Laserfiche WebLink
<br />53A- '3 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT III <br /> <br />Plamng Cost R8C0V8ry Policy <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Co~rison of Pennt Fees ($) <br /> <br />Pemit RWC San Mateo Palo AnD Mt View <br />Architectural Permits 1 00-450 281-2,034 120-3,500 557-1,916 <br /> <br />Planned Development <br />Permits 1,000 4,627 NA 3,592 <br /> <br />General Plan <br />Amendments 500 4,627 5,000 1,276 <br /> <br />Zonino Amendments 1,000 4,627 5,000 1,276 <br /> <br />Use Permits 400 453 2,500 1,574 <br /> <br />Source: Data from City webSltes - Apnl 24, 2004 <br /> <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 2003104 <br />Planning fees and charges amounted to 16% of their general fund costs to operate the <br />Planning function. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />All 1-1 <br />