HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11051991 - 1.98 i 1-095
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1991.
SUBJECT: REVISION!TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES
I
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& 13ACKGROIJND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ADOPT following revisions to fee adjustments to Community Development fees.!:
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will reduce the,fee revenue to the Community Development Departmeint by less
than 2%.
i
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On September 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors adopted a permanent and an urgency
interim resolution to increase land development fees. The permanent resolution will become
effective on November 15, 1991.
In March 1992, the Finance Committee will consider the b
experience of the fee chlan re and
P i
discuss related issues. In the interim period, staff has found significant hardship caused by
several permit types affecting individual property owners. By this action, staff does not
suggest that the MSI report findings were incorrect. The assertion is that the fees have been
raised so high that residents may elect to avoid the permit process and construct illegally or
forgo action beneficial to the County.
It will be incumbent upon staff to place more responsibility on the applicant or streamline
the process to bring workload and fee into closer alignment.
CONTINUED ON ATIACIIMENE. YES SIGNATURE:
_RECOMMENDNITON OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RE.COMENDMION OF BOARD COMMITIU;
APPROVE 07TIER
SIGNATURE(S): p�
ACTION OF BOARD ON NOV V 5 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTTIER
i
l
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I I I-11 RL'13Y CERTIFY THAT 'mis IS A TRUE AND
X
CORRE M' COPY OF AN ACID NI'AKL'N AND
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) IiNTnsRI D ON '111E MINUTES OF 'ITIS BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON 111L'DATE SHOWN.
AYES: NOES:
AT ITSTI:D N O V 5 1991
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
I'l IIL BAT'CI IELOR,CLERK OF-nic,BOARD OF
iSUPERVISORS AND COUN/IYT ADMINISTRNMR
13Y ///----__�/ /1LC ?�c!��C-QI/� ,DEPUTY
CC. County Counsel S
GMEDA Departments
Abelson)
Auditor-Controller(P. j
J
Revise Fee Board Order
November 5, 1991
Page 2
I
Staff has also surveyed other cities and Alameda County, and found that other jurisdictions
did charge more for permits, but the median was lower than Contra Costa fees so this
adjustment is intended to bring fees closer to the median. In the discussions before the
Finance Committee next March, staff will include discussion of the effect of this fee change.
Staff recommends revision of the following fees:
Home Occupation
Fee prior to September 17, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 150
Current fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
Proposed fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Second Residing Unit
Fee prior to September 17, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 500
Cuireiat fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1620
Proposed fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750
Variance -Administrative
Fee prior to September 17, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.10
Current fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
Proposed fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400