My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2006-05-08
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2006
>
AgdaPkt 2006-05-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2006 3:34:19 PM
Creation date
5/4/2006 2:55:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
5/8/2006
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.
/
295
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
<br />8A <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />At the March 6,2006 meeting the committee made recommendations for all the existing <br />permits and some proposed new permits; and they asked staff to evaluate a variety of <br />methods to adjust fees over time. <br /> <br />At the March 20,2006, meeting staff recommended that fees and charges be indexed to <br />staff cost increases, adjusted to July 1, 2006, to reflect the passage of time since the May <br />2005 survey of costs was conducted. The other indexing methods considered were: the <br />Construction Cost Index; and the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Construction Cost <br />Index was eliminated because the firm that had been tracking this data for many years had <br />apparently discontinued collecting data. The CPI was considered but the Committee felt <br />that staff cost was the best index, since the City's costs for delivery of service largely <br />consist of staff cost. <br /> <br />Analysis of Cost to Deliver Service <br />The Government Code mandates that the City's fees and charges must not exceed the <br />City's actual costs to deliver the service. Accordingly, during 2005 the planning staff <br />developed and implemented a system to monitor costs for issuing permits. From January <br />to May 2005, the amount of time spent on each permit type was recorded. At the end of <br />the sample period the total hours spent on each permit type were added and then divided <br />by the numbers of each permit type issued during the sample period, to give an average <br />number of hours for each permit type. <br /> <br />As one example, the planners spent a total of 426 hours on 21 Use Permits during the <br />sample period. This meant that staff spent an average of 20.3 hours on each Use permit. <br />The City had developed billing rates for the planners as part of the Cost Recovery <br />Program. In 2004-05 this billing rate was $118.84 per hour. Multiplying the average <br />number of hours (20.3) per permit by the billing rate of $118.84 indicated that the City's <br />real cost to provide the service involved in issuing a typical use permit was $2,412 (20.3 <br />hours x $118.84 per hour = $2,412). This cost to deliver the service is based upon 2004- <br />05 information. Staff costs have increased since the original survey, and the service costs <br />for a typical use permit using 2006-07 budget data are now $2,646. The recommended <br />use permit fee is $2,630. <br /> <br />Attachment 1 to this report provides the detailed calculations for all the permit types for <br />which fees are proposed. In the case of deposits, the amount of the deposit is based upon <br />the City's estimate of the amount of time that the initial review will take. The initial deposit <br />and the estimated amount of time for initial review are as follows: <br /> <br />. $500 <br />. $1,000 <br />. $2,500 <br />. $5,000 <br /> <br />4 hours <br />8 hours <br />20 hours <br />40 hours <br /> <br />The Minor Project Cost Recovery Policy proposed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution further <br />describes the process for estimating required deposits. This report and its attachments are <br />intended to provide the data on the costs to provide planning services required by <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.