HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05011990 - 2.2 Aw sE C12 `'}t)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
�r
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
o ;s Costa
°
DATE: May 1, 1990 County,,'ti�
STA CtititN'R ""
SUBJECT: COUNTYWIDE FEE REVIEW
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Authorize County Administrator to enter into the attached
contract with Management Services Institute (MSI ) to conduct
a countywide fee review.
2. Authorize the use of Productivity Investment Funds to
support the efforts of two full-time equivalent County staff
for this project.
3 . Approve the concept of covering the contract costs and
repaying the Productivity Investment Fund with the first
revenues resulting from this project.
4. Direct the County Administrator to strongly encourage
departments to fully participate in this effort.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Total contract costs over three fiscal years will total $550,000.
County staff costs are expected to total approximately $200,000
during the three fiscal years of the project. Increased revenues
resulting from the fee review are expected to cover all above
costs, and significant additional revenues are expected.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
�. APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON MAY 1 1AMAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
�( i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: AND
AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Cc:
County Administrator MAY 1 1990
Auditor-Controller ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
12
M3827 BY
( 0188) ,DEPUTY
-2-
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
During the first meeting of the City/County Revenue Committee in
December 1989, it was mentioned that three cities in the County
(Antioch, Pittsburg, and Richmond) had contracted for a fee
review which revealed significant additional revenue potential
for those cities. The County was encouraged to pursue this
review as one method to increase the "size of the pie" . The
Finance Committee, which is made up of the Board' s appointees to
the City/County Revenue Committee (Supervisors Torlakson and
Schroder) endorsed proceeding with this project.
Subsequently, a presentation was made to the Economic Progress
Committee (Supervisors Powers and Fanden) , which also endorsed
proceeding with this fee review project.
The proposal is unique in that all County services are proposed
to be reviewed and all costs associated with these services would
be identified. Services which are being subsidized by the
general fund will be identified, as well as the extent of the
subsidy. Recommendations will be made for reducing the subsidy
for those services over which the Board has fee setting
authority.
For those services which have fees set by State law, the study
will be used to approach the Legislature to request changes. The
feeling is that if actual costs can be shown, the Legislature may
react more favorably to requests for increases. It is also hoped
if the Legislature can be shown that the County is doing
everything in its power to maximize revenues, the Legislature
will look favorably upon these additional requests.
In many cases, the Board or the Legislature may decide that a
significant subsidy is appropriate. The fee study will allow
those decisions to be made based on the knowledge of what true
costs are, and in recognition of the priority of subsidizing
certain services.
Another benefit of the study is that the County will achieve
consistency in its fee setting process for the first time.
Citizens will be able to see first hand how the County developed
a fee for a given service. This new level of understanding
should reduce the perception that one service is paying for
another.
The project will have three phases:
Phase I will take place between May 1990 and April 1991 when the
first fee increases would be implemented. Departments such as
Community Development, Building Inspection and Public Works will
be reviewed first.
Phase II will take place between May 1991 and April 1992. During
this phase, the remaining services will be reviewed and a second
round of recommendations will be forwarded to the Board.
Phase III will take place from April 1992 to January 1993 . This
phase will be a refinement of the fees developed in Phases I and
II , using more precise formulas based on complete information.
The full-time equivalent of two contractor employees will be
working in the County during this period, although at times it
will be less and at times significantly more. Two full-time
equivalent County employees will be devoted to this project;
one full-time Auditor' s Office employee and two analysts from the
Administrator' s Office devoting half of their time. This
collaborative effort was proposed by the contractor to reduce
costs as well as to help the County develop in-house expertise in
how to develop and update the fees.
ATTACHMENTS: Contract between the County and MSI
MSI proposal to develop a municipal Business ,
system for Contra Costa County