Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12091997 - D5 P�/ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` .. Contra FROM: Costa �i c+► r< Finance Committee x = y. DATE: County (Gsr�------'-'.:�t� December 9, 1997 SUBJECT: GMEDA FINANCIAL ISSUES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. AUTHORIZE a budget for "Unfunded Mandates" which the Board of Supervisors would allocate toimplement policy initiatives not normally within a Department's purview of activities, DIRECT the County Administrator to formulate procedures and identify financing, and DIRECT the Finance Committee to monitor expenditures from the budget. 2. DIRECT the Community Development Department to initiate streamlining efforts with home occupation uses. 3. AUTHORIZE the Growth Management-and Economic Development Agency to prepare amendments to the fee ordinance requiring fees to be charged on a 100% of time and materials basis, and eliminating the current flat fee system which allows applicants to exceed the standard time threshold by 20% before additional fees are assessed. 4. DIRECT the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency to improve their billing procedures to more clearly and precisely document all costs. 5. DIRECT the GMEDA to institute new strategies to improve revenue, cash flow and work efficiencies, which would encompass the cost and benefits of each change, including cost or benefit shifts to other applicants or other Departments. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Joe Canciamilla Gayle I1i.lkersa ACTION OF BOARD ON December 9, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT none ) 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: County Administrator ATTESTED December 9, 1997 GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382 (1010,' BY DEPUTY t Page 2 6. DIRECT the GMEDA staff, in concert with County Administrator staff, to review the fee study assumptions adopted in 1992, in terms of applicability to current County needs and requirements. 7. REQUEST that the Finance Committee review the implementation of these five recommendations and report back to the Board no later than December, 1998. BACKGROUND: The Finance Committee reviewed a number of reports presenting financial and operational concerns of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency at four meetings on September 15, October 6, October 20 and November 17, 1997. Representatives from GMEDA attended the meetings and presented the data. At one meeting, a representative of the Development Community was present and participated in the discussions. A wide range of issues and concerns were discussed at the four meetings. Attachments A, B, C and D were presented as background information and discussion papers for the discussions. The Agency staff emphasized the tenuous financial situation of the budget given dwindling fund balances over the last several years. The Committee sought to improve the Agency's budget in the future and stimulate operational changes which are responsive to the numerous and diverse communities in the unincorporated areas. Inherent in these budget discussions was the issue of what type and level of service should be supported by the General Fund, or base level of service, and what type and level of services should be charged to users. The Committee action requires the County Administrator to formulate the procedures and identify funding for the "Unfunded Mandates" Budget. Preliminarily, the Administrator's Office plans to place this budget within the Board of Supervisors budget unit, and to target a maximum of$100,000 for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The Finance Committee recognizes the need to revisit each of the recommendations within the next year to determine whether amendments are necessary. ATTACHMENT 1 MSI CONCEPTS INCORPORATED INTO LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING AND OPERATIONS MSI CONCEPTS The MSI study was based on a set of principles that sought to have development pay the full cost of the services required. The authors of the study have identified the following as service costs: 1. Labor costs. 2. Employee benefit costs. 3. Operational services and supply expenses. 4. Overhead expense. 5. Administrative costs. 6. Start-up costs. 7. Future capacity expenses. 8. Capital replacement expense. 9. Costs of expansion of services. 10. Repayment of debt. The items included in GMEDA expenses include items 1-5 and item 8. The entire list has been defended as legitimate cost. TECHNIQUES Two techniques were utilized to identify the service centers for which revenue and cost data were gathered and around which the service cost analysis of this report is built. The first technique involved gathering revenue information for the past fiscal year to identify services for which fees are currently being charged. The second technique involved several scheduled and numerous unscheduled meetings with staff to identify each type of service being provided with or without a charge. VA:dg finance.1 2 (9/15/97) Once services were identified , MSI began a series of iterative steps which were repeated until all parties were comfortable with the data: Identify staff and associated time spent on each service. Identify operational expenses that are direct costs of services. Allocate the balance of direct costs (operational costs, fringes, building occupancy and fixed asset replacement) proportionate to the time staff spends directly. Allocate indirect costs (i.e. overheads) proportionate to the total of direct costs excluding fixed asset replacement and debt service. Compare the total service cost with the.service revenue. COUNTY ROLE IN LAND USE The County staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors, require the processes enumerated in the above schedule as the price of review, input and ultimate, albeit sometimes begrudging, acceptance of land development by neighboring properties. Basically, such review is required by State law, assigning the role of impartial arbiter of land use decisions to local government -- cities and counties. While it would be grossly unfair, and now per recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions foolhardy and expensive as well, to deny totally all development, such effectively has been done in some locations. The County is by law put into the unenviable position of being the impartial arbiter; a referee over development. Thus it seems logical, as well as politically necessary, and necessarily equitable that the development industry bear the full cost of the services to regulate its development. Not more than cost, nor less than cost; but only full cost recovery through fees charged. VA:dg fmance.1 3 (9/15/97) MULTI-YEAR SERVICE It must be considered that monies are collected in advance of the delivery of service. Thus, the revenues collected in one year must be held for use in future years. Staff does calculate the liability for future work and requests the Auditor-Controller to reserve monies that have not been earned. Nevertheless, in an economic downturn, there will be a decline in revenue while the workload remains high. FRONT-END VERSUS BACK-END FEES - CREATION OF SURCHARGE Several years ago, County staff was requested by the development community to minimize the "front-end" fees for planning services by utilizing a "back-end" surcharge on building permits to pay for the balance of those planning services. No recorded attempt was made at that time by either the County staff or the building industry_ to establish a procedure which would match the revenue collected by the surcharge with the cost of the services discounted. In fact, no effort was made to even identify the "front-end" services that lead to building permits. It is easy to conclude from the evidence, or lack thereof, that the building industry was not as concerned with what they paid as they were with when they paid it. Actually, there have been advantages and disadvantages for both the County and the building industry in this "surcharge" arrangement. The County benefits from a fee structure that has the potential to collect more than the "costs" foregone at the "front-end" while the delay in the collection of the surcharge requires that the County finance some development related processes prior to receiving any money. The building industry benefits from a "cost" that is incurred closer to the point where the development begins to generate revenue which decreases the need to finance additional costs while the fee mechanism makes it impossible to insure that total charges to the developer are matched with total costs of the County. The Land Development Fund, discussed below, is MSI's recommendation for insuring that the revenues collected more closely match the costs. V A:dg firiance.l 4 (9/15/97) SURCHARGE USE ISSUES Code Enforcement • Counter • General Plan Maintenance • Code Enforcement The service is being provided to a property owner or tenant long after the development has been completed. Alternatives suggested to finance these services are: (1) an increase in the Property-Transfer Tax, (2) a Change of Occupancy Permit or (3) a more aggressive "lien" procedure. The "lien" procedure has its limitations because often there is either insufficient value to lien against or there is the desire to maintain "goodwill" by not relying on the lien procedure. The Property Transfer Tax has lately been referred to as the "under utilized" tax. However, a tax should be available for general County purposes and not be restricted for this type of service. The Change of Occupancy Permit is now being used by more and more local governments as a means to inspect property prior to a change in ownership. This procedure identifies code violations which force the seller to correct all deficiencies prior to the close of escrow. However, this type of permit is unpopular with the realtors in that it tends to throw a timing and financial curve ball that may delay the sale of property. MSI recommends that the County recover these costs 100% from the surcharge. However, the following is a possible compromise if the County does not wish to recover 100% from the surcharge: First, follow a more aggressive lien procedure. Second, identify specific types of property sales where a Change in Occupancy Permit would focus on problem areas instead of requiring a Permit for all property sales. And, third, continue to finance this service from the VA:dg finance.l 5 (9/15197) surcharge until the other two revenue sources are in place then gradually phase down the use of the surcharge until it covers only one-third of the cost. • Counter This service is generated by the numerous planning assistance at the counter. These requests are not, according to the BIA, generated by developers. Three suggestions were offered by the BIA to provide for these costs which amount to about $287,970 annually: (1) Add a flat "counter feel' to all building permits, (2) Charge for counter service, and (3) hire fewer employees to provide counter service. Hiring fewer staff to provide counter service is contrary to providing quality service to the public. Typically, governments use this approach only as a last resort when trying to balance the budget. Charging for counter service is becoming more popular to restrict the free use of public services, particularly when the applicant wants the staff to help in the design of additions or patios that should be done by the private sector. This type of charge should discourage the disproportionate use of staff by the few who would abuse the system. Adding a flat counter fee to the building permit would cause all applicants to share the cost of the counter. The BIA feels, however, that their members do not use this service and should not have to pay for it. Again, MSI recommends that 100% of this service be recovered from the surcharge. However, another approach would be to: First, establish a policy that the first fifteen minutes of counter assistance per month per applicant is free after which the applicant is charged $10 per quarter hour or fraction thereof. Second, institute a $5 "counter feel' on all building permits. And, third, continue to use the surcharge until the first two steps are in effect after which time, there would be no use of the to finance this service. BIA members would pay the counter fee like all other applicants but would not be double charged through the surcharge. VA:dg finance.1 6 (9/15/97) • General Plan Maintenance The County has the legal requirement to update various planning "elements" every five years. This issue was discussed earlier. MSI's position is that if the County had no development, there would be no need to update the planning "elements." The BIA's position is that the planning "elements" protect the taxpayer by maintaining the value of their property in a well-planned county; and, therefore, the taxpayer should pay for the maintenance of the planning "elements." MSI recommends that this cost be covered 100%by the surcharge. VA:dg finance.1 7 (9/15/97) ATTACHMENT 2 ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FEES Implicit assumptions of time spent based on fee. An hour of fully burdened planner time is charged at $100 per hour which incudes the following: 1 hour of planner time 1 hour of clerical time 0.1 hour of senior administration 0.1 hour of routine administration for internal overhead, supplies, graphics, for external overhead The total hours implied for the following applications are as follows: building permit second unit 10 hours home occupation 3 hours land use permit 18 hours small lot review 45 minutes new development plan review 60 hours subdivision - 10 lots 18.5 hours subdivision - 100 lots 115 hours (includes PV) rezoning 66 hours appeals 75 minutes alteration of 1 tree 15 minutes alteration of 10 trees 75 minutes most applications in North Richmond 30 minutes following P-1 ordinance creating admin review Note: Based on MSI, code enforcement is funded to 1200 hours per year VA--dg fmance.2 2 (9/15/97) ANATOMY OF A BUILDING PERMIT FEE These fees were estimated on July 9, 1997 and are calculated for a single family residence, 1800 sq. ft., wood frame. SOURCE PURPOSE . LQCATIUN Oakley Alamo Kensington Building Plan review, $ 1,847 $ 2,231 $ 2,449 Inspection Inspection Community Land use 610 737 809 Development (l) compliance, Code enforcement Public Works Facilities (roads, 9,797 3,013 2,570 drainage),(2) Floodplain management Parks Facilities 1,350 2,000 2,000 GMEDA TOTAL 13,604 7,981 7,828 Fire Facilities 480 0 0 Sanitary Service/ 3,800 3,100 (av) 480(3) Facilities Water Service/ 6,975(4) 2,555 service(5) 2,555'service(7) Facilities 8,560 facilities(6) 1,590 facilities(8) Schools Facilities(9) 3,312 3,312 3,312 PERMIT TOTAL 1 28,171 T-25,508 F 15,76:5:77:] (1) Fee amount is 40%of the building inspection fee. (2) On any specified lot,Public Works may collect road and/or drainage fees. On the lots examined for this fee estimate,drainage fees had not been assessed. (3) Plus$25 inspection and$5 plan check fee. (4)$3050 from$6975 goes from Oakley Water District to Contra Costa Water District. (5)Plus$25 accounting fee. (6)Fee for new facility infrastructure. (7)Plus$25 accounting fee and$605 waste water fee. (8)Fee for maintenance of existing infrastructure. (9)The state maximum for school fees is$1.84 sq.ft.,school districts in East County for new development would require$14,634 based on present formula. VA:dg finance.2 3 (9115197) BUILDING INSPECTION: DISTRIBUTION OF FEES G. F. ' BI CD 2 PW S-001 6.5% 92.8% 7.2% — S-002 6.5% 100% — — S-003 6.5% 94.2% 1.0% 4.8% S-004 thru 5-012 6.5% 1 100% — — BACK-END FEES G.F. ' BI CD PW S-008 R form 6.5% 9% — — S-011 records research 6.5% 2.5% — — S-012 evid. reproduction 6.5% 0.7% — — S-020 Gn plan mtce 6.5% — 15.7% — S-052A fee sys clerical 6.5% — 4.2% 8.4% S-061 gro mgmt t.f. 6.5% — 0.2% — 5-062 measure c 6.5% — 16.7% — S-066 code enforce 6.5% 22.2% ' — — S-067 front counter 6.5% — 20.4% — 1 G.F.: 6.5 % of total of each department. BI revenues are totalled quarterly and 6.5% taken for the general fund. The remainder constitutes the 100%distributed. 2 CD checks permit applications for planning and zoning requirements,prior conditions. 3 Code enforcement to BI max approx. $121,500;remainder to CD for payment to county counsel VA:dg finance.2 4 (9/15/97) p m � '� '� N w d Q' ca'o d O CDr Fr cr CD CD CDcl p 0 � C CDD a caD (D CD a COD p ? O O C ~ \1 \000 DD Q\ �A A N J Oo n y O O J w tD O\ go J A N d O cp O O O 00 \0 110 A 00 in N 00 W �) y O O O O cn D\ A t0 O J t0 w N U oo N fro! �' O A vl O in 0o O .-. N a\ oo PO O O O O O to N 0o O \10 O O O O a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C� �--� o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O 0 o J N w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 M O O O O J O w J O O O O O ,•� O O O O tD O N 00 O O A O O w w a aON tA u% O, rn o, (31\ rn rn O, O. rn rn a O Q\ U. IN N N [J EJ N N hl N In O n O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O. c�D CN A N 110 N A o0 oNo ON, O (� 9 O A O ? N - A O\ J �.o �••' m O O tr A 090 N w J twit 090 p' o O A w A C� 00 w C\ w G 0 � CDW W J .-. 00 W N W A C9 y 0 N t0 O % Oo -• N w J ^ 00 N O\ LA ? �1 ro l7� CD CD W w ON v) W co •A O �D �O -P y+ A tf .N- ON O �O A N a\ O O W J 00 Cn N /1 0 00 O w (-) " O. v A � v >e O 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w A C .+• ' `� o o A o 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0v, `•'`C cNi C) O O N O O O O O O O O O O F.,y o CD �-- C) 0 0 0 o rn o o o o o CD0 ONO VNi lr N t1i to N CN ao a1 ON t0 to O' to J w J ON co J O LO �o CN w P O, 00 to o w o0 0 M o 0 00 y E� ^' 0 H CD ON (-h to w tN-, 00 w �1 w ON C C CC v] Oo N A AN O tr O N N to CD CD C w A w O to W J N ON OA 0 a\ to N O to A N Ot mN 00 �o (1. i--• lJl t0 O 01 O In J W to W t0 CD n O O O 00 O w O W tr O O\ O W CD O b N �h w.. o CDC') W C W w J N w N t") ►-r, W J d �J �O N tO A W N J tD D O ao + CD p " CD O •-• O\ O O w LA in \.o \,D J A� Q w oo to w to w w 00 tO oo9N PO 00 91 W �o w A C, O in �--� A A (jQCD M w W In N to O w ti CD �i Oo Oo 00 00 00 Oo 00 00 Oo 00 0o 00 00 o GO O O O O O O O O O O O O CD Q C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O `'C g. gooo g ?o a O CD00 0 0 0 0 Np w v i, rn o N d a C c p3 0 0 o rn 00 p. o �o P O O O O w N 00 to tr A CD C D x A w W n ^ CCDcn �� O O �p J J w .-. N A b7 O b by p., � ►fit vOi tN0 O •tN.� O J -- O O W W 090 rn cwn N G- v, w 0o J O oo in w A J a\ A A O to O to O A N D\ A to N O � A N U _a 00 N O ON to W O\ 0) J m \.O `f b C� �O O O J N A to oo 00 to 00 to O d Q y 0o C O O w A \O \0 �1 w A O O O A O\ O t0 LA N SID CDD Q. Ot W N �"� „''• �.yO O Orn 00 0 O o w (71O A J Lh rn o ~ 0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J UNDERFUNDED SERVICES Percent Of Historical Business Practice To Make Up Service Percent Shortfall Code Service Funded Shortfall (There are no funds currently available in the By Fee operations reserve*) S-008 Building Code 0% 100% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3**):52% Complaint Investigation Operations reserve: 48% S-011 Building 45% 55% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 28% Records Research Land Dev.Fund(Worksheet/Schedule 3): 26% S-012 Subpoena Service(BI) 40% 60% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 31% Operations reserve: 29% S-020 General Plan 0% 100% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 52% Maintenance Operations reserve: 48% S-044 Zoning 52% 48% Operations reserve: 48% Variance S-047 ZA Appeals 54% 46% Applicant billing: 46% A-D S-047E Planning Commission 54% 46% Operations reserve: 46% Agenda Mailing Service S-048 Appeals to Board 34% 66% Operations reserve: ***66% A-D S-050 Ag.Preserve Rezoning 25% 75% Operations reserve: 75% Review S-052A Fee Services Clerical 0% 100% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 52% Operations reserve: 48% S-061 Growth Mgmt Task Force 0% 100% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 52% Operations reserve: 48% S-062 Growth Mgmt.Plan 0% 100%**** Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 52% Operations reserve: 48% S-066 Code Enforcement 0% 100% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 52% Operations reserve: 48% S-067 Counter Information 0% 100% Planning surcharge on building permits(Schedule 3): 52% Operations reserve: 48% * The 1992 cost of services study contemplated fluctuating demands on the Land Development Fund which acts as an operations reserve. The reserve was not established for supplemental sustained funding of underfunded services. Because of continued demand to supplement underfunded services,the operations reserve is now depleted. ** "Schedule 3"refers to Schedule 3 in the 1992 Cost of Services Study. *** The appeal fee is sufficient to cover the cost of putting an item on the Commission agenda. All other work associated with the appeal is considered to be project related and as such,is charged against the project. **** CCTA funds program annually. Excess costs over annual funding is offset by planning surcharge and operations reserve. ED:Iz(9/12/97) doten\services.cht CD CD CD W N VJ V] CD �' o CL Y YQ pC�?? cn` w ni �n ^ c% ro cp N CCD CCD p' v,' CD CD o. a C9 w 0' 0 w w � CDw O O (D O 0 0 0 N O' 00 ,'7• N 0 G �. 0 CD CD rn W a' 0 0 1 0 0 O ? �' + ao w CD qq 0 N N N J N J . O \0 O N (�'D N to ut u, O t.n Vi ut O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O W W 1 00 91 OAO J A 00 C) 00 00 \o \0 \0 A m ut N 00 W d O O .-. Vt U. O\ A \0 O J \o V CD Cl O O N W W N N lAn OC\ Do N ` CD Gcre-' C> O O V. t°On N 00 O %0 d CD O O O O O O O O O O O W O o O O O O O O O C O O O O Cl O O O O O O O CD CD > l 1 0 0 o o w 0 0 0 0 W O O \0 O O N 0o Cl O A O C � a Z C � � C, a, o N lJ N N N N N N N [J O Cl O O O O O C>O O O O M�1 ut w N N A -- W A N 00 J A J 00 ^ A J w A \D N A w N N uA 00 O\ O\ �1 O\ to ut J A A 0\ W 0o O 00 ►� CD CD th u O O a\ O O O D\ O 00 J O O 00 O O A A O 000 (^'� O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XCD`< d N 0 ZO O w O O 00 N O O O O GJ Cl 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 H CD Vii V.A A VL ii Ai \O O W O A a o o 0 — 8) d .r w A VP O w O\ \G ? t f cn CCD oho N A oA\ O J v ►'h N A J 00 A w ? CN N 6% J U V, C% ON to W O O N o lO \0 \O \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \O \0 \0 ^ 00 00 0000 00 00 co 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O, O O O CDtz �. CD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q. (T J J v J J J J J J J J n cn W N O O w A N 00 �-1 9 O N �l N J oo A J O tr � M o Y O ,? - A^ CD CD 0 C7 n G < N (A O\ G v p.. to 0 O �O O O O O G �' �• O' O O N ut N \O 00 N \0 O N (A v, --I] w w ON CL y O co Ti R- dM CD J • aO :D + , .7 OVt V, kA Oo Ut N 'b O O v A ON N OA w O N A Vii cn 0 000 . N R J U c c X (O W V CA O1 A CO N �• r V V V V V -J V V OD CA) -4 ODco � c c0 0 OAi ODA 10 (O W N 0275vDgv1 � v 00 R° 01 7 = 4 —• m 0 � 5 � � � 5 < � 9 � ' I0 g� Q, m �. n v y m z o O u� z � n W 4A Es Fa Ea v►v+e► mm p V pW c(,1o1OODD��VODZWOWp m < D y 00 0D N VM A V A Z mc M A :J O U1 O O O O C C S 888888888M OMc En r,En Nm� aArnprno o& 0C) N m0)( t ) ti3 — 38fti W A WnNA� v,d+;'T wivm `;vFn p m S• W V N A A O 0 W W (n C M V1 OD v- -(0 OD A m D co co O (D (0 ,OMD f��Upn tCO N 01 A V f�0 A O ♦ f i N o 4,�64 469 49 fA ,A0 .g A N - U1 CO W OWED (0 In Op -4 0 (1- 0 -42 0 V W N VE VO�AppEpD' 8W98A -N4rf- avC coVOD (011NAN W ? 6F < m v N. �o G^AbN9f_AEA� OXO G 7 W S -• N CD W N_((11_co N ? y vii m 01 IV A A CO WO J q)--4 W j• m (WJ1 01 N 0p1 Cb O , vvA4 O OVOA1 A ,911 N Oo tvO7f A N W •y" X g0 O N V N A �W (D to g8 w W t�Lp, t0 (W71 A (00 CD x(0101 mIr N (io. O> W N N A N W �R � pX a (y� OAD 0) V A 110 O PD A ,OWD N 'v�'w8888888 ? � Ep_A(ppig!(fl df E�A1 fA tyyA pN fA y � (O OD O W A (O w 071 O N OD g), g V p(O C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 v v v v v Qv m m m m m � 0 3 0 3 0 '�. 3 7�. y 3 3 3 V N N c $3 Q 3 � m N 1^' V � � 7 m r N V � O c c au X r -40 to A CO N + V 0 0 OD O�f t(p, (n A (n C A -Al W N N N N Z C �1L� fn � _ m m_ 0 O jlt m 7 m Q Q. N _. � 3 90 a—) 9 a g 'fl z m v w = g g r. w 3 z a m o H N m G N fAA)1 ANA CT fAA7� + N Ln O O O O N O C c mc 0000000 G M n M o. fA N fA fA w O c lit ' co 0 B � liNa - ma W Obi N A Uro tr4 d r O y fA to to fA EA fA fA o m (] N + W + W O_(T O m � O OD o)3) CO n 3 4 c0 Zn V N W R1 Q V V W fJi A �Cpp A O (n V -�+ CCn CO CD r � O f) � v fA fA fA fA fA r'fA O C r, wAwiAooD (� v m D 0Ocn0V - N WN N F� A CpA �Vp AN � m pX � p m N Ate+ (0 W N C A O� O 0 A. 0 0 -04' W � Q O IVN ppO (Vp AN O 4 Oo 8 + 08N Oo m " O nnN�� X OBD N co U y V 6'!fA N fA fA V W A V pO A Op pO cWp OV N O O N 8 H s� cg ifl T z o W � QQ b�_ 4 V fA m fA fA OND A ".9< O A 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 H 8 8888888 A , V fA fA fA fA fA fA O N fA ... + fAN G1 A N � < A O O A 9DD pa 0) m ID CT W 8 A C f o O 0 m 0 0 0 v 3 y 8 � A 0 0 0 4 N 7 ATTACHMENT 3 STEPS IN APPLICATION PROCESSING COST ISSUES FOR STEPS IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS Introduction The purpose of this document is to identify issues related to steps in the application process, to identify assumptions on the amount of time that should be spent based on the MSI study and subsequent experience, to encourage further analysis of the process and to encourage actions to reduce cost that don't add value to the outcome. i Public involvement is a part of this process and should remain so. Enhanced public participation is state and local policy. The cost of public participation was not considered or included beyond comments at a single hearing before the planning commission in the MSI study. Projects in some application categories are more unique than similar, due to location, geography, quality,.public sensitivity, and other factors. Two land use permits can have significant differences in time and cost of processing. A subdivision adjacent to a creek in Alamo can have a substantially different processing experience than an infill proposal in Oakley. It is difficult to generalize subdivisions, use permits, general plan amendments, in standard processing times. For non routine projects time can be used as a starting point for estimating time. The current billing/time keeping process takes time, but is not sufficiently sophisticated to include the twists and turns that an application can take. Planners spend time seeking to determine the appropriate category for an activity. The majority of applications proceed smoothly through project review and get approval in the time frame predicted. This occurs when the project is well designed. It meets the needs of the location and no unusual controversy exists. A review of several months of the zoning administrator agenda will support this claim. Many complex or controversial projects have moved through the process efficiently and satisfactorily when there has been sufficient revenue to dedicate 40% or more of a staff members time to it. When the application was well conceived and the applicants staff helpful and supportive and information requests or design changes handled expeditiously and thoroughly. These projects include Clean Fuels Projects, Gale Ranch, Wendt, Tassajara Meadows and the Anderson project. VA:dg fmance.3 2 (9/15/97) Some projects are process when staff has a massive in workload, short deadlines and constant interruptions from crises or other factors or there has been some misjudgement. For these projects staff and the current system must accept responsibility. We are seeking operational improvements to prevent this. The discussion that follows identifies 18 steps in the application process. It provides the expectations associated with the step, and it offers explanations and examples of time expanding problems that arise. Application Process Analysis and Recommendations 1. Preapplication inquiry. Expectation: The average time for initial inquiry is estimated at twenty minutes to include check on general plan, zoning, and to explain application procedures. Problem Factors: This can range from a twenty minute check of general plan and zoning designations, previous permits and permitted uses, to ten or more staff hours'required for feasibility analysis. Generally, real estate agents, appraisers, and title insurance companies are specific and to the point when they are filling out a form and receiving help from the counter. Property owners, developers and speculators generally want more than zoning and general plan designations. They need explanations about geotechnical issues, flood zone, past design review restrictions, conditions of approval, which MACs, committees or other agencies need to be contacted,what the authority these organizations have, whether the parcel is legal or requires small lot review. Extraordinary information requests include large scale development evaluations. Searching for files and reviewing microfiche is'time consuming. Recently, an inquiry to the feasibility of having a cogeneration plant in one of the old industrial plants included staff reviewing material, developing application strategy, and explaining state requirements. Unfortunately, the project was dropped due to engineering feasibility problems. VA:dg finance.3 3 (9/15/97) This time has not been directly compensated. It is particularly expensive when no application is filed following extensive staff discussion, investigation, and advice in the interests of economic development or service to the general public. Counter staff receive 1700-1800 preliminary inquiries per month (excluding direct calls to planning staff). Two planning staff and a single GMEDA clerk field calls and respond to these inquiries with backup periodically required by other planning staff. They are budgeted through a building permit fee surcharge and operating reserves, which are insufficient to cover costs. The cost is estimated at $403,000 for fiscal year 1996-97. The revenue estimated for this activity is $201,000. Recommendation: Seek ways to enable public to get basic property information without calling staff. (Some additional funds will be necessary to expand computer communication.) Some economy can be created by using a form faxed between staff and the inquirer. Additional information can be received by appointment. When a feasibility analysis is needed, a budget should be proposed and deposit collected to cover time. Alternatively a budget and funding source could be established to assist industrial/commercial feasibility analysis without charging the applicant. Charging the applicant for extended preapplication assistance may be criticized as anti-economic development. 2. Application acceptance and preliminary review. Expectation: The application process is facilitated when the applicant has professional assistance in completing the application. Preliminary review is estimated to take one hour. Problem Factors: When an application is submitted, it comes with varied levels of quality, detail, feasibility and potential for environmental degradation. Staff must sort through the details to determine whether the information is adequate, accurate, and complete or whether additional studies will be needed prior to resolution. At this point, applications can still be withdrawn with no fees to compensate for the time expended. Multiple return trips and meetings to clarify issues have taken as much as ten hours. For example, staff recently met with representatives of an automobile racing concern about the possibility of establishing a racing facility in the east county area. Staff from advance and VA:dg finance.3 4 (9/15/97) current planning divisions spent about five hours researching, meeting and advising the potential applicant in the interest of economic development. No application has been filed. Likewise, staff spent about twenty hours meeting with the Renaissance Pleasure Faire operators on a site search; a site in Sunol, Alameda County, was selected, though it appears we may see them again. Investment in computer equipment and software is necessary since the LIS is not compatible with our time keeping system at this time. It takes 2-7 days for a file to appear on the time keeping system. Until a tracking system is integrated, early work causes confusion. Recommendation: Incorporate permit streamlining and Sierra System options to improve this step. 3. Site design constraints. Expectation: The site plans and design of development should include all required design constraints such as creek setbacks, protected or heritage trees, wetlands, etc. Problem factors: For those developers who hire the professional services of quality consultants, the required design constraints will be identified and a reasonable development plan will be proposed. For those developers who do not hire quality consultants, they will look at their land as having the ability to be fully developed from property line to property line. They cannot understand why they cannot build out to the top of the creekbank of fill in the wetland. Additional staff time is spent iri educating these applicants on the design constraints required by the ordinance code or upon environmental review. Anger and frustration is experienced by these applicants whose expectations for development of their property keeps getting reduced. Recommendation: Develop design constraint maps on a community by community basis similar to those in the North Richmond area to assist applicant on design restraint requirements. VA:dg finance.3 5 (9/15/97) 4. Public interest in application. Expectation: Staff expects no more than two calls for explanation during initial application processing. Names should be taken by fax or clerical staff for future noticing. Problem Factors: Upon receipt of the application for review, the number of calls per day that staff must answer can rise to as high as twenty for controversial developments in contested areas, particularly when the project is profiled by the press. Currently, staff must provide the same information over and over again, answer challenges, clarify rumors, and ignore personal insults. Staff cannot avoid these calls which greatly limit the number of hours available in a day staff has for research, analysis and report preparation. Applicants feel that this time should not be charged to their project since they see no benefit and such activity is not required by statute. Citizens feel they have the right to speak their mind to staff without delay, including insults. It would be easier to receive comments in writing so they can be a part of the record. Subdivision 8021, a recent infill project on Lucy Lane in the Saranap area, created about forty hours of extra staff work in this regard. Additional time is required where there are MACs. A recent small lot review took 5 additional hours responding verbally and in writing to the MAC, when staff was not able to accept their recommendations due to inadequate findings. Recommendation: Procedures for staff interaction needs to be established to insure timely response to citizens yet some protection from hour long phone conversations. 5. Application deemed complete. Expectation: Staff identifies additional studies and information that is needed to provide the hearing body with adequate information to make an informed decision. The applicant supplies the requested information and the application is deemed complete. VA:dg finance.3 6 (9/15/97) Problem factors: Often times developers want to spend as little money up front during the application process as possible because there is risk involved whether or not their project will be approved. As a result, a friction point is established between the applicant and staff on providing additional information. The applicant's will often argue to have conditions imposed requiring information and studies to be conducted after project approval. Many times more staff time and costs are accrued explaining marginal information supplied by the developer than if the developer had supplied the proper studies to begin with. Several years ago a developer of the old Pacheco School site would not provide the information necessary for a needed road realignment. Staff knew this would be an issue later on. During the subsequent improvement plan review, staff spent $10,000 in attending night meetings with the community and hearings before the Board to finally work through the issues on the road alignment, once the proper information had been provided. Recommendation: Policies and criteria should be established on the level and quality of'information necessary before an application can be accepted as complete. 6. Preliminary environmental analysis. Expectation: Staff can normally design and prepare the appropriate initial study, and review subsequent documents within S hours. Problem Factors: Determination must be made that the application is complete within thirty days of submittal, regardless of other activity in the office. At this point staff begins to prepare the environmental documents. Extra staff time comes from two sources. Calls from applicants and applicant supporters stress the need for staff restraint in requirements. Calls from opponents stress the need for extensive review and additional studies. For example, applications for communication towers, one in the Lafayette area, one in the Martinez area, were considered in 1995. Although the federal government has determined there is no evidence of health hazards from electromagnetic radiation from these towers, it took a great deal of time convincing the citizens in both cases. VA:dg finance.3 7 (9/15/97) In addition to the work, new calls from interested parties must be fielded. Staff may request additional studies at this point for traffic, geology, biology, or other topics. Upon receiving these requests, developers often request a delay. Staff is requested to keep the application on file, but delay processing until the applicant decides what to do about additional studies or project review. Meanwhile, staff may spend time responding to press reports, calls and anger from opponents because there is no progress. The applicant does not want to withdraw to preserve possible vesting rights and does not feel that there should be any cost attributed to them for unlimited delay. Every time an issue comes up, staff must re-review the file. The Clayton Ranch subdivider has not responded to continuing requests for information and the process has been stalled for approximately six years. Steps are being taken to take this project to final hearing. When information is submitted, it often comes in pieces. Assembling the file and keeping track of bits of information can be extraordinarily time consuming. Recommendations: Standards for information submittal and timeliness of response have to remain consistent with State permit streamlining requirements but place more responsibility on the applicant. Information should be sought from applicant to determine if staff is making the process unnecessarily time consuming and cumbersome. 7. EIR preparation required. Expectation: The EIR was established as an information document to ensure that decision makers had all the facts about potential environmental issues before they made a decision on a project. In a noncontroversial project, the process works as it should—information is presented, public reviews it, comments are made, comments receive response, and when justified and possible, changes are made in the document. The county must determine the EIR is adequate before it can approve the project. Problem Factors: When the project is controversial, it is commonly known that attacking the environmental process is the simplest way to kill the project. The concept of sufficient information is a fallacious concept. There is no common accepted standard for "sufficient". It is common for opponents to establish VA:dg finance.3 9 (9/15/97) presumptions that are hypothetical, fabricated or incorrect which require significant cost to address and clarify. In a recent EIR on the transfer of Northern California water entitlement from Kern County to Alameda/Contra Costa County, the lead agency was asked to analyze the potential for plague. Yet, no issue was raised about twenty times the amount of water from the same location being transferred to Southern California counties. The concept of full disclosure of a good faith reasoned analysis is often lost.in an effort to challenge the project. Project deliberation becomes a function of the courts. The amount of time preparing for court and in settlement negotiations can take hundreds of hours on the issue of whether sufficient information was provided or could have been provided. To protect the public's right to comment, there is no penalty for opponents who challenge the EIR to kill-the project using tactics that are intended to bankrupt the project. A major unexpected expense is preparing the record. Ultimately, if the applicant loses in court or is denied, collection of outstanding bills is difficult. Recommendation: Require greater disclosure on the part of the opponent regarding standing and intent. Seek greater contribution for the expense. 8. Project review. Expectation: Processing times vary considerably depending upon the complexity of the proposal and difficulty of the site. The preparation of an environmental impact report adds substantially to the time required for project evaluation. The following table is illustrative of the hours needed to evaluate a project application. (Where an EIR, mitigation monitoring, and findings are required, these times may double.) VA:dd finance.3 9 (9/15/97) Land Use Permit 6-8 hrs (simple) 16-32 hrs (complex) Minor Subdivision 6-8 hrs (flat) 16-20 hrs(slopes, creeks) Subdivision 8-10 hrs (flat) 16-24 hrs (slopes, creeks) Rezoning 8-10 hrs (standard district) 40-48 hrs (planned unit development) Development Plan 6-8 hrs (standard district) 20-32 hrs (planned unit development) Problem Factors: The project application may be complete, but that does not mean the project is well designed, well conceived, or compatible with the area. Developers often ask for more units or grading than they expect to receive in entitlement. This allows them negotiating room. The problem with this approach is that it creates unnecessary work for staff. The neighborhood opposition grows more hostile when the project is poorly designed, the project proposes higher density than the surrounding area, or the proponent demonstrates insensitivity to neighbors. Invariably, the staff is blamed for the proposal. Subdivision 8021, located on Lucy Lane, demonstrated these traits. Despite the fact that staff may recommend changes, the proponent has the right to pursue their plans. The casualty becomes processing efficiency, through increased challenges and objection, repeat meetings requesting correction or additional information. Applicants have also requested alternative approaches, and then argued against fees for time spent trying to resolve the issues created by the proposed change. Each trip to the field, to inspect some aspect of the property or meet with neighbors, takes 3 hours. Recommendation: Separate staff compliance from neighborhood compatibility issues as proposed in the permit streamlining process. VA:dg finance.3 10 (9/15/97) 9. Staff report preparation. Expectation: A staff report takes about eight to ten hours to assemble the appropriate details. (Included in estimates above.) Problem Factors: Once all information has been submitted and appropriate agencies have commented, the planner and engineer compile the data, then write the report. In the past, staff submitted this to the supervising planner for review. Calls are still received at this point from interested parties seeking last minute influence or from the press seeking a jump on the competition. Once the report is finalized, it becomes public information, which then prompts additional questions, issues, and requests for additional information. Proponents often feel that staff's conditions ask too much while neighborhood residents seek greater control or denial. "The Meadows" project in the Tassajara Valley is illustrative in this regard, where the neighborhood has been very demanding of a level of detail not normally required in residential PUDs. It is easy for staff to become the subject of personal attack and accusations of unprofessional conduct as tension grows over the future of the project. Recommendation: Staff should follow a process of identifying recommendations and conditions early and developing a written process for comment. 10. Hearing before the zoning administrator - concluded by the zoning administrator. Expectation: Most noncontroversial items are expeditiously heard and decided. The average time expended per project without an EIR or major public controversy is four months. Problem Factors: Potential delays due to continuances are high for controversial projects. All statutory notice and hearing requirements must be met, similar to any hearing, and repeated if there is a flaw. The zoning administrator may refer VA:dg fmance.3 1 I (9/15/97) an item to the planning commission for initial hearing, for example, when it.is relatively certain an appeal will follow the zoning administrator decision. The hearing process is extended by last minute substantial modification of a final development plan. Recommendation: Time should be carefully monitored to account for additional costs caused by postponements. 11. Hearing before the planning commission. Expectation: Once the proposal is set for a planning commission's public hearing, the actions must carefully follow statutory noticing, hearing procedures, and requirements. The average time expended per project is four to five months. Problem Factors: Deviation from requirements can require steps to be repeated. Applicants may request continuance to clear up some problem. Opponents often request delay, because they feel they haven't had adequate time to review, or demand further study. Since there is no cost to opponents to request delay or additional study, it can be in their interest to request as much as possible. Subdivision 7151, Reliez Valley Highlands, and Subdivision 8021 on Lucy Lane, were projects that ultimately settled for staff recommendation after considerable controversy and delay. Applicants feel they shouldn't have to pay for citizen demands and often object to paying. Citizens see no obligation to contribute, particularly when they claim the studies should have been done all along. This occurs even in situations when after the studies are done there is no difference in project evaluation. The Alamo Lube project and Shell's proposed transport of coke on trucks rather than on train, created additional time and cost in studies that did not result in a different outcome. Recommendation: Additional studies and delays should not be granted without a cost benefit consideration. VA:dg finance.3 12 (9115197) 12. Continuances (with direction for supplemental staff report). Expectation: Continuances should either not be necessary or a single continuance should allow parties to resolve matters. Problem Factors: Continuances are expensive because they often mean additional work, study, public contacts, remailing, preparation of the file, and other steps. It would be beneficial to ask if additional reports will really make a difference in the outcome. Recently, Stonecastle Estates requested a meeting with the planning commission claiming everything was worked out and new information would be available. This was not the case and significant additional work has resulted. Recommendation: The recommendation and expected outcome of a continuance should be stated. 13. Appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Expectation: Appeals should be made to allow a policy decision on a specific issue rather than a revisit of every other issue. Problem Factors: Appeals can take dozens of hours to reconsider issues resolved by the planning commission. Applicants feel they should not have to pay since they did not appeal. The fees do not cover a reasonable fraction of the time. Applicants have claimed that such low fees actually encourage appeals. They do not cover additional time of all parties. If there is a belief that citizen opponents can talk about anything they want, as long as they want, as many times as they want, to satisfy an undefined right of citizen participation, then the fee structure needs to be reconsidered. Such assumptions are not incorporated into our fees. Recommendation: Appeal costs should more closely cover the true cost. Appeal review should identify issues resolved at the lower level with a request that the matter stick to what has not been resolved. VA:dg finance.3 13 (9/15/97) 14. Board deliberations. Expectation: Legislative acts automatically come to the Board. Using the benefit of the planning commission recommendations and requiring testimony in writing can reduce time, but would not provide for a"hearing" per statute. Recommendation: The preparation can be limited to providing the recommendations of the planning commission and description of any outstanding issues so the deliberation is focused on unresolved issues. 15. Preparation of findings and final conditions. Expectation: For large projects, applicants can retain attorneys experienced in this area of law. When applicants can choose competent counsel to provide the information in a useful format it can reduce staff time for review. Standard conditions, exceptional conditions and fmdings when written properly can clarify many issues in the future. Problem Factors: Finding preparation follows after action has been taken on the project and often gets inadequate attention. The findings take time because they must be based on substantial evidence. But more important they need to be clear so that someone unfamiliar with the findings and conditions years later can implement them. Recommendation: Staff needs to improve standards for preparation of fmdings and conditions. 16. Implementation plan review and request for changes. Expectation: The implementation plan clearly follows the plan submitted with added conditions. Changes are called out and justified. Staff should be able to review this project in four to six hours. Problem Factors: New purchasers want changes or existing applicants may wish to redesign following changes stemming from the approval process. Efforts are made to pressure staff into on the spot administrative decisions to expedite the process, which may in turn put staff at odds with the community VA:dg finance.3 14 (9/15/97) who have different expectations or remember different assurances. Project changes may raise impacts, create visual or design changes, shift from quality to "more practical" materials. This was at the heart of the Bettencourt controversy. One project was approved, but numerous changes were instituted during construction. Recommendation: Staff needs to develop policies on the limits of change to be handled administratively, changes that need to return to a public hearing process, and specific financial sanctions if the approval process is violated. 17. Final map and parcel map review. Expectation: The maps are submitted for review and compliance with the Conditions of Approval and state and local statutory requirements. Problem factors: On some small developments the applicant may talk their relative or friend into submitting the map for them if their friend or relative is an engineer or surveyor, even though they don't practice in the land development field. This often happens on minor subdivisions where there are no other engineering plans needed to be prepared. The applicant may get a very good price on the cost from his relative or friend to prepare the map, however, because their friend or relative does not prepare these maps for a living or on a routine basis, the review costs are extraordinarily high and take several times longer to process. The same result holds true for maps prepared by "out of town" surveyors who are unfamiliar with our codes and policies. Some engineers and surveyors also submit maps that are less than complete and utilize the review services of staff to finish the maps for them. Since they are not paying the review fees, it is not a financial impact for them. It does, however, greatly increase staff time and costs to the applicant. During the recession, many applicants discontinued processing their maps. Now that the economy is better, they are submitting the maps for review again. This time lag creates additional staff time to go through the file and "get up to speed" on the project. Recommendation: Staff should be more diligent in screening submitted maps and return incomplete submittals. VA:dg fmance.3 15 (9/15/97) 18. Road and drainage improvement plan review. Expectations: Improvement plans are prepared by a consultant that satisfy the Conditions of Approval and state and local requirements. Problem factors: Not all consultants are created equal. Some consultants obtain jobs by bidding low for the engineering work. As a result, however, they do not provide all the information on the plans necessary to mitigate all of the impacts of the project. For example, the plans for off-site improvements will stop at the subdivision properly boundary and the impact to a neighbor's driveway will not be known until staff observes the discrepancy in the field. The applicant may have saved money on the consultants contract but the lack of information on the plans results in additional costs to the applicant for staff time and review. Many times the engineer will change the design of the plans halfway through the review process due to geotechnical problems, or requirements from regulatory agencies. We are also seeing more infill projects, which by their very nature are much more complex than a development in an undeveloped area. Infill areas often have narrow existing streets and right of ways and have existing drainage problems. To mitigate the developments impacts the access and drainage must be improved, which results in construction on neighboring properties or front yards. These all result in increased staff time to deal with the complex design issues. Recommendation: Staff should be more diligent in screening the plans for submittal and reject those that are incomplete. 19. Review of implementation of conditions. Expectation: Compliance can be verified in 4 hours checking plans and 4 hours in the field, if it involves a simple, uncomplicated process, an engineer who is familiar with county standards, and a cooperative applicant. Problem Factors: Compliance with conditions is an ongoing, under compensated activity that often requires code enforcement type approaches. Compliance had to be conducted this way in Bettencourt. VA:dg finance.3 16 (9/15/97) Recommendation: Compliance review should become a separate process with a separate fee. Financial sanctions should be attached to non-compliance. 20. Infrastructure inspection. Expectation: Staff expects to be called in advance for inspections and to make one or two inspections for each phase of the project. Problem factors: By its very nature, construction is the most unpredictable aspect of development. Some projects try to beat the winter rains and build like mad until the rains hit. If they get lucky and there are no early rains that year then everything will be okay. However if they get caught in an early rain and they cannot complete the work before winter, then additional inspection time is required because the winter storms have slowed up or some times totally stopped construction activity until spring. This often results in rebuilding certain aspects of the project necessitating additional inspections. Some projects are in such a time crunch that they will segment their development construction. For, example, the road system for a model home area will be built separately and before the balance of the road system which will be built later. This approach will result in a double set of inspections, one for the model home road system and one set for the balance of the project. Our fees are based upon a percentage of the improvement costs. Some improvements, however, are more complex and require more inspection than other improvements. Paving a street may require only one inspection while constructing a large drainage structure of equal value may require three inspections. Projects with many complex construction features will cost more to inspect than the average project. Recommendation: Charge at straight time and materials for the inspection work or develop a more detailed fee schedule that more accurately reflects construction costs with a provision for additional requested inspections by the contractor. 21. Projects without applicant. Expectation: Citizens, citizen groups, and special interests groups can come to the Board of Supervisors and request an ordinance. That ordinance, if deemed VA:dg fmance.3 17 (9/15/97) community development related, becomes the responsibility of the Community Development Department. Problem factors: There are numerous examples of applications delegated to staff in the midst of controversy with no funds. An example is the "Good Neighbor Ordinance". Several months ago, Community Development staff calculated that $80,000 had been expended with no funding to compensate the effort. When land use issues are raided, ti no only costs Community Development for its own time, but staff is billed by other departments such as County Counsel, despite lack of any funds received by Community Development to pay the charges. Recommendation: The applicant and source of funding should be identified for each request. If there is no billing account, other departments should not charge Community Development. 22. System updates and improvements. Expectation: It is the expectation of all users of the county permit system that the system will maintain the following standards: • Operate within the law • Use best available technology • Upgrade policies and methods to keep up with requirements and opportunities for innovation and streamlining • Repair obvious problems that come to light This is done so that delays to fix the process do not occur in the course of application processing. Problem factors: There is no funding and little time to review operations and make appropriate changes. Staff has a long list of initiatives that would benefit the overall system,but there is inadequate staff time to commit to such activities. Staff attempts to take such steps in breaks between other activities, often resorting to weekend work. This is why permit streamlining has taken so long, staff is involved in other activities. VA:dg fumee.3 is (9/15/97) Recommendation: Include funding system maintenance and improvement items as part of the yearly budgeting process, rather than on an ad hoc basis. Affects of demand vs. hours available The impact of exceptional time spent on projects.carries several implications to the operation of the department. 1. Opportunity cost. As staff increases the time spent beyond that which is budgeted or that which is funded, time is reduced on activities that are less urgent, though no less important. Maintenance of plans, rezoning for plan consistency, guideline changes, ordinance changes, and process changes, all get less attention than they may need. 2. Affect on other applications. With a fixed number of funded hours for applications, either less time is spent per application or the work on some of the applications is deferred as long as possible. Applicants who have small projects or complications, may lose time as a result of staff inability to get to it. 3. Inability to keep track of hours. Hours must be billed to a project. Current timesheets do not count hours without a billing number or hours over forty hours a week. This means there is no accurate reflection of how many hours are spent on each project or by individual staff. 4. Crisis orientation. As work piles up, a crisis orientation sets in on staff. Work becomes oriented to the project with the greatest problems, greatest controversy, most schedule, or similar factors. The work is cranked out, but not necessarily with adequate judgement. As some projects become ignored, they reach crisis stages and the situation becomes self-perpetuating. VA:dg finance.3 19 (9/15/97) 5. Employee burnout. Several of the last employees who left indicated the job was no longer professionally rewarding. Planners feel they have not been able to plan, to discuss, to reason, or to question, but to jam work with a fear of raising issues, lest it generate more work. 6. Lack of ability to consider broader issues and implications. Development is a dynamic process and new technology will change the face and operation of the community. Imagine, for example, the urban pattern and design in the county if air conditioning, planned unit developments, or Cyber technology had not occurred. The current controversy over sprawl, towers on hilltops, and gated communities would not be taking place. Planners have traditionally given such issues their attention in advance. Instead, the county is placed in a position of reacting, rather than shaping. 7. Resistance to expanded citizen participation. Few activities are more apparently time intensive than the explaining, meeting, justifying, and responding to issues that occurs with citizens and citizen groups. Rather than providing training, workshops, issue presentations, forum to seek participation and input, staff seeks to minimize contact and get through the process. This causes suspicion, isolation, and mounting conflict. VA:dg finance.3 20 (9/15/97) a U` N a =- o cd Cd Cd d Cd c cd cd cd i tn cd `: ch Cd as cd cri tn ar d N � - r M 00 N ; N M 00 .-� c•` M �? M .-. N O i M CO u 42 Cd E••1 a; O O N O O O O O O A J� .� H .� N M �D -- N M M V1 MOwl N ,t! - u kn ,b ^ CS U0-4 o Cd r. Cd o � a i o a ani e Cd o o ATTACHMENT 4 UNFUNDED MANDATES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT August 18, 1997 TO: Val Alexeeff, GMEDA Director FROM: Louise Aiello,Principal Planner + SUBJECT: Ordinances Adopted Since MSI Implementation— Non-Recovery of Costs (Ref.Your Note of 8/13/97) Following is a listing of ordinances adopted since 1992 when MSI was implemented. While MSI was not adopted until October, 1992, the listing includes ordinances adopted in 1992 prior to MSI implementation. The ordinances listed below reflect a review by Dennis Barry, Interim Community Development Director, of the listing I obtained of all the ordinances adopted since MSI implementation. Marilyn Burress is attempting to identify time charges made to these items, but if there was no funding or code set-up, there may be not be information readily available regarding the non-recovery of costs. 1992 Ordinance# Date Adopted Title of Ordinance 92-09 3/3/92 Reporting requirements for'County Committees 92-19 3/17/92 Urgency Ordinance re: the keeping of dogs 92-25 4/7/92 Dog fancier multiple pet ordinance 92-31 4/21/97 Transportation Demand Management 92-35 4/28/92 Urgency Ordinance on Dog Keeping 92-45 6/23/92 Extending Regional Planning Commissions 92-44 6/9/92 Small Lot Occupancy 92-56 8/11/92 Amending Child Care Facilities Ordinance 92-63 9/15/92 Small Development Childcare Ordinance 92-65 9/22/92 Interim Mobile Home Use 92-66 9/22/92 Extending Regional Planning Commissions & Increasing Zoning Administrator Authority Ordinances, pg. 2 1993 Ordinance # Date Adopted Title of Ordinance 93-04 1/15/93 Clarifying Planning Commissions' Subdivision Authority 93-30 5/11/93 Authorizing Advertising on Bus Shelters 93-85 12/14/93 Extending Regional Planning Commissions 1994 94-22 3/8/94 Oak& Indigenous Tree Protection & Preservation Ordinance 94-26 4/19/94 Repealing Ord. Code Div. 532 on Transportation Demand Management 94-27 4/19/94 Ordinance Requiring Transportation Demand Mgmt. 94-49 10/4/94 Mobilehome Rent Stabilization 94-59 10/4/.94 Tree Protection &Preservation Ordinance 1995 95-02 1/10/95 Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Ord. Admin. 95-05 1/24/95 Extending of Ord. # 94-49: Rents in Mobilehome Parks 95-06 2/14/95 Better Government Ordinance 95-19 4/11/95 Urgency Extension Mobile Home Rents 95-20 4/25/95 Cabaret Ordinance 95-31 6/27/95 Mobilehome Space Rent Stabilization 95-36 8/1/95 Mobilehome Vendor Regulation 95-42 9/26/95 Urgency Ord. Extending San Ramon & East County Regional Planning Comms. 95-43 9/26/95 Extending San Ramon & East County Planning Commissions Ordinances, pg. 3 1995, cont'd. Ordinance# Date Adopted Title of Ordinance 95-51 10/10/95 Small Lot Ordinance 95-53 11/7/95 Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance 95-59 12/5/95 Sale of Firearms 95-61 11/28/95 Cardrooms 1996 96-04 2/27/96 Ordinance Amending Provision Regarding the Method in Which Building Height is Measured &Restricted to the Height and Size 96-20 6/25/96 Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Materials 96-42 11/19/96 Saturday Night Specials - Gun 96-50 12/30/96 Amending 96-20 - LLT Projects Involving Hazardous Materials 1997 97-12 5/6/97 Repealing Ord. 94-27 &Adopting new policies, purposes,goals, & objectives for Transportation Systems Management 97-23 6/17/97 Zoning Administrator (initiated by CDD) ---------------- cc: Dennis M.Barry, Interim Community Development Director Mitch Avalon, Assistant Director Marilyn Burress,Accounting Division a E o, 0 0 U C U C L N O O LE ca cc cc U Y � C U •a 0 Occ r g :_. (0 m W o H ocn c� _ —1 Q ca c Q. 0 mCL D c E O Z M Q a) V- O U >+ Q V N c Q N cu C c O p o cm c :a o U O U cc L U (D O pZ °L ma (D 0 ca cun °D o3 ai o m C 4- U � N mN ca -02 °:3 o C 0 c Q ca oc °L a SU)U- o = cn E cQE M ° .(D Z o U E ° o E -a ca N U 2 o o zzz c • •a N o U° aN co UOc r 0 w d E Z (D v ti > c a) •� a Q m N -a U U o aYi o o o ° O ca U o c ° o = o U E a. = "- Q o >, >, 0 a) N -C ' O 0 "a z � c mO c oc v Z u -0 � L .Q > > co cu c m N � W o o- = = ca O L a) ca o 2 " w cu cn o- -v 'S E- af m z CL O O iD Q cn Q V c c c cu (D c `m m c ca >% 4- v,CO c c .N. cEa m cn 5 E co �' c 0 �' 0cn = r .c U oc Yco= 2 o ca :3 o ca L m o o o V Y U U U) m m cL w C cu cu cu C � w D 0 0 0 Y U > 0 > > 311 E v v N M Nt O O N m d• 0 w O O N d O O O O O O O O O r r- r- r^ r N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N � 0 L U d C m N O U rn O a L a� cu3 m U O O N 5 CO O '> Y cu N N L N OV C p c O L m C N Q CU N N m C N Q '=3O N .0 C N O E Q U Q CL t5N O O ..• O W p IL U C O C _ O N L 7 O Q m O m .� C a D Q >% o :3 — p Q o U U E ° � .c c° ac� rnO U � o �oo E cu m3 � 0 o v E o tLN rnco a3i c m v E_ Q > ami voi a cc cuo cu O E � � n. cn a«= c 0 w � � c v O cn c`ni m o c E a m o >. o c 1 2 UQ E a s > 3CL rn S � a m a) 4. UCU 0 0 ° m cu a>> v 'cu o cm cu CU a)a >i U) a ¢ u w ; U ¢ m O m W L L u to N () N 'L m m U Y X Z' p cn O m N p m O 3 o m c o L- Z(D Q Y Q S m m U t C w p J p U � p > U J Y p > > p J m > > > E v M to w i- w O O N M � to w 1- M O O d N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M 't w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o. N 01 O S V p C Q. V � .✓ Ct3 CD � c U to o m S2 Q, N Gttf T L C N 7 O N N N O G G N 41 C -dp 0 o a' o � a� Q E uo. 3 U r .0 w � G 145 Cl. p 25 lA U r © OO r N LOLO O OOF.. O� LO O rn u PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION PERSON HOURS U . 1�1. MAN.a ...l . Program: Park Dedication Funds 330 $26,730 Administration of the County's Park Dedication Ordinance, including fund allocation, ordinance interpretation, and program accounting. Program: Mobile Home Advisory Committee Support 120 $9,720 Staff support to this Board-mandated Advisory Committee charged with task of advising the Board on mobile home issues in the unincorporated County and engaging in conflict resolution between park owners and tenants. Program: Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee 24 $1,944 Staff support to Committee of elected officials in Tri- Valley Area (Danville, San Ramon, Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton) developing cooperative solutions to sub- regional,housing needs. Program: Staff to Airport Land Use Commission 250 $20,250 State mandated committee that looks at potential airport land use conflicts. Program: Response to Letters from Public/Media via 120 BOS $9,720 Referrals from Board to respond to media. Program: Hazardous Waste 80 $6,480 Hazardous Waste Commission and hazardous waste issues require fre uent assistance. Program: Land Management Program 16 $1,296 County has assets that are reviewed periodically for possible disposition. Program: Non-County CEQA/EIR Analysis 150 $12,150 County needs to review other agency EIR's, sometimes with effort sufficient to prepare a lawsuit. VA:dg perfm97.rpt(527/97) 1-20 PROGRAMIDESCRIPTION PERSON HOURS Program: PH BART General Plan Implementation 500 $40,500 PH BART no longer provides any fees, however, issues related to development of the area require staff time and assistance. Program: Ordinance Code Amendments 888 $71,928 Initiated by Board, State law, and local needs. Staff is assigned as necessary. Program: Urban Forest Restoration 12 $972 County participates in area programs to promote ecology. Program: OES Situation Analysis 125 $10,125 CDD participates in emergency training for OES. Program: Transportation Miscellaneous Bicycle Planning: Bicycle planning activities not related 200 to road planning cannot be charged to road fund or $16,200 developer fee accounts. Public Information Committee: The Board has requested 40 departments to participate in a County public information $3,240 program. Park Planning: Interim County Parks, Recreation and (TPD devoted 60 Trails Policies report. Revenues from park dedication hrs to this effort. fees were not specifically available for this effort. Future APD also devoted efforts to develop a master plan to refine and implement significant hours these policies will have a similar funding problem. to this effort). Dept of Energy Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel 90 Shipments. $7,290 Sheriff Facility Planning: Development fees are not 60 specifically available to fund master plans for sheriff $4,860 facilities necessary to accommodate that development. Program: Liaison with Cities and Special Districts 1560 $126,360 Many issues exist where County is requested to participate with other 'urisdictions. VA:dg perfm97.rpt(5/27/97) 1-21 PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION PERSON HOURS Program: Assisting with Land Use Litigation 250 $20,250 Staff is often called upon as a witness in land use and CEQA cases when County projects are not directly involved. Program: Staff to Board's Ad Hoc Solid Waste 360 Committee $29,160 Staff to the County Board of Supervisors' Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee Program: Staff to ContraCostaWORKS Advisory 40 Council and Industrial Advisory Committee $3,240 Board initiated efforts to promote economic development which has not received any funding for 1994. Committees are due to expire at the beginning of 1995. Support the work of the Carquinez Preservation Land 80 Trust, Land Trust of Contra Costa County, and Martinez $6,480 Re ional Land Trust Program to implement the County General Plan 480 $38,880 65/35 Plan Analysis 220 $17,820 Program: Administration of Contra Costa County 150 Rent Control Ordinance $12,150 Staff time to administer ordinance, reply to petitions; mediate complaints; answer questions related to the ordinance. Program: Demographics Provide data to the public, staff and other County 250 departments $20,250 ABAG Projections review 40 $3,240 Census preparation 40 $3 240 VA:dg perfm97.rpt(5/27/97) 1-22 PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION PERSON HOURS Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee, Joint Brentwood 50 Meetings on Cowell Project, Board Liaison Committee $4,050 with EBMUD and Delta Science Center Project, Sheriff (Some funding tied to facilities permits—more thorough evaluation needed Industrial Ordinance including Ad Hoc Task Force 800 meetings $93,500 Billboard Agreements with advertising agencies 50 regarding location of current billboards near schools and $4,050 relocation sites Saturday Night Specials Ordinance (gun ordinance) 55 $4,400 Marsh Creek.Preservation Area and Ag Preserve 40 $3,200 Refund of Traffic Fees for Reliez Valley Road 8 Improvements $1,000 Pre-Hearing Briefing Meetings with Applicants/ 85 Opponents on all Projects. $6,800 Affordable Housing/Transit Hub Policy and Regulation 7 Review 4/1/97 . $650 Review of attorney letter on Franklin Canyon Golf 10 Course parcel split $1,220 Review of Protocols for implementation of MACs. 18 $1,380 Establishment of TAC requested by Walnut Creek for 5 creek restoration and creekside trails $475 Permit Streamlining process 210 $16,000 Review and response on Danville Blvd. Preservation 20 involving opposition to advertising at bus stops $1,620 Review with Public Works of Flood Control policies and 3 regulations $240 Mobile Vendor Ordinance 40 $4,880 Off sale Alcoholic Beverage LUP Ordinance & Resultant 80 $7 300 VA:dg perfm97.rpt(5/27/97) 1-23 PROGRAM/DESCRIPTION PERSON HOURS Review of School Impact Mitigation "Will Serve" 80 Conditions - East County $7,022 Love a Child Ministries Fee Waiver 26 $2,352 Bus Stop Advertising Signs -Alamo 12 $1,464 «`` 7DEPARTMENTAL OST F UNFUNDED MANDATES :. .: Program: Negotiation/Administration of Solid Waste 5536 Collection Franchises $448,416 The negotiation and administration of Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Franchise Agreements is only partially funded. The County is collecting Franchise Fees in only 50% of the County area. Program: Implementation of Solid Waste Source Reduction 3115 and Recycling Programs required by AB 939 $252,315 Most of the funding for initiating and operating these programs was lost when landfill fees were reduced. Current funding is through Franchise Fees which are only approved for approximately 50% of the unincorporated households in the County. Program: Intra-agency Implementation of Biodiversity or 400 Ecosystem Management Component to Land Use Planning $32,400 (policy goal in County General Plan) Some funding is available for project through Keller Canyon Open Space Mitigation funding. However, this includes very little staff time. Program: Staffing work related to the County's Fish and 120 Wildlife Committee (Board mandate) $9,720 $3,000 per year is available from the Game Propagation Fund for this pureose. It does not cover staff expenses. TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL COST OF UNDERFUNDED 9:471 MANDATES $747,711 VA:dg perfm97.rpt(5/27/'97) 1-24 P ATTACHMENT 5 OTHER UNFUNDED SITUATIONS (No addditional information is available at this time.) ATTACHMENT 6 BILLING - REVENUE LOSS (No additional information is available at this time.) a ATTACHMENT 7 PRIVATIZATION PRIVATIZATION Government has substantial experience with privatization. The majority of federal dollars and of state dollars are given to private enterprise for performing or fulfilling government requirements—military equipment provision, road and facility construction, and social services are generally obtained from non-government employees. In Contra Costa County, electricity and garbage disposal are provided by private entities in contrast to other areas where they are provided by public agencies. GMEDA has examples of both providing services and contracting with others to receive services. Building inspection and right of way acquisition are services that are purchased from the county by other agencies and jurisdictions. Environmental impact reports, engineering services, and technical reviews are obtained from private contractors. The issue before the committee is whether or not additional activities should be given to the private sector to perform and what should be the criteria to make that decision. There are numerous studies depicting privatization both success and failure. It is important to consider the impact of a change on Contra Costa County, rather than just support or opposition. There should be little argument that whether an individual works for a private company or for the public, they can equally perform duties related to plan reviews and report writing. The difference in direct cost for the private worker may mean more direct pay, particularly in the case of overtime, but fewer benefits, such as long-term disability, and county health care plan that would be received by the public employee. A significant difference lies in indirect cost based on the way activities are regulated by government and the way activities are discharged under private contract. VA:dg finance.7 2 (9/15/97) Activities performed by government are loaded with additional responsibilities. These responsibilities often accumulate since government is both accessible and susceptible to special interests. The following are areas that add cost but may not add value to the service provided. 1. Administration requirements—spread of overhead for centralized service, including no opportunity to bid for cheaper alternatives. 2. Union requirements, such as guaranteed 40 hour per week employment, opposition to cheaper contracting solutions for items such as maintenance. 3. Numerous policy requirements to be met in hiring, promotion, merit, grievance, seniority, and discharge. 4. Extra expenses of operation due to unfunded mandates—added projects and responsibilities with no revenue attached. 5. Responsibility to return calls from constituents who may call numerous times a week to numerous persons to complain about such things as lack of responsiveness despite previous responses. 6. Response to expanding requests for citizen participation or neighborhood rights versus private property rights. In the private sector, there must be profit which is gained through efficiency, or cheaper operation. This will require avoiding time intensive activities, such as consensus building, conflict resolution, meetings or rapid response to numerous interruptions. Private sector does not enjoy "donated" time from staff. Private staff expects to be paid, to receive bonuses and other incentives. Otherwise, top employees go to a higher bidder. VA:dg fmance.7 3 (9/15/97) The following are areas of concern that need to be addressed before decision is made to privatize an activity. 1. Who will handle the calls from public, press, elected officials, interest groups, other agencies and others? If it remains in the hands of staff and it is at least 20% of the time involved in the processing, how will this be funded? EIRs require 30% surcharge, in addition to the price of the contract for the staff time involved to support the work of the consultants—clarification of policy, analysis of political implication, response to calls or participation in public forums, and other activities that would take the consultant too long to understand or perform efficiently. Frequently additional time is added to this 30%because of the time spent responding to controversy. 2. Who will ensure that the policies of the county are maintained in the staff work done by the private sector? In a recent experience, at the insistence of an applicant, CDD hired a consultant who felt beholden to the applicant. Staff spent time in weekly arguments with the consultant and in rewriting the material that appeared to be directed by the applicant. The time and frustration created was an unfortunate result and should be prevented in future privatization options. 3. How are production quality problems or poor work to be handled? Many projects are unique and there is no way to create an objective preagreed upon standard. When the process is public staff takes whatever time necessary to do it right. When it's private, there is always an argument for additional funds and question over whose fault it was that the document was incorrect, poorly written, or misdirected. Private companies can refuse to work until accounts are negotiated and settled. The developer can refuse to pay for inferior work, but the county remains responsible to get the work out in a timely manner. If staff has to monitor the work too closely there is no benefit to privatize. If staff is reduced in number due to privatization, fewer people remain to review the work product, respond to calls, and maintain standards. Once again, it will be necessary to place limits on demands on staff. 4. The key issue in any privatization agreement is scope of responsibility. Three types of contracts are generally used. VA:dg finance.7 4 (9/15/97) a. The consultant does everything for a specific price. Such a contract, to be economical, must have specific definable manageable tasks that replicate previous experience or routine. If the responsibilities require handling unforeseen problems, such as organized neighborhood opposition, a consultant will either build in additional contingency billing or a contingency fund. A consultant will not lose money to underwrite unforseen problems. Attached is an example of such an agreement, which compares the county fee ($3000) with a consultant proposals ($19,000). t b. The responsibilities are divided between consultant and staff based on expertise. This is how most technical contracts operate between Community Development and consultants. Staff has recently checked billing rates to area consultants and they are attached. C. A contract employee is paid on an hourly basis within a contract cap. This is also a popular form of contract used in Community Development. It has supplemented staff during peak periods with specific expertise often in large complex projects. If unfunded work was to cease completely, most staff theoretically could be replaced with contract employees. Three problems have to be overcome. First, county labor policies have prevented such approaches in the past, second, planning requires historical background. Much of that background has been lost through recent retirements and additional losses would cause problems. Third, the best staff would leave and involuntary contract employees are often seeking a permanent job somewhere else. 1 The attached"Scope of Work for Wiedemann Ranch Final Development Plan Review" is an example of privatization in Community Development. This was the proposal was accepted with an agreed upon price tag of $20,000. The Community Development Department charge would have been $3,516. (Though additional charges would be permitted following time expenditure in excess of 120% of the fee.) The benefit of time outweighed the lower fee. The consultant calculated their fee on actual time to be spent. In addition to the $20,000 paid to the consultant, time and materials fees will be paid to the county for any staff oversight or other responsibility. VA:dg fmance.7 5 (9/15/97) r 0 O En 69 69 69 64 00 r- 6~9 N cd" «i ° b)45 a a 0 d ° 00 kn 00 v� O o U Gr, a, o o o O U — 69 69 69 U N O0 W 6�4 � 6°\9 r-- 9 W 40, F O C) cis Y En �I U O O to O N tr) O. Q" �0., .� 6�9 6'4 69 us 69 rfs 69 64 6M9 O y 0 a U O O x O 0En O_ O + En 6r1 69 69 64 69 � O � 0 � a 000 0 oN It bn•° ;� 6q 69 69 69 69 E V) En ICTM OM r. N 6�? 64 69 69 6A ° a� H Ol N N� 76 / .fin O cd r.� o o U s1, � a ci a con d W C7 Q U SCOPE OF WORK WIEDEMANN RANCH FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW Objective: • Confirm applicant has met all conditions of Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement. 'dated January 27, 1995. • Identify inconsistencies and provide conditions where applicable. •. Prepare'staff report for Wiedemann Ranch,Final Development Plan.to present to San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission in a timely manner. Tasks: • Review existing documents and project file,'including those submitted by applicant on June 6, 1997. These include: • Conditions of Vesting Tentative Map, dated November 13, 1992 , • Development Agreement, dated January 27, 1995 • Mitigation Monitoring Program, dated No*mber; 1992 • Findings for tentative cancellation of Williamson.Act Contract • Wiedemann Ranch Draft Declaration of CC&R's • Final.Development Plan,.,dated October 1996 • Vesting Tentative'Map, dated November_13 102.'- 9 992• Wiedemann Ranch Design Guidelines; (forthcoming) • Final Design Grading Plans & Improvement Plans • Cut and Fill Map • Reforestation Plan;and Creekside Restoration Plan - - • Landscape Development Plan for.Norris Canyon Road & East Gate Entry 4- -West,Gate Community Entry Plan - • Frontage.Development at Norris Canyon Road • _West Gate Entry at Noms.Canyon Road- - • Architectural & Landscape..Design Plans-for two typical houses • Norris Capyon:RoacrSound Wall Plan • Tree Preservation Plan • Erosion Control Plan - • Declaration of deed restrictions-and scenic easements + EBRPD & Project Trail Map - • Community Recreation Facility & Common Area Irrigation Plans • Heritage Tree Grove Plan • Arborist Report - Conduct site visit to familiarize ourselves with site conditions (already completed by Mills and Myers - Martin to complete). 3 MILLS ASSOCIATES • Confer with applicant, project.engineer and County staff to clarify questions regarding project or County.policies. • Identify inconsistencies of- subimitted. materials with conditions of Tentative Map• and Development'Agreement., Review submittals for compliance with P-1 Ordinance requirements. • Prepare staff\report,to,inctude-the:following information: . • a detailed history of project approvals, • a description of changes between.the November 13, 1992 Vesting Tentative Map and the October 1996 Fipal Development Plan Map, • a description of the changes in conditions as detailed in-the Development Agreement, • Identification of inconsistencies between the conditions imposed on the tentative map and the applicant's-final development plan submittal; recommendation for additional' condition(s) if inconsistencies are'found, • compliance with the conditions of the preliminary Williamson Act Contract cancellation; • a description of the actions before the Planning Commission, and • graphics wherever appropriate. • Attend site=visit with Planning Commission prior to meeting. _ • Attend Planning Commission Meeting - makespresentation if requested by staff. Optional Tasks: Conduct CEQA review ao address-minor-changes to project. .(This will entail a brief writeup to be incorporated..into the`staff report. - Review and'monitor,applicantls submittals required for permits, e.g.; gradingg-permiit-for Corps of Engineers.404 Permit'and;DFQ.Streambed Alteration;Permit. Cost and Schedule ' The team is prepared.to complete the review and provide staff with a draft staff report for review in time to meet the July 46,meeting. However, this is dependent upon receiving all-materials from the applicant in a timely:,manner; and,review;of submittals by Public Woiks in-time to incorporate their concerns/conditions into the staff report. To meet the July 16 meeting date,we would need'to provide staff with a draft by July Z. The cost to complete the tasks above will not'exceed $17,000.00. This includes hours already spent touring the site, reviewing materials and meetings. Our hours and cost are broken Out.on the attached budget sheet. 4 MILLS ASSOCIATES J TASK/HOUR/COST ALLOCATION WIEDEMANN RANCH'FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW Individual Components Hours/Rate. Cost Jim Martin Tree preservation& 24/$75 $1.'800.00 reforestation plans, creek restoration plan Darwin Myers Geology/grading 60/$75 $4,500.00 issues; drainage improvements; .erosion:control plan. Carolyn Mills Planning/ordinance 90/$90 $8,100.00 consistency; design guidelines/land- - scaping'plans;'entry, and community center designs;"staff report i preparation including history and background of protect; Williamson - Act cancellation compliance. . Clerical/Graphics' 24/$45 $1,080.00 Carolyn Mills/ Public,Hearing/site 16/$90-$75_ $1,320.00 Darwin Myers visit(s) SubtotalLabor $16;800.00 Expenses -$200:00 T.OTAL'COST $17,000.00 Op Tonal Tasks Mills, Myers, Martin Permit Review 40/$82.50* $3,300.00 Mills CEQA.Review 8/$90 :720.00 *Average hourly rate between three consultants. Hours are an estimate - may,. be more or less depending upon materials,submitted by applicant. 5 MILLS ASSOCIATES s ATTACHMENT 8 PRODUCTIVITY ro d �i � b b b d � � ►d ►d n -Hi e p e%� bd -Hi G A m btv mca CD y b 'HrbCDm -9 a w I=7 H A '1 ► QpQ N A ` A H QpQ �' aO O O O O O OIt O moo O O O O O O O "fD r-I w O N O N o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O W O A N w O O N O� W W mC O �l to w cn O p`y to O O O O Do O 00 to N Q) ^+ �D O O �D rr l �0 00 �o --1 01 O 00 O m d 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o O \.O O tA O ~� o10 p� w m cn w 00 •v, tJ A i A n O w 00 P �-o wOil `O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O O O O O N O AL1 - od y-I Q O O N N O C71L7J R.W z, H w O N O O O N � 0 0 0 o o O �1 O pp 4�1 a, o rn o o :-� w o �o 0 0 0 o Oo O 00 w v, w A v, oo r O O O M w O O O N o O ��• J � C � z a off' � b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °> w O O - O O N O pry �1 0 C1 O O N O W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W C pyy V) y Z b Po AD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Aw 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 o r OrQ p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O W wW o O O wW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 4�1 N x� • w CN Oy w v o w � � O to 00 O \�o 00 O \ �o yQO � �D 01 N Ql� O 01 N W 01 D\ 01 of M"3 C� J 00 \ \ \ \ o o O �H ATTACHMENT 9 ROLE. OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (No addditional information is available at this time.) ATTACHMENT 10 PERMIT STREAMLINING (As Recommended to the Board of Supervisors on June 24, 1997) Permit Streamlining Background and Status of Proposed Improvements to the Permit Process June 24, 1997 I. Financial Impact: A. Financial Impact to Countx There have been and will continue to be initial costs associated with staff time needed to implement the permit streamlining improvements. Many of these improvements,however,are aimed at creating a long term savings through improved process efficiencies and reduced delay to applicant. B. Financial Impact to Applicant 1. Permit Streamlining: There are 61 improvements identified in the Permit Streamlining effort. Many of these improvements are intended to reduce the time involved in processing an application, increase coordination and communication between County Departments, improve accounting and billing to applicants, and improve the use of technology to increase process efficiencies. Many of these improvements will result in a cost savings to the applicant. 2. Repercussion of Applicant Process Deviation: When an applicant submits a development project to the County for processing, a fee is paid. This fee is based upon the cost to process a normal project with no deviations in the normal process. Some projects evolve into projects that are no longer"normal." For example, the applicant may decide to change the scope of the development half-way through the process or there is considerable neighborhood opposition to the project. When the applicant revises the development project due to neighborhood concerns or changes in the marketplace, the staff time to review the project increases. At the same time, when a project is overly complex or has considerable neighborhood opposition, then the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may request several continuances in their need to obtain as much information as possible to make an informed decision on the project. There have also been times where Planning Commissions have either not trusted the applicant's consultants or prefer to have an independent analysis, and have "directed" staff to prepare additional studies and reports. All of these activities add up to additional staff time and project expense resulting in greater overall costs to the applicant. I>t. Background: A. Permit Streamlining Workshop: On June 4, 1996, the Board held a workshop on permit streamlining. At the workshop staff reviewed the current permit process along with a conceptual layout of a streamlined process. Staff had also analyzed the zoning ordinance, in the context of streamlining the review of projects,to determine which review steps are required by State statute and which are the result of local ordinance or Board policy. B. Consultant Report: At the June 4, 1996, Board Workshop, staff included a Development Process Streamlining Report which was prepared by Pacific Mutual Consultants. The report compared the Contra Costa County process to State regulations and to current procedures in Tracy, Livermore and Sutter County. The report methodology allows comparison of the Contra Costa County process with any other jurisdiction in California for the various types of projects, such as zoning changes, specific plans, subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits and CEQA review. The report listed 29 recommended system modifications. These recommended modifications have been incorporated in the process improvements described in this report. C. Process Improvements: At an August 6, 1996 workshop, the Board approved a conceptual outline of proposed changes to accomplish permit streamlining. The proposed improvements were grouped into four categories with a fifth category subsequently added due to the incorporation of the consultants recommendations: 1 I. Application Acceptance Process: To achieve the highest quality of submittal materials and to allow as many decisions'as possible at the time of application submittal. 2. Ordinance Changes: To revise the ordinance code to reduce the application processing time while maintaining the desired overview. 3. Application Tracking, Cost Accounting and Billing: To improve timeliness of billing, accounting automation and project tracking. 4. Staff Reports and Conditions of Approval: To improve the format of staff reports and conditions of approval to make them more user friendly and understandable, and distribute them to applicants and interested parties for review prior to the hearing. 5. General and Administrative: To improve general and administrative processes. D. Status Report: Since the Board workshop, staff has worked on completing many of the proposed improvements. The last section of this report lists all 61 of the recommended process improvements and provides a status of the work done to date and projected time of completion for the balance of the work to be done. E. Home Occupation: One of the specific recommendations for streamlining the permit process is to provide ministerial permitting authority for home occupation activities which meet certain baseline criteria. If an applicant wants a home occupation permit that exceeds the baseline criteria then the applicant would apply for a land use permit and go through the discretionary hearing process. III. Project Roles and Responsibilities: A. Project Compliance and Project Compatibility: Project processing has evolved over time in response to community needs, developer needs and State law. Upon examination of the land development process, it becomes clear that the review and compliance functions of staff have become intertwined with the evaluation and participation functions of community groups. Often parties involved in the process become confused about authority, procedure and role. Inherent to the proposed process changes is the intent to separate the compliance function performed by staff(that which is required by State law) from the evaluation of project compatibility which is performed by the community. It is proposed that the compliance aspects of project review are made as brief and well defined as possible,allowing whatever time is desired for addressing compatibility issues. This change will allow staff to maintain a higher level of accountability because of the clear delineation between the role of staff and the'role of community groups. Also, by separating the compliance function from the compatibility function, time and costs associated with development application processing will be easier to predict. B. Project Coordination: The information technology currently in use includes components which are antiquated, limited in flexibility and adaptability and do not provide the interaction opportunities necessary for the three departments in GMEDA to maximize efficiencies in processing development applications. Staff is working on both the functional and technical requirements of a new system which will enable every aspect of a project to be processed and monitored throughout the life of the project. Until a fully integrated system is available, staff is engaged in a team approach to information integration, using the available automated systems together with manual methods to produce integrated reports and billings. IV. Development Policy Approval Process: A. Department Upgrades Versus Policy Changes: There are two types of improvements outlined in the Status Report section of this report; department upgrades and policy changes. Of the 61 proposed improvements, many are department upgrades of existing processes or equipment. Other proposed improvements are changes that require a policy decision. It is suggested that those improvements which are of a department upgrade type would be implemented at a staff level. Those changes, however,which require policy decisions would be implemented through a development 2 policy approval process described below. The process provides for public input by any interested party. Of the 16 improvements proposed to be completed in Fiscal Year 97/98 (identified with an "H" in the Status Report section), six of those require policy changes. Those items are: 1. Develop design standards and guidelines to clarify code requirements (l.d). 2. Promote small project approval at the Applicant and Permit Center(l.m). 3. Streamline processing of small lot building design and location (2.a). 4. Streamline processing of home occupation (2.e). 5. Adopt regulations clarifying.roles of advisory committees (It should be noted that the issue of MAC protocol, which the Board has requested staff to review in its Board Order dated July 23, 1996, will be included in this effort to adopt regulations clarifying the roles of advisory committees) (5.b). 6. Eliminate requirement for Board of Supervisors' approvalfor for release of improvement security(5.e). B. Development Policy Approval Process: The following process is proposed to be used for policy changes. The process is designed to gain Board direction in addition to gathering input from all interested parties. It is designed to keep the Board fully informed throughout the process, and to provide opportunities for input from interested parties and forums for resolution of issues as they arise. The process has four steps: Step 1: Board Authorization: This first step is to gain authorization from the Board for staff to examine a policy change through the Development Policy Approval Process. -For example, as part of this report, staff is requesting authorization to implement changes to the home occupation ordinance provisions. The authorization will allow staff to take proposed changes through the policy approval process. At this first step in the process, the Board may decide not to authorize staff to make changes to policy or may provide staff with any modifications or direction to the proposed policy changes. Step 2: Input from Interested Parties: In this step of the process all interested parties are identified and are given the opportunity to provide input to the contemplated policy changes. The policy change is placed on the agenda of the Regional Planning Commissions who can, at their discretion, either comment, discuss or hold a hearing on the proposed changes. All interested parties would be provided with the proposed policy changes and would have an opportunity to state their comments at the Regional Planning Commission meetings, or to submit comments in writing to staff for inclusion in the County Planning Commission packet. Any comments from the Regional Planning Commissions,MACs or other interested parties will be submitted and considered at a public hearing before the County Planning Commission. Key concerns will be identified at the hearings and resolution will be sought at that time. The County Planning Commission will consider the proposed policy changes and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. For example, staff will submit the proposed home occupation ordinance changes to the Regional Planning Commissions, Municipal Advisory Councils, interested Homeowner's Associations, and neighborhood and community planning organizations for comment. Staff will subsequently schedule a hearing for the County Planning Commission. It is suggested that the final hearing be held before the County Planning Commission,because resolution of Countywide issues is best conducted in a single forum. Regional commissions may, however, hold hearings at their discretion to provide advisory recommendations to the County Planning Commission. Z 3 Step 3: Report to the Board: Staff will report the Planning Commissions recommendation to the Board, plus the status of the policy change and.any unresolved issues identified in the community input process. The Board will then provide direction on the unresolved issues and set a public hearing before the Board for consideration and a decision on the policy change, if a hearing is deemed necessary. Step 4: Board Hearing: The Board will hold a hearing, if necessary, receive additional input, and then make a decision on the policy change. V. Status Report of Permit Streamlining Process Improvements: A. Completed Improvements: This sections describes the specific process improvements that have been completed since the last Board Workshop of August 6, 1996. It also describes some of the permit streamlining activities in which we have been involved over the last year. 1. Process Improvement Activities a. Meeting Business Needs 1) Staff now holds quarterly forums with members of the building, development, and engineering community to clarify processes, identify impediments and formulate strategies to simplify development processing. 2) Just two years ago, a quarter of the companies in California planned to leave because of the high cost of doing business. Today the State and Contra Costa County are reversing the trend by creating a more business friendly environment. In October, 1995 the Contra Costa Council commissioned a study of the economic vitality of Contra Costa County. The report identified six areas where improvement was needed. The report recommended realignment of the permitting process to make it more customer friendly. The Contra Costa Economic Partnership working with County staff addressed this recommendation by implementing the following new streamlining procedures in the permitting process: a) State of Califon4a Regional Permitting Center located in the County offices in Martinez offering one stop shopping for State required permits. b) Reduction and consolidation of local amendments to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) throughout Contra Costa County building inspection departments. Other streamlining efforts are currently under discussion by the Economic Partnership and staff with anticipation of restoring a business friendly atmosphere to Contra Costa County. b. Pursuing Excellence 1) The Permit Center staff attends monthly meetings to coordinate activities and share information. Public Works staff and planners discuss issues such as consistency in ordinance interpretation, clarity in conditions of approval and timing of staff reports. The Building Inspection counter staff and structural engineers meet with the Current Planning counter staff to improve coordination of activities, consistency in code interpretation, and customer service enhancements. 4 2) An integrated Floodplain Management Program team has been formed of staff from Community Development,Building Inspection and Public Works. The team coordinates program administration and floodplain permit processing and has earned reduced insurance rates for citizens requiring flood insurance. 3) The Public Works Department recently completed an analysis of the process for placing items on the Board of Supervisor's Agenda. Their work resulted in reduced processing time and in a public information handout designed to explain simply and to demystify the process for the novice developer. 4) The Code Enforcement program is currently under critical review for improved efficiency in operation. Coordination meetings among Code Enforcement staff, Current Planning staff, and staff of the Redevelopment Agency are being held regularly. 2. Recommendations Completed The following is a list of the specific process improvements which were part of the Board Workshop on August 6, 1996 and have since been completed. Each is identified by the status list designation in parenthesis. a. Determine what information/maps are needed at the Application and Permit Center to enable preliminary conditions of approval to be prepared (l.c). Action: An inventory of the needed maps and information was performed at the Application and Permit Center. Staff was also interviewed to determine what information was needed. The maps and information was then assembled and placed at the Application and Permit Center. b. Install computers at the Application and Permit.Center•front counter. (Le). Action: Computers were installed at the Permit Center front counter during March 1997. C. Require photos of the site to be submitted with the application (l.g). Action: The application form at the Permit Center was modified to require photos to be submitted with the application. d. Provide customers with evaluation forms to receive feedback on our service delivery (1 j). Action: Evaluation forms and survey forms are now provided to our customers at the Application and Permit Center, Building Inspection (Housing Division Counter) and the Public Works Department Counter. e. Provide self service facilities (Lo). Action: There are self service facilities at the Application and Permit Center for customers to obtain development related information. f. Provide zoning maps and zoning indexes (l.p). Action: These documents are available to the public at the front counter at the Application and Permit Center. Cr. Transportation demand management (2.d). May 1997, County ordinance was changed to be consistent with new State Law. h. Prioritize work lists from Community Development Department to Public Works Department(3.b). Action: Staff from both departments jointly developed a format for a priority list that informs Public Works on which projects Community Development needs information. This list is updated every two weeks and allows more efficient use of staff time in both departments. 5 i. Develop notices to applicant before expenditures reach 100% of fees (3.c). Action: Public Works and Community Development now share cost data on projects and notify applicants when charges reach 80%- 100%of the,fees collected. This allows ` the applicant to estimate the amount of charges necessary to complete the project if the project is not complete. j. Update and regularly review all planning documents and tools (3.m). Action: There is currently a process of ongoing review of development related documents and forms. k. _ Identify project issues in staff reports (4.c). Action: Staff now identifies project issues during the 30 day comment period. This has been very helpful for applicants as they can identify costly factors associated with the project before preparing plans and detailed application work. These issues are carried forward into the project staff report. 1. Identify timing and sign off for Fire District requests (4.f). Action: The role of the Fire District's has been clarified. The Fire Districts sign off on plans at the Application and Permit Center. In. Distribute conditions of approval to interested parties prior to hearing (4.g). Action: The staff report and conditions of approval are distributed to all identified interested parties prior to the project hearing. n. Reduce length and complexity of staff reports (41). Action: Staff has reduced the length and complexity of staff reports. However, the reports still provide the information required and requested by the various hearing bodies of the planning agency. o. Use standard document format (4.j). Action: Our,document format has been standardized. P. Fast track high-priority items (5.d). Action: Both Community Development and Public Works have an accelerated review process that speeds up the review of applications at the request of the applicant. q. Color code plans (51). Action: This recommendation was considered, but not implemented because it would.cause unnecessary applicant and County expense. B. Status Report: This section provides the detailed status of each recommended process improvement. These improvements are designed to accomplish permit streamlining. Those improvements that were recommended by Pacific Municipal Consultants are identified by (PMC) at the end of the recommendation. The status of the process improvements is shown as follows: C = Completed H =High priority to be completed in fiscal year 97/98 M =Medium priority to be completed in fiscal year 98/99 L =Low priority 1. . Application acceptance process -To achieve the highest quality of submittal materials and to allow as many decisions as possible at the time of application acceptance. H a. Develop matrix of standard requirements for simple, straight forward projects. H b. Improve information access at the Application and Permit Center to enable preparation of preliminary Conditions of Approval. 6 C C. Determine what information/maps are needed at the Application and Permit Center to enable preliminary Conditions of Approval to be prepared(e.g., like N. Richmond P-I maps). 1 d. Develop design standards and guidelines to clarify code requirements (e.g., creekside development). C e. Install computers at the Application and Permit Center front counter. M f. Develop threshold criteria of when certain requirements are needed (e.g., right of way, sound wall, frontage improvements, etc.). C g. Require photos of the site be submitted with the application. H h. Develop a list of required information to be submitted with development permit applications. H i. Develop a handout to advise applicants of the tirne limits to which the .County must adhere when processing development applications. C j. Provide customers with evaluation forms to receive feedback on our service delivery. (PMC.2) M k. Provide customer with sample conditions of approval, sample plans, and process checklist. (PMC.3) M 1. Photograph project area during site check. (PMC.4) H in. Promote small project approval at the permit counter. (PMC.7) L n. Use development review process in place of the pre-application review process. (PMC.12) C o. Provide self-service facilities. (PMC.18) C P. Provide zoning maps and zoning indexes. (PMC.19) L q. Develop computerized library of documents. (PMC.20) 2. Ordinance Code changes -To revise the ordinance code to achieve the intended overview and project outcome without undo expense or delay. H a. Small lot building design and location-Limit design review process(current process can require six months). (PMC:5) L b. Off-street parking - Modify to allow for compact car dimensions and enhanced landscape standards (may reduce process time of commercial, industrial,multiple family projects by three months). M c. Child care-Modify the administration of the Ordinance to see that concerns are addressed early in the review of a project. C d. Transportation Demand Management-Recommend the ordinance be partly repealed due to change in State statute. H e. Home Occupation-Modify this provision in the code to allow for ministerial review where specified'criteria are met. M f. Commercial Radio and Television Transmitting Facilities-Modify ordinance requirements where certain characteristics are present (size, shape, height, etc.). Retain development permit requirements for other transmitting and receiving facilities to avoid negative siting effects. L g. Forestry-Recreation District (F-R), Water Recreation District (F-1), Light Agricultural District (A-1) - Rezone existing properties to districts that conform with the general plan. L h. General Agriculture District(A-2),Heavy Agriculture District(A-3),Limited Office District (0-1), Administrative Office District (A-0), Community Business District (C-B), Controlled Manufacturing District (C-M), Light Industrial District(L-1) -Zoning district provisions should be modified and clarified to meet need of contemporary land use. M i. Planned Unit District(P-1) - Expand the use of this district. L j. Agricultural Zoning Districts-Modify agricultural districts to allow for more agriculturally related uses as permitted uses. L k. Commercial Business Zoning Districts - Modify the structure of commercial zoning districts (R-B Retail Business District,N-B Neighborhood Business District, P-N-B Planned Neighborhood Business District, C General Commercial District, and C-B Community Business District)to better reflec, the range of types and complexities of involved projects. Consider combined and simplified review of development plan and land use permit application reviews for less complex projects. 7 L 1. Light Industrial District (L-I) - Modify the provisions of the L-I Light Industrial District to provide clarity on land use permit requirements, and to allow consideration of identification sign meeting criteria without issuance of a land use permit. L M. Take-out Food Establishment Ordinance - Modify ordinance to change existing land use permit requirements to allow ministerial review for take out food establishment, but to retain bonding requirement for litter pick up. 3. Application tracking, administration, cost accounting and billing - To improve accounting automation and project tracking. H a. Coordinate project tracking with Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and the Application and Permit Center. C b. Prioritize work list from Community Development Department to Public Works Department (what project Community Development Department wants Public Works Department to work on). C C. Develop noticing to applicant before expenditures reach 100% of fees. H d. Implement joint Community Development Department/Public Works Department database for accurate billings and timekeeping. H e. Develop mission statements for each department. (PMC.1) L f. Develop service level goals/measures for each department. (PMC.1) L g. Computerize project logs. (PMC.6) L h. Use formal application process schedule. (PMC.1.1) M i. Develop an application listing and circulate to Building Inspection and Public Works. (PMC.13) L j. Cross train employees and circulate permit center employees. (PMC.14 & 15) L k. Minimize physical separation between departments. (PMC16) L 1. Install an automated phone system. (PMC.17) C in. Update and regularly review all planning documents and tools. (PMC.21) 4. Staff reports and conditions of approval - To improve the readability and clarity of staff reports and conditions of approval and to improve distribution to interested parties. H a. Clarify and simplify.standard conditions of approval. M b. Group conditions in relation to project milestones. C C. Identify project issues in staff report. H d. Require applicant to indicate status of completion of each conditions of approval at each proje6t milestone. H e. Add sign off space and date line to each condition of approval. C f. Identify timing and sign off for fire district requests (e.g., hydrants). C g. Distribute conditions of approval to interested parties prior to hearing. C h. Reduce length and complexity of staff reports. (PMC.8) M i. Reduce length of time for receiving departmental comments to project referrals. (PMC.9) C j. Use standard document format. (PMC.10) 5. General and Administrative - To improve general and administrative processes. L a. Use Specific Plans. (PMC.22) H b. Adopt regulations clarifying the roles of advisory committees. (PMC.23) M c. Consolidate inspections departmentally. (PMC.24) C d. Fast track high priority items. (PMC.25) H e. Eliminate requirement for Board of Supervisor approval of release of improvement security. (PMC.26) M f. Relocate grading functions to the Public Works Department. (PMC.27) M g. Establish computer linkage between Permit Center and on-site inspectors. (PMC.28) C h. Color code plans. (PMC-29) 8 cd Frl y y.eZR 'L1 .� y • w 1.4 "' o rn � aP4 1b. 4r 2 .., cd \ •� •cd b o a +' m En W ;xz :v ,. w • •� tJ p C" <'• ::;. Phi :b %i F� PQ W Nva r4x •� V3H Qi En C.> Cd cn qu w cd O �k'�a'ar�? c� U ca ca U O 3 € a. O N cd rn VI a� a b r cd cn N �.:f-+_, y .� mac:;; "O .b � •fir �+ t3. O cd y P, u cd C tk�f>: �. U O U O C14 P64 71 cn U W p o. o - T O ? V IY4 �, b O y o a 04.4 i Cd Cl C T Attachment A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: September 15, 1997 TO: Members of the Finance Committee FROM: Val Alexeeff, GMEDA, Director Dennis Barry, Interim Community Development Director Land Development Processing_Staff SUBJECT: FINANCIAL ISSUES OF APPLICATION PROCESSING INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The need to convert land development funding from a combination of general fund and fees, to almost entirely fees, occurred as a result of state actions. The county lost $340 million to ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, which transferred funds from counties to schools) between fiscal year 1992-93 and fiscal year 1996-97. Community Development has managed to shift to fees and save the county several million dollars in expenditures that could otherwise go to other programs. This budgetary necessity has not occurred without a price. Fees increased following the MSI study to reflect the cost of processing, though there have been no increases since 1995. Staff has been reduced primarily by not replacing retirees, and pressure has increased to become more concerned with revenue and expenses than with traditional planning responsibilities. Staff has sought to address issues in ten areas with background reports and analysis. The intent of this approach is to present information and recommendations, and to encourage participation of the Finance Committee, special interest groups, and citizens in this process. Development processing, similar to school finance and other issues, is a problem exacerbated by state actions that must be resolved on the local level. VAAg finance.rpt 1 (9/8/97) . The initial area of review is proposed to be budget issues related to application processing in current planning activities in Community Development and Public Works. The topic areas to be reviewed are as follows: I. MSI Budgeting, principles and assumptions. H. Allocation and distribution of revenues. in. Steps in application processing - "time is money." IV. Unfunded mandates. V. Other underfunded situations. VI. Billing - revenue loss. VII. Privatization. VIII. Productivity. IX. Role of citizen participation. X. Initial recommendations. a. Proposals that require Board of Supervisors policy support. b. Administrative actions proposed by staff. C. Specific ordinance changes. d. Permit streamlining. VA:dg finance.rpt 2 (9/8/97) SUMMARY 1. MSI Budgeting, principles, and assumptions The premise of Municipal Services Information(MSI) study is that the true costs of government activities can be identified and collected in fees and other charges. Governments often have hidden costs that may not be apparent: Cost of street maintenance to support garbage service, cost of clerk's time to process, post, and maintain agendas, cost of county counsel to review questions, cost of administration time to maintain systems. . GMEDA was the first in the county to establish fees based on this approach and analysis. Following transition to this system, most general funds were eliminated from Community Development. With the approval of a cost-for- services study performed by MSI in 1992, the permit process became a fee- supported operation. The fees alone were not intended to cover all operational costs;however the public perception is that the operational costs are covered by the fees collected. It has been the expectation of many since 1992 that the permit process would be operated as a private business, namely that costs would remain within a reasonable fee structure, and there would be no losses. There are many reasons, however, why costs.may exceed the fees collected for any application. Although the public expects us to operate as a modern business, they also expect us to operate as an old-fashioned government agency, providing unlimited assistance and information and resources for free. The issues that have become apparent since that time are as follows: 1. The Mythical Average Project. Our fees are based on processing an "average" project. Many projects, due to topography, neighborhood issues, and design considerations, are not average projects. Costs for these projects exceed the fees charged. 2. Fees were collected and placed in the general fund for a rash of projects trying to beat the Measure F deadline. Measure C passed instead, but staff had many poorly conceived projects that sat waiting for action with the revenue long since absorbed and spent. When the projects required action, they had to be funded from new revenues not associated with those projects. VA:dg fmance.rpt 3 (9/8/97) 3. The assumption of a fee-supported operation was that all activities would be supported with revenue: this has not been the case. For example, thirty-eight ordinances have been passed since the MSI work began. All the ordinances have created staff demands that did not receive sufficient compensation to support the time required. 4. Fees assumed that projects within a category were roughly identical. While this is true for building permits, it is not for the non-routine planning applications. To allow for variation, staff set times, gave 20% for cost overruns to the developer, but allowed for charging costs when 120% of the fee was exceeded. 5. The need to develop new policies, change procedures, or respond to legislative changes was not included in the study. 6. Project quality greatly varies and consequently affects time; this was not included in the study. 7. Project circumstances vary greatly, and that affects time, which was not included in the study. 8. Citizen involvement varies greatly and affects time; this expense was not included in the study. 9. The recession in the building industry and subsequent repercussions have changed the profile of projects used as the basis for the 1992 study. 10. Many activities in current planning had fees set artificially low with the assumption that it would be covered somehow. The extent of these "loss leaders" has overwhelmed staff on occasion and has not received alternative funds. 11. Non-fee-generating departments were encouraged to charge fee- generating departments for services. Therefore, operational costs increased for Community Development. VA:dg fmancespt 4 (9/8/97) The MSI assumptions established in 1992 need to be evaluated as to current applicability, and actions taken to make funding of department operations closer to actual service demands. H. Allocation and distribution of revenues For budgetary integrity it is important for revenue to be as closely related to expenditure as possible. Revenue is collected for a specific purpose. That revenue must be measured against the services provided. Evaluations, improvements, innovations, procedures, policy development, and other such activities all come back to the revenue-expenditure relationship. The attachment points out what activities are receiving what revenue. In some cases the formula accurately depicts cost and time; in some it does not. A review of the fees and what is performed will bring some of the relationships into closer alignment. III. Steps in application processing: "time is money" Most applications move though the system predictably and successfully. The report developed for this issue discusses specific steps in the application process, their expected operation, and circumstances under which they are prone to delay, unfunded costs, and controversy. The 21 steps are as follows: 1. Preapplication inquiry 2. Application acceptance and preliminary review I Site design constraints 4. Public interest in the application 5. Application deemed complete 6. Preliminary environmental analysis 7. EIR preparation required 8. Project review 9. Staff report preparation 10. Hearing before the zoning administrator 11. Hearing before the planning commission 12. Continuances VA:dg finance.rpt 5 (9/8/97) 13. Board deliverance 14. Preparation of findings and final conditions 15. Implementation plan review and request for changes 16. Final map and parcel map review 17. Road and drainage plan review 18. Review of implementation of conditions 19. Infrastructure inspection 20. Projects without an applicant 21. System updates and improvements The discussion ends with the identification of problems that result from increased time pressures. Many recommendations are proposed. IV. Unfunded mandates The Board needs to be able to identify needs, respond to problems, and give policy direction. Staff needs to respond to emerging policy planning issues without constant fear of workload sanctions. The term unfunded mandate has a negative connotation, but in this context it is meant to be used practically. There has never been a suggestion that the actions were not worthy activities or that staff was not interested in the proposed assignments. Following conversion to fees in 1992, the statement often repeated is that additional work needs additional budget consideration. Without supplemental resources, staff is diverted from fee-paying activities to non-fee-paying activities. The end results are budget shortfalls, inability to equate revenue with expenditures, and deferral of necessary activities or prior commitments. The attachments provide accounts of unfunded activities. It will be important to complete prior assignments to free up staff and to find a way to acknowledge these additional assignments in the future. There are three options: A. Cut additional assignments unless funded. B. Increase revenue to cover current unfunded activities. C. Do some of both. VA--dg finance.rpt 6 (9/8/97) V. Other underfunded situations No information has been produced for this category at this time. VI. Billing - revenue loss The department does not have a strategy or procedure to collect revenue when the applicant can't or won't pay. The situation occurs when the fee collected at the time of application is not sufficient to cover additional time necessary to complete the process. This includes new reports desired by the commission, additional time necessary to sort out a problem, continuances, activities related to citizen participation, redesign, and similar occurrences. Our current ordinance does not have a process that allows stopping work, structuring fees, or initiating more aggressive collection action other than sending numbered billing notices (Ist notice, 2nd notice, etc.). We can turn unpaid bills over to a collection agency, but that means an automatic loss of 50%. The only recommendation we have received so far is to raise fees to cover potential loss. This appears totally inconsistent with County policy. Early warning that a project is in trouble allows negotiation for fees to begin earlier, but at present it appears that if an applicant were not to pay yet were to demand that we proceed with deliberate speed, the applicant might prevail. There is no procedure to resolve fee disputes, other than taking each matter to the Board. Staff recommendation is to include office of revenue collection and county counsel in a process to make changes in departmental procedures and ordinances to prevent non-payment. There are no attachments available at this time. VA:dg 6nance.rpt 7 (9/8/97) VII. Privatization Neither GWDA nor Community Development has fears over increasing privatization. Many current examples exist of GMEDA divisions purchasing services from private firms and selling departmental services to other jurisdictions and private entities. The attached report points out that the full cost of a project needs to be understood before it is contracted out. Both private enterprise advantages and public sector expectations are provided. Billing rates are also compared. It is worth reviewing privatization options to see if the work can be handled more cheaply and to provide periodic examination of the work entailed. The primary issues remain: how will the County maintain its policies when its work is performed by others? Who will handle the extra demands of citizen participation and similar requests? How will the work be funded? VIII. Productivity The agency is planning to provide an independent evaluation of productivity. It has not taken place because some of the data needed for any evaluation is in the process of being collected for these reports. It will be included before the process is complete. An initial analysis begins with consideration of types of projects selected. Should they be the routine projects or the unusual ones? Should they be controversial or not? Should the projects be evaluated based on the specific planner, area of the county, complexity of issues, or other factors? Is the focus of the evaluation to be the true costs of processing relative to fees, attempts to operate the process less expensively, staff problems, system problems, business environment issues, or other problems? Is the record-keeping system adequate to evaluate productivity? The current system cannot keep track of projects without a billing number or VA:dg finance.rpt 8 (9/8/97) 8. Direct staff to establish steps to evaluate new privatization opportunities and use this method to consider new ideas. Administrative actions proposed by staff. 1. Enhance ability for the public to get information without speaking to staff. (Some funds will be needed for capital investment in computers if this is the means chosen. This may qualify as a productivity investment application.) 2. Appointments should be made and charges collected for feasibility studies. Some appropriation may be relevant from an economic development source that supplements current planning budget to support time spent on feasibility analysis to enhance job development. 3. Develop strategies to increase counter support for non-application inquiries. 4. Staff should begin making appointments and taking in applications. 5. Staff should be allowed blocks of time without interruption or instructed to return inquiry telephone calls after 3 P.M. 6. Staff should log contacts with applicants requesting information or plan changes with confirming fax. 7. Protocol and time budgets need to be established in dealing with citizen calls inquiries and complaints to.controversial projects. 8. Procedures should be established to make the applicant more responsible for delays due to applicant turnaround, applicant generated controversy, or lack of cooperation from the applicant. 9. Some clarification of purpose and standing should be required when project opponents request delay or costly analyses. VA:dg finance.rpt 1 I (9/8/97) work over 40 hours per week. Staff may not be consistent in use of time codes. If the evaluation is numbers-oriented, should quality of individual projects or the system be measured or evaluated? Does consistency of departmental output matter? How should the system be made capable of handling stress? How should system feedback be handled? Attachment 8 includes the total hours spent by staff by project category in 1996. Unfunded mandates were not charged, and hours spent per week over 40 were not identified. IX. Role of citizen participation Response to requests for increased participation has been reactive and situation-specific. The role of citizens, citizen groups, or advisory committees is unclear and will remain a flash point as new controversies arise. An expanded approach to the issue should include the following: 1. What should be the appropriate level of formality for groups and interaction of citizens and government? 2. What efforts should there be to identify standing and quality of testimony? 1 What is a reasonable citizen participation budget for projects and activities such as MAC training? 4. What forums for participation should be encouraged? 5. To what extent should citizen participation be integrated into current administrative procedures or even replace aspects of the administrative process? Performance Expectations Citizen Indicators Participation VA:dg financexpt 9 (9/8/97) X. Initial recommendations Proposals that require Board of Supervisors policy support. 1. Until funding is stabilized, any new unfunded assignment should be referred to Finance Committee to review funding status. 2. Unfunded mandates should be billed to a specific account number for year-end reconciliation. 3. Request staff to prepare a work scope and cost to eliminate current unfunded mandates from current planning responsibility and to place new non-fee applications or other assignments out of current planning and into new division established to handle such requests. 4. New strategies to improve revenue/cash flow/efficiency should include the following information prior to analysis: a. . Identification of costs or cost items of new strategy. b. Indication whether it will streamline the process, add steps to the process, create shifts in burden, or have no effect on process. C. Indication whether proposal will make the process more efficient. d. Indication whether additional responsibility will be placed on applicant, neighborhood, or other interest. 5. Remove the 120% break given to developers, which means currently 20% of their time is not billed. Staff has had adequate preparation for a 100% system and should be able to justify all time spent on the project. 6. Review MSI assumptions to consider current applicability. 7. Improved billing procedures should be instituted, including changes in ordinances if necessary. VA:dg finance.ipt 10 (9/8/97) 10. Initiate processing approach identified in permit streamlining proposals that separate project compliance as a staff function and project compatibility as a political community oriented process. 11. Staff should identify recommendations and any conditions as early as possible to focus issues for debate. 12. Requests for postponements should be reviewed to anticipate extra cost generated and the outcome expected. 13. True costs of appeal should be known and an alternative means developed to pay in advance of staff time expenditure. 14. Standards need to be improved in preparation of findings and conditions so that future action is not confused. 15. Standards need to be set for what changes in the approved project can be handled by staff or by the zoning administrator following notice'or following a hearing. 16. Compliance review should become a separate process with a separate fee and there should be sanctions in event of non- compliance. 17. . Staff will seek to identify the.applicant and source of funding for each project request. 18. Staff will investigate new ways to privatize and to develop criteria to ensure that privatization meets county needs. Specific ordinance changes. Trees: Enforcement of the tree ordinance neither gives adequate authority or specific sanctions to the department. There are no set procedures when a violation occurs or when misinformation is given to staff in an application (trees are not shown). Under some circumstances, staff could be protecting species that the agriculture department or native VA:dg finance-rpt 12 (9/8/97) plant society may wish to eradicate in other areas. The ordinance needs revision with some variation based on location. Small Lot Review: In three communities, Kensington, Diablo, and Alamo, the small lot review offers a step toward discretionary review of building permits on single family infill lots. In these areas that have an established development pattern,new construction on vacant lots is feared due to possible loss of on-site trees or other features, blocking of views, development of"trophy houses" out-of-proportion with surrounding areas and similar concerns. It is always controversial since the owner wants the right to develop the land through a ministerial process and the neighbors want their say. The application fees are grossly inadequate for these applications. Staff time may expand to dozens of hours. The fee expectation is $75, which may not be enough to cover time spent on preliminary inquiry. Limits of authority must be better defined. More realistic thresholds should be established. Expanded procedures may be desired in areas that elect to have an expanded process. Permit Streamlining Processing permit applications has evolved over time in response to community needs, developers' needs and state law. Upon examination of the land development process, it becomes clear that the review and compliance functions of staff have become intertwined with the evaluation and participation functions of community groups. . Often parties involved in the process become confused about authority, procedure and role. Inherent in the proposed process permit streamlining changes is the intent to separate the compliance function performed by staff, which is required by state law, from the evaluation of project compatibility which is performed by the community. Permit streamlining proposes to make the compliance aspect of project review as brief and well defined as possible allowing whatever time is desired for addressing compatibility issues. VA:dg finance.rpt 13 (9/8/97) This fundamental change will result in the following: 1. It will allow staff to maintain a higher level of accountability for their time because of the clear delineation between the role of staff performing a review function and the role of staff responding to community issues. 2. Time and costs associated with development application processing can be segmented and more predictable. 3. Project review recommendations and requirements will be prepared sooner in the process reducing confusion and speculation on the part of neighbors and other concerned individuals on the nature of the project and the impacts of the project. 4. It will allow the public and neighborhood groups and NIACs to focus on neighborhood compatibility issues within a clear context of code requirements outlined by staff. Attachment 10 includes the recommendation made in the June 24, 1997 staff presentation to the Board. VA:dg finance.rpt 14 (9/8/97) Unfunded Mandates $265:is ;:.;:.;:. Budget es for S. Se �� �'� • jor rel Char es Cost of g for Services Services Developer Staff View View Attachment B ORDER OF ITEMS PROPOSED BY GMEDA FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR OCTOBER 6, 1997 I. Staff to respond to questions from Committee on report reviewed at September 15th meeting. II. Staff to respond to questions raised at September 15th meeting. III. Committee to review staff recommendations . IV. Identify new questions. V. Consider work program to work through land development finance issues. VI. Identify mailing list to be used for invitation to subsequent meetings. VII. Detennine order of issues and distribution of materials. srriz dotenTinagend(9/29/97) WORK PROGRAM The intended end-product of this effort (work program) will be a series of recommendations'to the Board of Supervisors covering the following issues: 1. Processing related actions to be taken by land development departments and divisions. 2. Finance-related actions to be taken by land development departments and divisions. 3. Process affecting actions to be taken by Board of Supervisors. 4. Finance-related actions to be taken by Board of Supervisors. Meeting 1 September 15 .Initial presentation, initial issues raised. Meeting 2 October 6 Response to initial questions. Response to followup issues. Consideration of initial recommendations. Establishment of notification list. Purpose and elements of next meeting. Meeting 3 Identification of areas of consensus and areas of outstanding concerns. Meeting 4 Formulation of committee recommendations. EDUz dotcnlissucs(929!1) Staff response to questions raised during the September 15, 1997 meeting of the Finance Committee: 1. Q: Check other jurisdictions for comparison of development costs borne by applicants. Has CSAC done any comparison? A: Staff has identified eleven counties as targets for comparisons of costs and revenues (Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, Alameda, San Diego, Ventura, Fresno, Orange, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, and San Mateo). The counties have been contacted and staff is compiling responses. Staff contacted HBA requesting any current comparisons they have. Staff contacted CSAC and ABAG for any comparisons of costs and revenues which they may have compiled. Neither CSAC or ABAG had the data. CSAC referred staff to the California Planners' 1992 Book of Lists. 2. Q: Staff to identify what part(s) of the process can be eliminated. A: The 1996 Streamlining review raised the issue of retention/eliniiation of the Small Lot Review requirement and modification of Land Use Pen-nit regulations for Home Occupation uses. There are costs associated with process modifications. In most cases, the identified changes would result not only in a speedier process, but would eliminate substantial opportunities for public participation in the development and regulation of private property. If certain communities are found to be unique with respect to physical characteristics which justify the Small Lot Review, it may be possible through General Plan Amendment and Zomig Ordinance modification to limit the applicability of the Small Lot Review approach to those communities. There would be fairly substantial costs associated with the initial work required to make such an adjustment which would require an appropriation. EUL 9/30/97 doten\financel.mem 3. Q: What was the dollar amount distributed in overhead to other departments during fiscal year 96-97? A: Building Inspection Community Development Public Works Board of Supervisors $ 75,632.40 $22,854.97 Clerk of the Board 12,269.26 3,707.58 Auditor-Controller 30,925.25 9,345.14 County Counsel 49.245.10 $105,000.00* 14.881.13 Total $168,072.01 $105,000.00 $50,788.83 *Community Development, County Administrator and County Counsel have agreed to a development fee overhead distribution where all of the allotted overhead costs go to County Counsel, in lieu of their billing Community Development for legal services. In addition to the above distributions, the three departments are charged by other County departments for services rendered. These payments are made from "overhead"fiends rather than from application fees. County departments which charge against Agency revenues include General Services, County Counsel, Department of Information Technology and others. 4. Q: Determine whether interest can be charged on accounts receivable from developers. A: Staff reviewed the development fee ordinance for an interest provision and discussed the possibility of charging interest with staff and the County Auditor- Controller. There is no language in the fee ordinance which allows interest charges to be made against outstanding account balances. The Auditor's staff was not able to locate legal authority for charging interest except in cases where a judgement can be obtained against a debtor and the account turned over to collections. For fiiture projects, the County could condition applicants to pay interest on outstanding billings beyond a specified timeframe for payment. Staff will be preparing a proposed condition of approval for review by County Counsel. An additional approach may be to create the format for fee collection as an agreement in addition to a requirement. 5. Q: Identify methods that can be used to ensure that developers comply with conditions of approval. A: There are several methods that can be used to ensure that conditions are complied with. The following steps can be taken to improve "quality control" of completing conditions of approval. ED:lz 9/30/07 2 . doten\finance l.mem I. Establish compliance review as a separate process: Identify staff who would specialize in review of a developer's compliance with conditions of approval. Staff would use a specific, distinct process to review for compliance. 2. Agreements and bonds: Where appropriate, staff can require 'increased use of improvement agreements and bonds. For example, on site landscaping of projects is one area where we could require bonding which historically has not been required. 3. Review conditions at project milestones: Staff currently reviews the conditions at each project milestone (i.e. final map, grading permit, building permit, acceptance of improvements). The project milestones are "controlled" by different departments and each department is responsible for ensuring compliance on a portion of the project conditions of approval. Improvements can be made in coordination between departments on reviewing conditions so all departments can verify that the conditions required at each milestone are in fact completed. 4. Better conditions of approval: Some of the standard conditions of approval could be improved by giving clearer direction and specifying when requirements must be completed. 5. Automate the conditions of approval review process. Ttn s includes incorporating mitigation measures and other requirements into a coordinated approach through the new Sierra computer system. EDiz 9/30/97 doten\6nancel.mem Attachment C OCTOBER 20, 1997 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING I. Background At the October 6, 1997 Finance Committee meeting, staff was asked to prioritize their list of initial recommendations. The initial recommendations were divided into two sections, "proposals that require Board of Supervisors policy support" and "administrative actions proposed by staff', plus specific ordinance changes and permit streamlining. We prioritized only those recommendations that require Board of Supervisors policy support. We also provided a more detailed discussion on three recommendations. The main consideration in prioritizing the recommendations was those recommendations that would provide the greatest budget impact. II. Discussion of Three Recommendations 1. Unfunded Mandates: All new unfunded assignments from the Board should be referred to the Finance Committee for identification of a funding source. Charges to each unfunded mandate should be tracked separately and the total charges brought to the Finance Committee at the end of the fiscal year for budget reconciliation. Time spent last year on unfunded and underfunded mandates resulted in a cost to. Community Development staff of approximately $750,000.00. This placed an undue burden on staff in two ways. First, working on unfunded mandates requires staff to push off or delay work being done on permit applications. This puts the paying customers behind schedule and staff is placed in a stressful situation when.the paying customers.(applicants) call to complain about processing delays. Secondly, with the continual emphasis on the bottom line, unfunded mandates places a stress on staff by always being in the red. 2. Home Occupation:Modify the home occupation process to protect the interest of the neighbors and the community and reduce process time. Discussion at the Finance Committee has revolved around how t6 cut costs and streamline the process without sacrificing the protection of the community which is guaranteed by public participation. We can, however, implement permit streamlining and still protect the interest and values of the community. As an example: we can streamline the home occupation process using public participation to establish a set of baseline criteria for home occupation that protects the interest of the neighbors and the community yet reduces the process time. Objective: Allow certain home occupations uses and require a permit for others. 2 A. Establish criteria to protect the interests of the neighbors and the values the community has for allowing a home occupation use. These criteria define activities for home occupation use that would be acceptable to the community. Such*criteria may include: 1. The activity is one that is customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling. 2. The use must not change the residential character of the dwelling or area. 3. There shall be no merchandise or services for sale except those produced from or made on the premises. 4. The use shall not generate vehicular traffic in excess of that normally associated with single family residential use. 5. A limited portion of the dwelling (not more than one room or 25% of the habitable floor area, whichever is greater) may used for the home occupation. Garages and accessory buildings are not considered as having habitable floor area. 6. No persons may be employed, except the applicant, in the conduct of the home occupation. 7. The sale of firearms, ammunition, or explosive devices is prohibited. 8. Signing for advertising purposes is prohibited. ` B. Establish criteria to protect the interests of the neighbors and values of the community for requiring a home occupation permit (land use permit). These criteria define activities that could be a problem, but through the review and conditioning of the application,would be acceptable to the community. Such criteria may include: 1. Activities that generate noise. 2. Merchandise that is produced or made on the premises that, through the production process, may create a fire or safety hazard. 3. Activities that generate dust. 3 3. Fees for Service: All fees for services should be on a straight time and materials basis charged against an initial deposit made by the applicant. A. The development community has requested for some time that we charge on a time and materials basis. Applicant's who submit projects that are well designed and thought out and who have met with the community beforehand-and worked out issues with the community, which is reflected in their submitted design, will be processed much faster and more efficiently than those applicants who submit poorer designs and who have not met with the community, and who refuse to make changes to accommodate the desires of the community. Well designed projects will realize a costs savings and will receive a refund from the deposit submitted for processing their application. Poorly designed projects will experience high costs and lengthy processing times and will be billed for any cost overruns. B. Staff will focus on providing account status information to developers rather than tracking a myriad of revenue activities on each project. This will allow the applicant to know how much is in their deposit account during the application process. Knowing how much more work is necessary, the application can judge whether the application deposit will be enough to cover all of the processing costs. III. Prioritized list of initial recommendations that require Board of Supervisors policy support. IA. Until funding is stabilized, any new unfunded assignment should be referred to Finance Committee to review funding status. 113. Unfunded mandates should be billed to a specific account number for year-end reconciliation. 2. Remove the 120% break given to developers, which means currently 20% of their time is not billed. Staff has had adequate preparation for a 100% system and should be able to justify all time spent on the project. 3. Improved billing procedures should be instituted, including changes in ordinances if necessary. 4. New strategies to improve revenue/cash flow/efficiency should include the following information prior to analysis: a. Identification of costs or cost items of new strategy. b. Indication whether it will streamline the process, add steps to the process, create shifts in burden, or have no effect on process. c. Indication whether proposal will make the process more efficient. 4 d. Indication whether additional responsibility will be placed on applicant, neighborhood, or other interest. 5. Request staff to prepare a work scope and cost to eliminate current unfunded mandates from current planning responsibility and to place new non-fee applications or other assignments out of current planning and into new-division established to handle such requests. 6. Review MSI assumptions to consider current applicability. 7. Direct staff to establish steps to evaluate new privatization opportunities and use this method to consider new ideas. RMA/df d3:10-20.fin 10-16-97 f Attachment D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT e CURRENT PLANNING BUDGET UNIT Fiscal Year Starting Balance Revenue Expenditures Short-Fall Fund Balance y 1994-95 $1,507,510 $1,331,352 $2,078,880 $732,757 $774,753 1995-96 $774,753 $1,608,142 $1,847,095 $228,138 $546,615 1996-97 $546,615 $1,566,017 $1,791,836 $223,456 $323,159 1997-98 $323,159 $1,329,304 $1,627,624 $298,320 $24,439 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Revenue $1,500,000 Expenditures Short-Fall Fund Balance $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Fiscal Year M w N m pCOY ,c, ,n �a 00 N ` Q M W W a ..t. � 0 O � N Y N � � d s <s s O �. c ., Ja Ol ~ '` 2 LAND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND ITS RESERVE REPLENISHMENT ELEMENT The Land Development Fund was established as a result of a 1991 recommendation by Management Services Institute, which under contract with the county, conducted a cost/revenue comparison of county services. The establishment of the fund removed the. land development functions from the General Fund and established separate accounting of development revenues and expenditures. The land development activities in the fund were expected to remain substantially self sufficient. A "reserve replenishment" element was included within the fund. It was anticipated that some revenues would.accumulate in the reserve replenishment element to an amount sufficient to provide a basis for the financing of a new office facility. This never materialized. The Land Development Fund ensures that revenues collected are used for the purposes for which they are collected, and that over-collections as well as under- collections are identified and corrected. The separate accounting of land development transactions was meant to provide a way for the fund to reserve monies for future work, and to balance out the effects of economic cycles. The monies within the fund are restricted to development services use. The fund balance is intended to act as an operations reserve to help smooth out the impacts of service demand shifts, to cover the cost of services that are intentionally undercharged (e.g., evidence reproduction, appeals), to make up the difference between fees collected and costs incurred on projects that do not reach the billing threshold, and to defer revenue for those projects that have paid for work that has not yet been performed. EDVx 11/13/97 dotrnACvfund.mam 3 F C C C C C C C C C C C C C C D 'Q V Co to Co Co co to Co Co O Co Co O Co Co 0, `J —1 -4 -1 -I 'V —1 14 �i d `J —1 11 -4 tD m O O O O O O O O O O O a O O n O O O_ O O_ O O O O O O O O O O MW -4 M M -N a O O ,1 a � a a 3 00 � " N o O a (0 cD :v s y �' � CL 07 M. _` 07 m T. m C/) M 0 .0 0 C w O C cn 0 CD conn Cr cr cr 1 rn CD m N D v " to D C Z O O Z r- D 2 -1 . -1 C/) -' v_7 C -1 m Q O O_ v (D M. 0 v �cn �. a Q 0 C N U)Cn �' i O_ = Cv '0 C _ 7C' O Z ED 0 � o Q sU v 0 2 O_ . crD w O o v rn � � -i = rn CD CD o a v � o C) m Q- m 3 0 �' CD a D 0 cD CD = CCDn 3 02. rn D m m " c'u : O. 0 0 3 m r* CD �' = O : m c`_<n CD m 3 �' �, C7 m O Q 0 -" n 0' n Z X N : O CL ccc0 \ O O O O 0 O 3 � v �' 3 o � c� = 3 cD sv 3 5' 3 cn 3 w cn r l< I. CD CO 3 a —I D Cl) to Sr CD CD o m Z G) v- cD O n -C O y 3 tD 0 CDCD 'a' �' O a O. 3 W "C CL :3 u ,-+; -4 h =3 <_ 0 CD m o CD cn w °° 0 N sv ( i = Q CDD C) 0 co Cn O CD -� o w v w • o w -4 Cwn (ni° - oO N rnw Crn --4 .i w tn m I to oo 4 J - C O T O co O O O CD y rr C O 0 C cn I� N O tD C O CA ,-,. in O G) m 0 z -n o G) W _ cn m m 0, L- m w w 0 -4-0 w o tr N C7 C CO -� O W O -� w o s .A rn a o w o o o tr O o a o m o o o rn p 0 0 o a O o a D w 0 D 0 D rn X 0 03 W p N P _% O o a O 0 D D D D D D D D D D D D -� C >< Z C = C C C C C C e C) a r' a O (s e e (s o' D 7 ) D -� �7 n 0 Ois to W N 9 N v. E L g -i N z F Q CD r w m O N c Q � U. U a W Q a ED e e e e c Ja L ? Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Z CD GH O0 C ) W O O O 0 Q Q a O O "t3 m C) 0 c) O *� +) l!� O 0 0 � O O C) = 0 > O E c i O e- O O c"') N CO O co U') L6 O O p CA O Y r- O N N r- Y cD o U Y �- - Y o6 U a) Y UW 0 W W C9Y -� Q 0 W Q = W w ry U W 00 w U J O c U O N U c O U O w�+ NN 00 I. m OCh co m N COO COD 0 U 0 C6 0° (6 CV 6 ui cli t-� co (tel CC O N N 00 00 4t d co M 0000 U) � d T- N 06 0 I` C'7 C6 clCD 69- Q)- 69. 6F} 6AA. 69- Ef} 69- 60, 6c3 69 cu N LL Q) a) a) (7 = 0 (n a E a) �- C m CL 04 Q. U N a) O C V m LCO m _ ED N U W (10 c6 a cu cu CO C c o cn d a) 0- -J fA oN a) 0 L a) c rn a) o Z5 UO () U C cls (tea ° o E v Z cm c j u' vii c E Q o o n CL con � C .a; � F= (n o = 2) UL 0 � fl. IL ca cm 0 co ca z o c' o m N c L E 2 � o o co U � � (6 C m V to � c _ U -Ea E co �o.0L o oa. CL Q cn � C .0 CQ �_ CC -0 cn Ln c O O O E c6 O E '�' cn :3 to O 0 0 O C6 O =3 O C O U L u- m Y (D U am cc Y Q -v U � � C C E: O v LL '++ N 00 C3) O N M C.D P- 00 CA O N C6 V- r- T- N N N N N N N N M M +r +r C) O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N � Q � N ti ti ti ti ti ti ti � � ti ti .�' C) CA 0') (3) O C) CA O O CA CA O 0) j CLQ D D :D D :D Z) Z) D D D D D Z N M lqt to 0 1-- U Q to C Y0 m DU X C < ?- Q }Q. Q Q Q Q Q < O o 0 0 0 `t N o Q co 0 U W �'•" O o o 0 0 0 2 cp oo Wio a; o O o o � � m W (o "i O co ,- q q 6 L6 0 M p r q 05 O Y U — Y N r- U') 0) O M O ti ❑ r- Y co co = U ❑ ❑ U ❑ cr- Y ❑ c cr- cr- U w ❑ N U c F) Cl) U 0 0 Cl) U o o o Cl rn 00 co � � (D co M CL � N N 0c 00 0 M 000 0000 r 00 N t�0 (f3 +O' T- d d' M N r,- M LL 1 60- 6$ (a 69. 60, 619. 60f Efl 6F} 6130 6q 0 O U Q 0 c ~ U m �rj N m U m co CU (B O a- N > cu LO CY)0 Q Q C (�m L- Q O e- LL' �^' ,C) O O N O a 0 LL LLLCL (n Q 4- N 0) C -� ami o �, o" z, ca c oo p � cc co oo c_n L, Z o c U W a)c o (D n �' �_ goo `- r �, � c� LLJ O Y O U O m J ca u- N U O NU O)_O O co Q a N U O W = U O O) M 'p = >, >, N = F- 5 U .0 �. L C N N N N = O O O O U � mO z3 a ❑ N O O O '2 O U c CA L Z O �_ Q Y p N N = C C W L= = m 2 ai a F- H = Q J Z 0 0 Z Q C C C V) m m m tt-- Q N L L L m L RT C Q (D C ` C/) U Y U U (A = 1 o m o L 0 ' 'L o o d Y cv > o > > o -a LO 0 to co rn c U-) i r 00 c E a � � v c � LL , r- N CO In w r` 00 m O r N It Co M Ca O O O O Cl O O C) �- r- O O O O O O O O O O O O O V .V C)O O O O O O C) O Ca O O O O O N I- 0) m 0) Old CA CA CF) 0) 0)) 0) m 7 CL Q S Z) D D r 1 \ .c i c� � LO Cfl U Z U U Z LO (0 t- 00 0) i N cY) M M M Q > Q Q 0- I— d It d' It d' I Q .sz a a is e 2 m 2 p -i 0 0 is is O 0 00 } W o N }.. O 00 o O N p N d O C)ui O O O r Cl ON 0o- N YT- N (6 :c = m = m 2 2 q W Q 0 m m O +r U O N U � O V O +O+ rO- ( O co et N N O It CN O � r N N co +•' �- 'd Cfl N EA 6F} 69 64 611} K-} 6A V> a) Y Q U Q 06 a) L L 4- = O N CD U C tLS = in O >,� O ca c O = o +r U v M _Q ct1 >, o c ,- O ` CL E c a U O O a) E m V O N 'v �+ c O CL 4- — cu a fn O U Y O O D c4 ca cn rn c E v > N cn N 0 o c CU � U L- U) N q p N C a) ca c c7� ca (I) v_- a U M CL m � >o o (a > Q, c a) cn Z __ O cn Q c V a) > O 0 E O L rn V LL C7 O O •E C .0 C6 m _ U 0 � O O C .O O V O N C C > >- O ° o U o o 0 r- c co0 ID a� o ., � Q o� OU z co n ,:3 >% N 3 = ca o a� c cn O 0 ca cts o 0) o O 4-- a) a) o O :3Q c .� LL cC Lu 0- U Q m O CL a. 2 O W Wcu tr-- U m 4 ,) i N m aD C = �' cn cn a 0 q cn F- X a c E ca o o a) aoi C) o c a) 0 m 0 J = m ` m Q 0 n. Y CD d > > o om > 0 > Q j u i � s CD > U � � C E a a o LL '++ cM It LO CD rl- 00 O O r- d cn CO O f- 00 0) M cn co M M M M j, d d d' d' LO 't '�t �t '1 O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O V .V O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O N d — ti r- ti ti ti r ti ti ti N r- ti r- '0 �- CT1 O O) O) O O Cm CA O O O CA 4- O O O t Q a E; W a a a is U (n c Z 9 i O O O .-. O O QO O O O O O a, a) O O O Q O O O O O O O O O C _ O Co O O O It O �- N Z3 O O O N p. `� r �-- �- p M T N U- 0 L- (D 0 � 0 U W U U o Q Q IL U- = 2 J Com• co w J N O c O N U a m O U U) O O O O N M O O O O O O O O O d. O O N to M N 'd' t0 CD Co fl- CD co U O c"i O N CO M Cfl M v 6 r_: 06 Q LO O I,- m moi' O LO N co N CD M O CO N O CO M r N CEJ 00 co ICT Co It 69 6F} 609. 69- 61). Ei} 69- 69 64 69 6F} Eft 6F} 61)- co gm 0 Q 0 p I- U C � O (DOtS3 � E 7 N � (0 p p ` -J CL L to > E CO 4] p p u) LL C U C/) o ° N U) 0 a) a) `!+ c U d f� �• N - N m Q Q U 0 c N d (n s 0) vi co a� c 0 0 U E 0 avi o ° �' n- ca ° U- w c U m c E -(a n rn c aci to <1 r- � cod oo -a Q E o _ cE o m ° a) E ca .a m O a� ° oC U c`a ? E o ai c c ° U -1" c 0 m U .a; (D o c a c >, ° ca o U U Q c E ° �j o 0 O U U o E m s `' E U c`v c ai E aEi c c a m Q Y`o E -a E ° 0 0, U .o p ` aa) o 0 C) U) c c E �- 0 +, o U 0 c a) U o m cu cu a) o c 0 m > �' W U v N o �' E �"_ U c c U v N a) c c ZU) Awa ink v cw a cn CO Y Qom ¢ 0 � ¢ Q Q o c c 0 cm 4.1 = c c �. o.c o o ccu m > aa)) aa)) E c Y Y 2 U CD CD U v) U Q Q u. L1_ _..I d (A fA 6 ci J b � � U ice+ 0) LO D (A C LO C a/ 3 E k o v 4) C C) U. '++ O r N M tt Lo O � co LO Lo Low v o 0 0 0 0 oN o tia CL rn 0) 0) 0) 0) rn 4- rn 0) a ¢ D ` _ E i LL Q m U Y c = mm mmco m � Z �. } � m � O UJ cco o 0 0 U-, O U _ Z J N N N +r'U c _ O to U = O U o o 00 00 o chi rte+ 0 00 O CO CO N 6q 60:31 69 6q N _ _O O O 0 N .:+ a = ° Q O .L E D a� U a CD � 4- vii c� LL Q. a) J CL Z o > D a Fa- O U) m Cl) � c c c FL LL � LL U � v C1 C � O I.L. +:+ V ,V ami •0 CL 3 G. aQ