Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07071997 - C127 a LY" V I TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM. Mark DeSaulnier - ,:s Costa ..,,��,o� 4 y.w� V DATE: July 22, 1997 f `;�<„uCount s SUBJECT: Independent Study/Report Regarding Fee Structure and Cost Recovery for GMEDA Services; Refer Matter to Finance Committee; Request Home Builders Association to Fund Study SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION DIRECT the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) to present a budget proposal on costs to perform an independent study/report analyzing the fee structure and costs recovered by GMEDA to the Finance Committee for approval of said independent study/report; REFER oversight of this issue to the Finance Committee; REQUEST the Home Builders Association to consider funding the independent study. BACKGROUND In 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy of 100 percent cost recovery for land development services. Based on an independent consultant's study, the Board increased the fees charged for those services. At that meeting, the Board directed staff to prepare a study that would evaluate whether the fees were reasonable based on measures of efficiency because of a concern by the Home Builders Association that the 1992 study was quantitative in nature, not qualitative, and that no review of the efficiency or quality of the work was conducted or factored in the fee calculations. Five years have passed and no independent study has been conducted. It is appropriate to now obtain an independent study regarding the unaddressed issues. The Finance Committee is requested to review the study budget proposal provided by GMEDA and monitor appropriate charges for performing the study. The Finance Committee is further requested to review the response from the Home Builders Association on our request to it for possibly funding the study. After the study is completed, the Finance Committee is requested to review the findings in the report and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on appropriate, if any, action. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 1' /wis RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Ailgu4C 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT II and III ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED August S, 1997 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Finance Committee SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GMEDA Director Home Builders Association r / BY�`' '�/ DEPUTY HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION July 14, 1997 Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier RECEIVED Contra Costa Board of Supervisors OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 651 Pine Street JUL 1 6 1997 Martinez, CA 94553 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier and Board Members: In 1992 the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy of 100 percent cost recovery for land development services and based on a consultant's study, the Board dramatically increased the fees charged for those services. At that time, I argued against a 100 percent recovery policy because of the public protection nature of many of the services. I also pointed out that the consultant's study was quantitative in nature, not qualitative. The study simply took however many hours someone worked on a project and cost it out; no review of the efficiency or quality of the work was conducted or factored into the fee calculations. The Board responded to my legitimate concern by ordering staff to prepare a study that would evaluate whether the fees were reasonable based on measures of efficient . Now, almost five years later, that Board order still has not been completed. Many positive actions have occurred over the past five years within the County's Land Development Services. The Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA)is working hard to resolve organizational issues and encourage streamlining. However, the issues of costs and revenues, as they relate to efficiencies has not been adequately addressed. That is why, on behalf of my members, I ask the Board to consider seeking an independent study/report of those efficiency issues. The purpose of an independent study is twofold: it will remove any perception of bias and allow GMEDA to accomplis i their existing work plan. If you have any questions, please contact me. :es,re ards, Mailing Address: e P.O.Box 5160 San Ramon uy jerke California 94583 Staff Vice President 200 Porter Drive c. Val Alexeeff, GMEDA Director #200 San Ramon California 94583 Tel(510)820-7626 Fax(510)820-7296