016



71/345

SERVICE

TRACK 1 DESIGN REVIEW/STUDY - MA'OR S-002

"&

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 0#$$ %21#1& $& %/1)

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 0#50 %))#/& $& %$,$)1

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 5#0' %(1(#'( $& %20,)/$

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ $& %''0

!25#%6" !$6".61 6.16TYE SUBTOTAL

!25#%6" 6.16TOTALS !$6".62


#Y 015-016



72/345

S-003TR 1 DESIGN REV/STUDY - RE# TO 'C


Review of a Track desi"n review or desi"n stud# to t%e Plannin" Co!!ission'

(-.2'22 per application in addition to t%e $ase Track fee

$06.*0






UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $)06*


FY 2015-2016



73/345

SERVICE

TR 1 DESIGN REV/STUDY - REF TO C S-00"

10

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#00 %(/ 10 %(&1

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 1#'$ %$(5#05 10 %$,(51

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 5#25 %($/#51 10 %(,$/5

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 10 %25)

!10#%25 !1#0%2.50 8.""TYE SUBTOTAL

!10#%25 8.""TOTALS !1#0%2.50


#Y 015-016



74/345

S-004TRACK DESIGN REVIEW - MINOR

APPLICATION Developer/BusinessPLANNING

Review of a Track - !inor desi"n review $# t%e Plannin" Co!!ission for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes andstandards& suc% as full co!!ercial facade re!odels or su$stantial c%an"es to site la#out'

(10)',. per application

$*"5.9






UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $9)"41


FY 2015-2016



75/345

SERVICE

TRACK 2 DESIGN REVIEW - MINOR S-00&

"8

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#5' %101#2$ $' %$,'&/

PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" Pblic Noticing 0#/5 %&'#05 $' %1,'2(

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 2#$$ %&(/) $' %1/,((2

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 10#'$ %1,$15#0) $' %&),)/$

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ $' %)'$

!".T3PA"43+.AC CIT !".T." 0#50 %10/#)1 $' %&,101

!$8#"%2 !2#062.%& 16.2&TYE SUBTOTAL

!$8#"%2 16.2&TOTALS !2#062.%5


#Y 015-016



76/345

S-005TRACK DESIGN REVIEW - MA+OR


Review of a Track - !aor desi"n review $# t%e Plannin" Co!!ission for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes andstandards& suc% as a new co!!ercial or residential $uildin"& su$stantial addition to e3istin" $uildin"& or secondfloor additions'

Co!!ercial 4 (&1.*'+, per applicationResidential 5R46 4 (&)-*'. per application

$1)614.50





REVENUE AND COST COM'ARISONUNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $41)9**


FY 2015-2016



77/345

SERVICE

TRACK 2 DESIGN REVIEW - MA'OR S-005

26

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" $#&2 %21)#12 2( %5,()/

PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" Pblic Noticing 0#/5 %&'#05 2( %1,2&)

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" /5 %)&/#5$ 2( %2&,($(

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 2&2 %2,)(5#$2 2( %//,0)'

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 2( %(/$

!".T3PA"43+.AC CIT !".T." 1#50 %$2$#/$ 2( %',&1/

!11$#$$0 !4%.62 "5.0%TYE SUBTOTAL

!11$#$$0 "5.0%TOTALS !4%.62


#Y 015-016



78/345

S-006'REIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT


Prior to a Track - application& a site and tree review to deter!ine t%e feasi$ilit# of t%e proect wit%in Cit# plannin"standards'

(,,)'0- per application

$335."1





REVENUE AND COST COM'ARISONUNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $1)49


FY 2015-2016



79/345

SERVICE

RELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT S-006

6&

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 0#1/ %10#') (& %()/

PLANNING AT3A!C PLANN." $#(/ %$((#($ (& %2$,&(&

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 0#0' %15#)( (& %1,021

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 0#5' %/0#&$ (& %&,50'

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ (& %1,(5(

!".T3PA"43+.AC CIT !".T." 1#50 %$2$#/$ (& %20,/1)

!52#065 !81".51 6.25TYE SUBTOTAL

!52#065 6.25TOTALS !81".52


#Y 015-016



80/345

S-00*REASONAE ACCOMODATION


Review of a proposed proect to deter!ine c%an"es for co!pliance wit% accessi$ilit# standards'

(*.0') per application

$40".5





REVENUE AND COST COM'ARISONUNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $1)633


FY 2015-2016



81/345

SERVICE

REASONABLE ACCOMODATION S-00$

&

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#5' %101#2$ & %&05

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 2#(/ %5$2#(1 & %2,1$0

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." '#&2 %1,022#&& & %&,0)0

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ & %10$

!6#$2% !1#682.15 12.%2TYE SUBTOTAL

!6#$2% 12.%2TOTALS !1#682.25


#Y 015-016


SERVICE RE#ERENCE NO


82/345

S-00"VOUMETRIC ANAYSIS

PRO78CT Developer/Resident/BusinessPLANNING

Review of t%e total volu!e of a proposed proect to deter!ine its co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

(&).. deposit wit% actual costs

$0.00






UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $0


FY 2015-2016



83/345

SERVICE

VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS S-008

&5

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." Pls Actal Costs 1#00 %121#&$ &5 %5,&(&

!5#&6& !121.&" 1.00TYE SUBTOTAL

!5#&6& 1.00TOTALS !121.&2


#Y 015-016


SERVICE RE#ERENCE NO


84/345

S-009USE 'ERMIT


Review of a use per!it for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'


$*"5.3








FY 2015-2016


SERVICE REFERENCE NO


85/345

SERVICE

USE ERMIT S-00%

1%

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#)2 %12$#01 1) %2,$$/

PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" Pblic Noticing 0#/5 %&'#05 1) %)1$

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 2#)2 %5'2#&' 1) %11,0(/

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 1(#0' %1,)52#5) 1) %$/,0))

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 1) %&)2

!51#%08 !2#$"2.00 21.%2TYE SUBTOTAL

!51#%08 21.%2TOTALS !2#$"2.00


#Y 015-016




86/345

S-010MINOR USE 'ERMIT


Review of a !inor use per!it for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

(2*'0 per application

$615.00








FY 2015-2016


SERVICE REFERENCE NO


87/345

SERVICE

MINOR USE ERMIT S-010

1

REFERENCE NO.

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#)2 %12$#01 1 %12$

PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" Pblic Noticing 0#/5 %&'#05 1 %&'

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 2#(/ %5$2#(1 1 %5$$

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 1(/ %1,/'1#$' 1 %1,/'1

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 1 %2(

!2#511 !2#510.%2 20.26TYE SUBTOTAL

!2#511 20.26TOTALS !2#511.00


#Y 015-016




88/345

S-011USE 'ERMIT AMENDMENT


Review of an a!end!ent to an approved use per!it for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'


$615.00







FY 2015-2016


SERVICE REFERENCE NO.


89/345

SERVICE

USE ERMIT AMENDMENT S-011

1

TOTAL UNITSNOTE





PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 2#(/ %5$2#(1 1 %5$$

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 1(/ %1,/'1#$' 1 %1,/'1

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 1 %2(

!2#511 !2#510.%2 20.26TYE SUBTOTAL

!2#511 20.26TOTALS !2#511.00


#Y 015-016




90/345

S-01TEM'ORARY USE 'ERMIT

APPLICATION BusinessPLANNING

Review of ate!porar# use for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards& suc% as a parkin" lot sale or %olida# lot'

None

$0.00







FY 2015-2016




91/345

TEMORARY USE ERMIT S-012

1

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 0#/5 %1&)#(1 1 %150

!150 !1&%.61 0.$5TYE SUBTOTAL

!150 0.$5TOTALS !150.00


#Y 015-016




92/345

S-013RESTRICTED USE TRANS#ER RE,UEST

APPLICATION BusinessPLANNING

Review of a re9uest for a transfer of a restricted use 5suc% as a ewelr# license or %otel/!otel/B:B unit6 forco!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

(&-+'2 per application

$1)9.00







FY 2015-2016




93/345

RESTRICTED USE TRANSFER RE(UEST S-01"

1

TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 0#&2 %2(#)1 1 %2/

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 0#0' %15#)( 1 %1(

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." (#00 %/2'#5' 1 %/2)

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 1 %2(

!$%$ !$%$."2 6.$5TYE SUBTOTAL

!$%$ 6.$5TOTALS !$%$.00

S 014WATER CREDIT TRANS#ER RE,UEST


#Y 015-016




94/345

S-014WATER CREDIT TRANS#ER RE,UEST

APPLICATION Developer/ResidentPLANNING

Review of a proposed water credit transfer $# t%e Cit# Council for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

(&2),'-2 per application

$1)653.00







FY 2015-2016




95/345

WATER CREDIT TRANSFER RE(UEST S-01&

1

TOTAL UNITSNOTE





PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 2#)2 %5'2#&' 1 %5'2

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 1(#0' %1,)52#5) 1 %1,)5$

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 1 %2(

!2#$"2 !2#$"2.00 21.%2TYE SUBTOTAL

!2#$"2 21.%2TOTALS !2#$"2.00

S-015VARIANCE


#Y 015-016




96/345

S-015VARIANCE


Review of a proposed variance fro! t%e ;onin" code for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'


$*"5.00





UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $*"5


FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

VARIANCE S 015

REFERENCE NO.


97/345

VARIANCE S-015

1TOTAL UNITSNOTE





PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" $#1/ %($2#$5 1 %($2

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." /#5' %)20#&& 1 %)20

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 1 %2(

!1#$50 !1#$&%.$2 1".6$TYE SUBTOTAL

!1#$50 1".6$TOTALS !1#$50.00

S-016VARIANCE AMENDMENT


#Y 015-016




98/345

S 016VARIANCE AMENDMENT


Review of an a!end!ent to an approved variance for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'


$0.00







FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

VARIANCE AMENDMENT S 016

REFERENCE NO.


99/345

VARIANCE AMENDMENT S-016

0TOTAL UNITSNOTE



0#00 %0#00 0 %0

!0 !0.00 0.00TYE SUBTOTAL

!0 0.00TOTALS !0.00

S-01*'RE-A''ICATION


#Y 015-016




100/345

R8T Developer/Resident/BusinessPLANNING

Review of a proposed proect in t%e preli!inar# sta"e $# staff at t%e re9uest of t%e applicant'

(11* per application

$**4.00





UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $**4


FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

RE-ALICATION S-01$

REFERENCE NO.


101/345

RE ALICATION S 01$

1TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 0#1/ %10#') 1 %11

PLANNING AT3A!C PLANN." 5#)2 %5)1#&1 1 %5)1

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 0#/5 %1&)#(1 1 %150

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 0#0' %)#/1 1 %10

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#1/ %1/#5) 1 %1'

PU+LIC 6!"4 P6 UP."INT.ND.NT 2#00 %&15#)& 1 %&1(

!".T3PA"43+.AC CIT !".T." 2#00 %&$1#(& 1 %&$2

!1#62$ !1#626.$% 11.0%TYE SUBTOTAL

!1#62$ 11.0%TOTALS !1#62$.00

S-01"CONCE'TUA REVIEW


#Y 015-016




102/345


Review of a proposed proect in t%e conceptual sta"e $# t%e Plannin" Co!!ission or Cit# Council at t%e re9uest oft%e applicant'

(,). per application

$350.00







FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

CONCETUAL REVIEW S-018

REFERENCE NO.


103/345

1TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#(/ %10/#00 1 %10/

PLANNING AT3A!C PLANN." $#$$ %$$2#(/ 1 %$$$

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 1#5' %$15#1' 1 %$15

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 0#5' %/0#&$ 1 %/0

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#1/ %1/#5) 1 %1'

PU+LIC 6!"4 P6 UP."INT.ND.NT 0#50 %10$#)) 1 %10&

!".T3PA"43+.AC CIT !".T." 1#00 %215#'2 1 %21(

!1#16" !1#162.68 8.8"TYE SUBTOTAL

!1#16" 8.8"TOTALS !1#16".00

S-019COASTA DEVEO'MENT 'ERMIT


#Y 015-016




104/345

APPLICATION Business/Co!!' GroupPLANNING

Review of an event in t%e Coastal @one'


$614."0





UNIT REVENUE TOTA REVENUE $3)0*4


FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

COASTAL DEVELOMENT ERMIT S-01%

REFERENCE NO.


105/345

5TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" 1#00 %(/ 5 %$20

PLANNING ADIN C!!"DINAT!" Pblic Noticing 0#/5 %&'#05 5 %2&0

PLANNING PLAN * +LDG -C DI".CT!" 1#'$ %$(5#05 5 %1,'25

PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." 5#25 %($/#51 5 %$,1''

+UILDING P."IT T.C 0#25 %25#'/ 5 %12)

!5#$0" !1#1&0.55 %.08TYE SUBTOTAL

!5#$0" %.08TOTALS !1#1&0.60

S-00S'ECI#IC 'AN


#Y 015-016




106/345

APPLICATION Developer PLANNING

Review of a developer initiated specific plan for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

Actual costs wit% a deposit of (-&0+,',

$0.00







FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

SECIFIC LAN S-020

REFERENCE NO.


107/345

1TOTAL UNITSNOTE



PLANNING .NI!" PLANN." De7osit 0#00 %0#00 1 %0


!0 0.00TOTALS !0.00

S-01S'ECI#IC 'AN AMENDMENT


#Y 015-016




108/345


Review of a developer initiated specific plan a!end!ent for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

None

$0.00







FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

SECIFIC LAN AMENDMENT S-021

REFERENCE NO.


109/345

1TOTAL UNITSNOTE





!0 0.00TOTALS !0.00

S-0GENERA 'AN AMENDMENT


#Y 015-016




110/345


Review of a developer initiated "eneral plan a!end!ent for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standards'

Actual costs wit% a deposit of (-&0+,'-

$0.00







FY 2015-2016


SERVICE

GENERAL LAN AMENDMENT S-022

REFERENCE NO.


111/345

1TOTAL UNITSNOTE





!0 0.00TOTALS !0.00

S-03S'&ERE O# IN#UENCE AMENDMENT


#Y 015-016





112/345


Review of a developer initiated spe%ere of influence a!end!ent for co!pliance wit% Cit# codes and standar

workshop cost of services study 02-29-16

Documents