Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03161999 - SD2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Finance Committee Costa John Gioia C a u n ty Donna Gerber MATE: March 9, 1999 SUBJECT: APPEAL FILING FEE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION Maintain the appeal filing fee for land development applications at the $125.00 level, while the Community Development Department continues to attempt to reduce the number of appeals by referring certain applications to the Planning Commissions for initial hearing. BACKGROUND On December 9, 1997; the Board of Supervisors approved a series of recommendations from the Finance Committee related to GMEDA financial issues. One of the recommendations was to amend the fee ordinance to require fees be charged on a 100% time and materials basis; the ordinance became effective on October 12, 1998. While the ordinance converted the majority of fees to a full cost recovery basis, the fee for filing an appeal to a land development application was not considered amenable to this method. Therefore, the cost of appeals was maintained at $125.00, with cost over-runs paid by the project applicant. The Finance Committee, however, requested that the Community Development Department further explore the issue and return with a discussion. Community Development Department's consideration of the appeal fee (see Attachment) concludes that an amendment to the fee structure to address isolated cases of high appeal costs is not warranted at this time. However, the Department will return to the Finance Committee in January 2000 with an update on the issue based on the experience of this past year. Continued on Attachment: X YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s): ` t Action of Board on: rc 19 Approved as Recommended YX Other Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN MX Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: Contact: Tony Enea(335-1094) Attested: March 16. 1999 cc: County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of Community Development the Board of Supervisors County Counsel rand County Administrator By: DEPUTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 335-1210 Fax: 335-1222 TO: Finance Committee Supervisor Gerber Supervisor Gioia FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP ,.. Director by: Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director DATE: February 17, 1999 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FEE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS On December 91, 1998, the Board approved a series of recommendations from the Finance Committee related to GMEDA. financial issues. One of those recommendations was to amend the fee ordinance to require fees be charged on a 100% time and materials basis, thereby eliminating the flat fee system wherein applicants must exceed 120/a of the established fee before additional fees are assessed. The subsequent fee ordinance became effective on October 12, 1998. During the Finance Committee meetings, there was discussion related to the fee for filing an. appeal. It is clear that the cost of processing appeals is significantly higher than the $125.00 appeal fee. It is less clear who should be responsible for those costs. When the fee ordinance was updated in 1996 to provide for a 100%cost recovery system, the cost of filing an appeal remained at $125.00. When the Board adopted the most recent fee ordinance on October 12, 1998, the cost of appeals again was maintained. at $125.00. At that time, the Finance Committee requested the Community Development Department return with a discussion of this issue. 2 Currently, appellants are charged a $125.00 fee to file an appeal. Costs in excess of this amount are billed to the applicant. Applicants currently pay the full cost of processing an application and likely believe that it is unfair to burden them with paying the costs of an appeal. This argument could include the view that the appeal fee structure gives a "license" to create unreasonable delays and increase costs for the development community. In contrast, there is a strong argument that the public has the right to participate in, and have reasonable access to, land use decisions. With this argument, higher appeal fees could erect a barrier to the general public, preventing citizens from participating in governmental decisions. This issue of how to fairly recover costs for appeals epitomizes the public policy dilemma of ensuring fair and equal access to public decision making while assuring fairness to applicants who pay the bills. In order to assess the magnitude of this issue, the Department reviewed all appeals filed in the calendar year 1998. Of the 257 applications processed, appeals were fled on only fifteen applications, resulting in a 5.8% appeal rate. Of these appeals, six were filed by applicants. 'Thus, the number of appeals filed by the general public during 1998 was only 3°rho of the total number of applications processed. The costs for processing each of these appeals ranged from approximately $300.00 to in excess of $8,000.00, with most appeals falling within the $800.00 to $1000.00 range. During 1998, there were three appeals that generated significant costs (approximately $4000.00, $5,000.00 and$8000.00). It is not surprising that, in two of these cases, appeals were filed by both the applicant and by the neighbors. The Community Development Department is currently taking steps to reduce the number of appeals filed. The County Code allows the Zoning Administrator to refer planning items directly to the Planning Commissions for initial hearing. This option has been exercised when it seems likely that an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision will be filed. This referral option, at a minimum, eliminates one set of hearings. Since not all projects heard on appeal by the Commissions are appealed again to the Board, it is our assumption that a decision by a Commission, which involves a larger group of decision makers, reduces the likelihood of an appeal, 'There are three projects currently pending for which the Zoning 3 Administrator has determined that one of the Planning Commissions will held the initial hearing. Recommendation: It is the Department's recommendation that the appeal fee be retained at the $125.04 level, and that the Department continue the attempts to reduce the number of appeals by referring certain applications to the Commissions for initial hearing. The Department could return to the Finance Committee in January of 2004 with an update based on this year's experience. Of the fifteen appeals filed in 1998, three generated significant costs. In previous years, there have also been selected projects which generated high appeal costs. From a public policy perspective, it does not seem appropriate to amend a fee structure to address isolated cases. In 1998, two of the three applications with high appeal costs involved appeals by bath the applicant and by one or more neighbors. This generally reflects the inability of the two sides to negotiate outside of a public hearing process. There are a number of other options that the Finance Committee may wish to consider. They are: 1. Modify the fee to establish a two tier system. The $125.04 fee could be retained for small scale projects (e.g. variances, small lot reviews and "minor" land use permits). These are types of applications that have more limited planning issues and, thus, staff costs for processing appeals are generally lower. The appeal fee could be raised for an appeal of more intensive land use permits, minor and major subdivisions, industrial projects, and planned unit developments (e.g. $400.40). These types of projects generally involve a wider range of issues and, thus, appeals generally have higher costs. This assumes that appeals on more complex projects may involve more than one member of the public who could share in the appeal costs. This also recognizes the higher investment made by the development community with the more intensive projects. 2. Increase the fee to $344.00. This option would establish a fee that would cover the minimum cost incurred by the Department to process an appeal. Costs in excess of the $340.00 would continue to 4 be borne by the applicant. The primary benefit of this approach would be to raise the cost to appellants, thereby making the filing of an appeal a more serious decision can their part. 3. Establish an equal burden fee system. Using this option, the cost to process an appeal would be divided equally between the appellant and the applicant. This option would reduce the financial burden placed on applicants, and would reduce the number of appeals filed. Costs charged to appellants would range from $400.00 to approximately $4,000.00 (using 1998 as an example). These higher Fees would, in some cases, impair the ability of the public to participate in the land use decision process, and may discourage the filing of appeals that might be valid. A number of cities and counties were surveyed and most have low fees (ranging from. $0.00 to $100.00), with the overruns funded by the General Fund. 1t has been the Departmenfs experience that applicants have the ability to significantly reduce the probability of an appeal by negotiating with neighbors both outside of the hearings as well as during the hearing process. The cost of an appeal serves to encourage applicants to negotiate with their neighbors. As such, this option has not been explored finther. Please feel free to call me at extension 5-1210 if'I can provide any additional information. cc; Dennis M. Barry, AZCP Heather Ballenger, Public Works