HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081992 - FC.2 V C. L
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �E L
Contra
FROM:
FROM: ..::.r '`: ,• Costa
ca `J
Finance Committee COl..lnt
v
�;,,, .•fir
v
DATE: T�i`c iunT
SUBJECT: December 8, 1992
FEE ADJUSTMENTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC WORKS
AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENTS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1 . APPROVE fee adjustments for various services in Building
Inspection, Community Development, and Public Works
departments as listed in proposed fee schedule. (see Public
Hearing item, December 8 at 11 am)
2 . DIRECT Growth Management and Economic Development Agency to
review the efficiency of land development services and
report findings to the Finance Committee within six months .
3 . APPROVE concept of a replenishment reserve with the
condition that the reserve will not exceed six months Land
Development operating costs for the three GMEDA departments .
4 . Direct Growth Management and Economic Development Agency and
the County Administrator's Office to review the efficiency
of operations and utilization levels of the Central Permit
Counter within six months .
5 . AMEND proposed fee schedule, service number S-048, Appeals
to the Board of planning decisions from $550 per appeal to
$125 for applicants .
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed fee adjustments will assist Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency's goal of financial self-reliance,
from the General Fund.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
x � I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
ZJNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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.
CC: Orig Dept: County Administrator ATTESTED �(J/1c�2r,�(.�t/ sTZ,4-,�F ;2-
GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Auditor-Controller: Paul Abelson SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building Inspection
Community Development
Public Works BY DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
-2-
BACKGROUND
On November 9, the Finance Committee reviewed the proposed fee
adjustments for Building Inspection, Community Development, and
Public Works . Testimony was heard from the three departments, as
well as GMEDA staff, and representatives from the Building
Industry Association.
The Finance Committee endorsed the proposed fee schedule, and
requested an evaluation of operational efficiencies be conducted.
The Building Industry Association restated their willingness to
pay the cost of services, if there is evidence that Agency
operations are becoming more effective and minimizing wasteful
expenditures . Department staff promised that an efficiency study
would be forthcoming next year.
The Committee discussed the policy of a limited replenishment
reserve. The fee proposal creates a replenishment reserve to
cover operating costs during slow economic periods . Basically
each land development fee includes an amount to be put in the
replenishment reserve so as to build the reserve up over time.
(Only land development fees include a contribution to the
reserve, not the fees for Conservation and other program areas . )
Under a policy of a limited replenishment reserve, fees would be
lowered to exclude the contribution to the reserve when a goal
amount was reached. The Committee recommends limiting the
reserve to six months of operating costs . At the proposed fee
levels, six months operating costs will be obtained in six years .
Questions were raised over the efficiency of the Central Permit
Counter. The Committee requested a report from the County
Administrator' s Office and GMEDA reviewing utilization levels and
operational efficiencies of the Central Permit Counter.
Finally, one fee change was recommended for the Appeals to the
Board on Planning decisions . Under the current and department
proposed fee, Appeals to the Board are greater for the applicant
than they are for others . The rationale being that a proposed
project may have a negative effect on a nearby resident as
opposed to economic gain to the applicant. The Finance Committee
recommended the same fee of $125 for all parties .