HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06051984 - IO.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Internal Operations Committee Contra
Costa
DATE: May 21 , 1984 _ County
SUBJECT: Area General Plans and Methods to Recover Staff Costs
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Request the Director of Planning to review all planning application fees with
the objective of increasing the fees to the extent necessary to recover the
department's cost of processing applications.
2. Present the revised fee schedule to the County Administrator as soon as possible,
with the goal of implementing the revised fees by July 1 , 1984.
3. Direct the County Administrator and Director of Planning to' prepare a report for '
the Board which can be sent to this County' s Legislative Delegation and the
Governor, outlining the problems counties face in not being able to charge
more than the cost of processing applications in order to offset other planning
costs which are not subject to fees.
4. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On January 31 , 1984, the Board referred to our Committee a recommendation from
Supervisor Torlakson that we identify the staff costs for General Plan reviews and
find a mechanism for spreading these costs to future applications that have benefited
from higher land use entitlements because of the General Plan review process.
On May 21 , 1984, our Committee met with County Counsel , Director of Planning, and
staff from the County Administrator's Office and reviewed a May 17,::1984 memorandum
from the County Administrator. We also had before us a February 27, 1984 opinion
from County Counsel , noting that there is no provision in State law which authorizes
the Board of Supervisors to establish fees to be imposed upon later applicants seek-
ing governmental approvals which are required to be in conformance with the adopted
specific plan. Resolution 82/936, adopted by the Board on August 17, 1982, establishes
fees for various planning applications, including a fee for General Plan amendment
requests. This fee is $750 plus a sliding scale fee based on the acreage involved.
Thus, in the case .of an individual request for the Board to exercise its discretion
in initiating a General Plan review, a portion of the staff costs involved i.n such a
review is recovered from the person making the initial request. The amount recovered,
however, does not cover the full staff cost involved. Not only is there no authority
in State law for the Board to charge a fee for a General Plan review initiated on
the Board's own motion; there is really a question whether as a matter of public
policy there should be such a fee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_X_APPROVE
SIGNATURE(S) TO Oowersg Nancy C. Fande
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 5, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
County Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Planning Director ATTESTED S 9
County Counsel
J.R. LSSON, COUNTY CLERK
AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
M382/7-83 BY 00
DEPUTY
Y
-2-
The Director of Planning noted that it is to the general benefit of the community
at large for the Board to periodically update its General Plans and that it may
not be appropriate, therefore, for there to be a fee charged in connection with
such a review. It would be possible, however, to increase the planning application
fees to more nearly cover the cost of processing such applications. However, since
these fees, by State law, are only allowed to cover the cost of the actual processing
of the application, there will always be a significant portion of the Planning
Department's general planning responsibilities which must be a General Fund
expense.
Our Committee would like to see planning application fees increased to the point
that we recover more than the actual cost of processing an individual application
so that this surplus revenue can be used to cover the general planning activities
of the Department in which no fee is charged. Since this is a problem created by
the Legislature, we would like a report prepared and forwarded to the Board which
we, in turn, could share with our legislators and the State Administration in an
effort to demonstrate the extent to which they have complicated our situation in
local government by refusing to allow fees to recover costs not directly associated
with the application.
00 328