My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2004-09-27
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2004
>
AgdaPkt 2004-09-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 3:45:43 PM
Creation date
9/23/2004 1:24:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
9/27/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
329
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
�A-q <br /> ATTACHMENT 111 <br /> Planning Cost Reoov�ery Pdicy <br /> As part of the Council's on-going review of the budget, the Revenue sub-committee <br /> comprised of Chairman Jim Hartnett, Mayor Jeff Ira, and Council member Rosanne <br /> Foust met in April and June 2004 to consider changes to the way the City charges <br /> planning applicants for project review. Redwood City's last amendment to any planning <br /> fees or charges was in 1990. <br /> The sub-committee reviewed data from a variety of neighboring cities, but focused on <br /> Mountain View, San Mateo, and Palo Alto as the most comparable to Redwood City <br /> (similar in population and in the complexity of the projects they see). <br /> Comparison of Pern�it Fees ($) <br /> Pem�it RWC San Ma�eo Palo AfDo Mt View <br /> Architectural Permits 100-450 281-2,034 120-3,500 557-1,916 <br /> Planned Development <br /> Permits 1,000 4,627 NA 3,592 <br /> General Plan <br /> Amendments 500 4,627 5,000 1,276 <br /> Zonin Amendments 1,000 4,627 5,000 1,276 <br /> Use Permits 400 453 2,500 1,574 <br /> Source: Data from City websites — April 24, 2004 <br /> This is just an excerpt of the complete list of permits. It was clear that Redwood City's <br /> charges were very low when compared with any of our neighbors. In FY 2003/04 <br /> Planning fees and charges amounted to 16% of their general fund costs to operate the <br /> Planning function. <br /> It appeared to the sub-committee that while some services — for example police and fire <br /> — should be regarded as something a resident should receive as part of the City's basic <br /> services, it was appropriate to charge the actual cost of service to applicants of major <br /> development projects. If we do not charge the actual cost for such project review, it <br /> means that all residents of the City are subsidizing these major projects. <br /> The proposal is that "major projects" pay the full costs of processing their applications. <br /> We are recommending one-quarter acre as the definition of what constitutes a`major <br /> project'. Below this threshold, applicants would pay the current fees'. At or above this <br /> threshold, the proposed policy will require that the applicant make a deposit of funds <br /> ' Staff is conducting an analysis of actual costs to deliver different types of permits. This will provide the basic data <br /> Council will need to have before considering changing such fees. The sub-committee will consider this data when <br /> available and make a recommendation to Council. <br /> Alll-1 <br /> _ _ . _._ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.