Cost of Services Study for the City of Lompoc

Fullerton, CA 92831
September 21, 2015
City of Lompoc
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Mr. Wiemiller:
This Report is submitted pursuant to our contract with the City to perform a revenue and cost
analysis and to develop a computerized cost distribution and cost control system for the City for its
services.
The motivation for this study is the need of both the City Council and City staff to maintain City’s
services at a level commensurate with the standards previously set by the City Council, and to
maintain effective policy and management control of City services.
This Report provides currently useful information about the City’s status on recovery of costs for
all City services. In addition, it will assist in projecting and determining the future level and
equity of these City services.
RCS wishes to thank all City department heads and staff for their assistance and cooperation
extended to us during the accomplishment of our work, without whose aid this Report could not
have been produced. The response, awareness and information gathered and supplied by
numerous City employees make this Report the sound one we believe it to be.
We also believe that your constituents will appreciate your subjecting the City’s operations to
business costing methodologies, and your willingness to be informed of the true and full costs of
those services which you have decided the City should provide its citizens.
Respectfully submitted,
ERIC JOHNSON
Vice President
Desirability of Direct Relationship between Payment and Service .....................................4
Impact of Propositions 4, 13, 26, and 218 ...........................................................................5
Text Topics ..........................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER II ....................................................................................................................................7
Types of Costs......................................................................................................................9
Accounting for All Revenues .............................................................................................13
Tax Revenues .....................................................................................................................21
Tax Services .......................................................................................................................22
Schedule 3 - Summary of Tax Supported Services ...............................................23
Policy Review Information ................................................................................................25
CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................................27
SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................27
Service Groups ...................................................................................................................27
General Commentary on Chapter Tables ...........................................................................28
Suggestions For Services Analyzed ...................................................................................28
A Master Fee Resolution ...................................................................................................43
Policy Regarding “New” Services .....................................................................................43
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................46
COST DETAIL WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D – BUILDING & SAFETY FEE DETAIL
APPENDIX E – FIRE DEPARTMENT FEE DETAIL
APPENDIX F – DETAIL OF RECREATION SERVICES
1
• Propositions 13, 4 & 218, have significantly changed California local government finance.
In the effort to provide core services, Cities find themselves in a diminishing tax revenue
environment requiring them to prioritize resource outlays and explore operational
efficiencies. This report quantifies just how tax dollars are allocated and applied to assist
fiscal planning.
• This study has identified potential additional fee revenue of $1,198,200 as result of
recommended new fee implementation and adjustments to existing fees. In doing so this
study has proposed updated fees for the most currently available costs included in the
FY2014-2015 budget. These are summarized on Appendix A.
• $2.9 Million in tax proceeds are being utilized to support Personal Choice services that
might otherwise be supported with associated fees. This study has identified these subsidy
areas, information that is presented in this executive summary for consideration in the
annual fee-setting process.
2
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
By acceptance of the Revenue & Cost Specialists (RCS) proposal, the City Council decided to subject the City's operations to a detailed analysis toward seeking alternate and more equitable ways to finance its services. This Report presents the analytical advantages which are available to the City through the institution of a comprehensive system designed by RCS to implement Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
More Definitive Policy Making
Based on data presented in this Report, the City Council can respond to the limits on tax revenues available to the City, the constant demand for higher and more operational services and capital improvements, and the costs actually incurred as the City physical plant needs major rehabilitation or replacement. Due to demands made of the City, it is essential that the Council and City management have complete information upon which to chart a future financial course that will preserve the quality of life which its citizens have come to expect. Systematic and Documented Approach. This analysis, among other things, was designed to provide the City with a systematic and documented approach to know, control, and to recapture the costs which are forced on it by normal service demands, growth and general economic inflation. The result should be a better level of service provided to the long-time businesses and residents of the City, as opposed to the unwitting deterioration of City services which could be expected in the absence of this type of financial planning. Constitutional Methodology. The methodology used for this analysis is the "costs reasonably borne" test established by Section 8(c) of Proposition 4, now Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution. In following that process, RCS has analyzed the ways in which City services can
be financed more equitably to assure the City's future financial viability. Full Business Costs Determined. As important as compliance with the spirit and letter of Propositions 4, 13, and 218, however, is the fact that the methodology followed by both the Authors of Proposition 4, and consequently by RCS, determines the full business cost of providing the reported City services. It also identifies the beneficiaries of those services and
determines if they are paying in relationship to benefits derived or if they are deserving of a
subsidy paid from the taxes paid by all local citizens and businesses. Costs Cannot Be Ignored. Thus the City Council will have full knowledge and cannot ignore costs which in fact are actually occurring.
City of Lompoc Cost of Services Study
4
Financial Integrity Established. This text summarizes the work accomplished and presents recommendations. These recommendations, if implemented, would firmly establish the financial integrity of the analyzed City services and would establish a continuing cost control system following the business principles which are generally espoused for government, but usually ignored in application.
Financing Adjustments Pursuant to Proposition 4
Proposition 4, which is more commonly referred to as the "Gann Spirit of 13 'Let's Finish the Job' Initiative", was adopted by 74.3% of the voters, of California on November 6, 1979. It became effective on July 1, 1980, retroactive to Fiscal Year 1978-1979. Statutes clarifying certain provisions of the Proposition, which is now Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, became effective January 1, 1981. This Report provides data to the City for reviewing the reported fee-financed services based on full-costing information and for implementing the "costs reasonably borne" provision of this Constitutional Article, within presently known legal parameters and the Authors' pronounced and published intent. Adjustments to Financing. As a result of this analysis, the City now possesses, at least in part, the basis for making necessary adjustments to its methods of financing services for those services reported on herein. It can achieve a more equitable and fair mix for financing those services and capital needs, as between taxes and service charges, in the direction pointed by passage of Article XIIIB, and the business methodologies inherent in that Article. It should be remembered from the start that taxes are now limited and controlled, and therefore the capability of using these taxes to subsidize "special" services which are wholly or partially fee-financed is also limited. The "Costs Reasonably Borne" Test. The "costs reasonably borne" process as envisioned by the Authors of Proposition 4 implies a direct relationship between payment of fees and charges and receipt of services. It also implies the use of taxes for financing those governmental activities which humanely and properly cannot be financed other than by taxes.
Desirability of Direct Relationship between Payment and Service
This direct fee-for-service and tax equity relationship does not exist when tax monies are used to subsidize services which are received by only a small portion of the taxpaying public or by non- residents. A major underlying goal of this project is to provide information and guidance to the Council on how the City can continue as a viable financial entity, finance the services and facilities that its citizens and business enterprises have come to expect, and yet in the long run be
Chapter I – Background of Study
5
able to live within the limits imposed by Article XIIIB and Propositions 13 and 218. At the same time, the City can in great part re-establish basic fairness and equity between users
of City services and those who pay for them, and control those costs on a continuing basis. This also assures taxpayers that their tax monies are being spent properly.
Impact of Propositions 4, 13, 26, and 218
Initiative 4 of November 1979, coupled with its immediate predecessor -- the famous Proposition 13 of a year earlier -- wrought the greatest changes in California governmental financing in a century. Proposition 218, passed in 1996 and becoming Articles XIIIC & D, further limited local governments’ revenue source options. Those propositions have had, and will continue to have, a profound effect on California governments. Effects on the City. One effect of these propositions has been a constant search for new revenue sources to finance services required by the City. However, at the same time, State and Federal program revenues continue to decrease. Consequently, the City faces the prospect of providing steadily decreasing levels of service. Costs Exceeding Revenues. The full costs of delivering the City's defined fee-financed services - - as defined in business terms by the authors of Article XIIIB, and as applied by the business methods of this analysis as based on that Constitutional Article -- are running at an annual rate well beyond current or expected fee revenues. The result is the diversion of tax monies to make up the difference between fee revenues collected and full business costs incurred. Variety of Equitable Revenue Sources. This analysis presents a wide variety of ways in which revenue can surely and legally be raised and, probably as important, more equitably raised than at present. The amount of new revenues to be raised is, of course, dependent upon the Council's view of what is necessary to support the level of services it defines as being essential. Proposition 26. With the passage of Proposition 26 in 2010, the voters of California put limits on fees in which there is no direct benefit provided to the fee payer. But this proposition also contains numerous exemptions, therefore, there are no fees or proposed fees included in this Report which come under the limitations of Proposition 26.
6
The remaining Chapters of this text address the following topics:
II. Identifying and Costing Service Centers
III. Overview of Service Revenues Matched Against Costs
IV. Service Revenue Recommendations V. Conclusion
7
IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICE CENTERS
There are three basic steps in the process used by RCS. The first step is to identify the services. Next, the service costs are calculated. And finally, the revenue currently received is matched to the cost of providing the service to determine the subsidy from taxes. This chapter covers the first two steps and Chapter III shows the match-up of revenues and costs.
Identifying Service Centers
Two techniques were utilized to identify the service centers for which revenue and cost data were gathered and around which the service cost analysis of this Report is built. Revenue Analysis The first technique involved gathering revenue information for the past fiscal year, and then updating and revising the budget estimates for the same revenue sources for the fiscal year during which the analysis was performed by RCS. Budgets and Financial Reports Used. The Budget for the current fiscal year was secured and analyzed. Budgeted and received revenues for all fee-supported services were extracted from those reports, where such information was available. Division of Revenue Sources. RCS has divided services into far smaller "service centers" than the City has traditionally. In the past there was not always a desire to match revenues to services received. Everything was simply financed through "the budget", without need or desire to identify payees and beneficiaries. Service Center Identification The second technique involved several scheduled meetings with City staff to identify each type of service being provided with or without charge. Refinement Process. In a series of meetings held with City staff, functional area by functional area, suggestions were both made and solicited to define service centers which were conducive to isolation for financial and statistical purposes. A basic criterion was that the beneficiaries of the service were fewer than the general taxpaying public or, if the entire public benefitted, then the beneficiaries must consume variable amounts of the service.
8
Resultant Service Centers
"Service Center" Defined. The "service revenue" -- fee or charge for a service - - and the related "service cost" comprise a "service center". Each service center has a unique "Revenue and Cost Summary Worksheet" and a matching "Cost Detail Worksheet”, which are found in Appendix B of this Report. These "Service Center Worksheets" are matched to one another on facing pages. Detailed Back-Up Workpapers. The costs are backed up by detailed analyses, which have been turned over to the City in several volumes of work papers and detailed cost distribution reports.
Constitutional Basis for Cost of Services
The costs determined by RCS for the various service centers are based on the definitions of “costs reasonably borne” as utilized in Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) and as further defined by its Authors in their background documents. The Authors of Proposition 4 intended their full business costing definitions to be used by California governments. Thus, the City can know and control its costs, using those Constitutionally-set business principles and legally set elements and definitions of “costs reasonably borne”. Listing of Detailed Full Business Cost Definitions. Thus the following are put forward by the Authors as the accepted elements of "costs reasonably borne":
1. Labor costs.
4. Overhead expense. 5. Administrative costs. 6. Start-up costs.
7. Future capacity expenses.
8. Capital replacement expense.
10. Repayment of debt.
9
Authors' Background. It is not surprising that the Authors used such business definitions and elements of "cost" as quoted herein. They represented several known business organizations:
• The California Taxpayers Association
• The California Chamber of Commerce
• The National Tax Limitation Committee
• The California Association of Realtors
In effect, the pillars of California business and their thinking were represented. And their ideas were adopted overwhelmingly by the electorate of California at referendum. Thus, by definition, the premises of this Report process have a California electoral mandate. Principle Involved. A basic principle involved in this Report was the recognition of those full business costs as used and as defined by the Authors of the Constitutional amendment, NOT just 1) those costs which the City might recognize and decide to budget; or 2) which it might decide to use in some other cost analysis methodology; or 3) that other jurisdictions not so complying might use; or 4) that some accounting or consulting firm might decide it should use, based on some external, non-California legal or external technical requirement.
Types of Costs
The following costs, identified above as part of "costs reasonably borne" by the Authors of Proposition 4, make up the cost detail found on the right-hand page in Appendix B for each service center. Salaries and Wages City government is in fact a service industry, and therefore, it is natural that salaries make up the largest single element of cost for most services. Interview Process. In order to allocate the salaries, lengthy interviews were held, documents sought and researched, and reports and accounting records examined by RCS staff. The result was, in most cases, a percentage or hours distribution of individual employee personal services costs. One hundred percent of the time of ALL City employees was distributed. In other words, everyone had to be someplace, all of their time! No judgments were made about what personnel should or might be doing. Their time was distributed to those service centers where the time was expended.
10
Employee Fringe Benefits Since fractional time -- to as low as three minutes per unit of service or one-twentieth of a percent of the annual time of an employee has been allocated to service centers, fringe benefit costs also must be fractionalized to carefully and accurately distribute those ancillary personnel costs. The City finances numerous benefits for its employees, thereby incurring measurable costs for these items, including:
• Retirement/Social Security
• Health/Dental Insurance
• Medicare Insurance
• Life/Disability Insurance
• Unemployment Insurance
• Compensated Absences
All of these costs are current operating expenses, and the amounts were isolated. Actual costs were determined, and reduced to a percentage of salary for each of the positions.
Available Work-Hours. After the individual elements of cost for positions are compiled, the total cost for each position is divided by the number of available work-hours. Available work hours are calculated as the total possible work-hours in a year, 2,080, less the following away- from-work benefit hours:
• Holidays
• Vacations
• Start Up/Down Time
Using this approach the average number of available work-hours used ranges from 1,651 hours to 1,656 hours per year for 40 hour a week positions and 2,560 hours per year for Fire shift positions.
Chapter II – Identifying and Costing Service Centers
11
Maintenance and Operation Costs All maintenance and operation costs, including non-personnel expenses such as professional services, insurance, operating supplies etc., were derived from the current year Council-approved budget and allocated via percentages or through actual allocation to each of the service centers identified in a department or division. General and Departmental Overhead Costs Overhead costs provide the vital glue that holds an organization together operationally and provide important coordinating capabilities. They also provide the day-to-day support services and facilities required for the organization to function effectively. RCS has used the City- prepared Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) to identify and allocate these costs to the remainder of the City organization. In the CAP, costs were allocated to end-user departments and divisions by applying an overhead allocation factor. Each factor was related to the work effort of its particular overhead element. Full Cost Distribution. The purpose of deriving overhead costs is so that these amounts might be added ratably to direct service program costs. By adopting this method the City will be aware of its true costs and be able to emulate business methods. Article XIIIB’s (Proposition 4 of 1979) Authors intended this, defining as part of “costs reasonably borne” a calculated “reasonable allocation for overhead and administration.” General City Overhead. These services primarily set policy and support other departments without providing a deliverable service to the public. Where they do perform an end-user service, such costs have not been allocated to other departments. Costs in this general administration category include Management Services, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, and Facility Maintenance costs. Departmental Administration. Costs in this category involve intra-departmental support functions, outside the above listed general city overhead functions, and involve the allocation of staff time within and among departmental functions. These services also do not provide an end- user deliverables to the public, but instead provide vital administrative support within specific departments.
12
Fully Allocated Hourly Rates
All of the above items make up the fully allocated hourly rate which is calculated for each position in the City. The makeup of each component of the City-wide average fully allocated hourly rate is detailed in the chart below.
Salaries 45%
Benefits 24%
Operating Expenses
13
OVERVIEW OF SERVICE REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS
In the last chapter the method of calculating the costs for all City services was identified. This chapter begins with a Summary that itemizes the revenues and costs by service center. Then, an overview is presented of what will be presented in the following chapter, which shows that there is no one solution to the City’s financial challenge.
Accounting for All Revenues As an example in the following schedule, for Minor Use Permit (S-001), the current fees for this service, amounting to $5,268, are matched with the full costs of providing this service, which are $8,826. This leaves a tax revenue, or subsidy, of $3,558 necessary to cover the full cost of the service. This subsidy can be eliminated by raising the relevant fees. To the extent that the fees are NOT increased, the difference is paid for by general City taxes paid by all taxpayers.
14
FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015
TOTAL RESOURCES USED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
S-003 DESIGN REVIEW $3,707 $2,400 $1,307
S-004 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW $2,789 $1,044 $1,745
S-005 PRE-APPLICATION/CONCEPTUAL REVIEW $13,495 $1,856 $11,639
S-006 AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PERMIT $1,943 $441 $1,502
S-007 ZONE CHANGE REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-008 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A N/A N/A
S-009 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-010 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-011 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT N/A N/A N/A
S-012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-013 ANNEXATION REQUEST N/A N/A N/A
S-014 SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATION REQUEST N/A N/A N/A
S-015 VARIANCE REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-016 ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGOR. EXEMPTION $913 $680 $233
S-017 ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION $1,454 $731 $723
S-018 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-019 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-020 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEW N/A N/A N/A
S-021 REVERSION TO ACREAGE N/A N/A N/A
S-022 CERT OF COMPL/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $5,941 $4,200 $1,741
S-023 LOT MERGER $1,474 $755 $719
S-024 PARKING PLAN REVIEW $696 $0 $696
S-025 MINOR TIME EXTENSION $92 $74 $18
S-026 MAJOR TIME EXTENSION $480 $680 ($200)
S-027 DEPOSIT BASED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $219,206 $100,000 $119,206
S-028 LARGE HOME DAY CARE PERMIT $1,245 $126 $1,119
S-029 LAND USE CLEARANCE - MINISTERIAL $7,001 $20,882 ($13,881)
S-030 LAND USE CLEARANCE - MINOR TI $5,186 $7,734 ($2,548)
Chapter III – Overview of Service Revenues Matched Against Costs
15
S-031 LAND USE CLEARANCE - LARGE NON-BILL $3,889 $7,734 ($3,845)
S-032 SIGN PROGRAM REVIEW $3,571 $929 $2,642
S-033 PLANNING SIGN PERMIT $6,179 $3,880 $2,299
S-034 TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT $104 $25 $79
S-035 TEMPORARY USE PERMIT $5,017 $2,496 $2,521
S-036 HOME USE/COTTAGE FOOD PERMIT $4,541 $6,960 ($2,419)
S-037 FOOD TRUCK PERMIT $1,300 $0 $1,300
S-038 FENCE MODIFICATION $1,786 $1,341 $445
S-039 ANIMAL PERMIT $362 $0 $362
S-040 ZONING VERIFICATION/REBUILD LETTER $2,607 $2,166 $441
S-041 STREET NAME CHANGE $214 $0 $214
S-042 ADDRESS CHANGE $214 $0 $214
S-043 BUSINESS LICENSE REVIEW $7,260 $0 $7,260
S-044 APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION $1,697 $258 $1,439
S-045 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL $3,446 $258 $3,188
S-046 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $72,500 $40,000 $32,500
S-047 DOCUMENT IMAGING N/A N/A N/A
S-048 GRADING PLAN REVIEW $13,551 $11,520 $2,031
S-049 GRADING INSPECTION $5,260 $6,147 ($887)
S-050 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/INSPECTION $553,713 $436,416 $117,297
S-051 STORMWATER BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $18,541 $0 $18,541
S-052 STORMWATER BUSINESS INSPECTION $43,232 $0 $43,232
S-053 STORMWATER STOP WORK ORDER $3,040 $0 $3,040
S-054 STORMWATER ADDITIONAL SERVICES N/A N/A N/A
S-055 STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT INSPECT $21,054 $0 $21,054
S-056 CONCRETE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $4,170 $4,990 ($820)
S-057 TRENCH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $3,164 $5,283 ($2,119)
S-058 WATER UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT $1,537 $1,468 $69
S-059 SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT $1,447 $1,468 ($21)
S-060 LANE CLOSURE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $123 $117 $6
S-061 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $403 $384 $19
16
S-062 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $484 $587 ($103)
S-063 OVERWIDE/LONG LOAD PERMIT $1,668 $0 $1,668
S-064 FLOOD HAZARD WAIVER LETTER $67 $0 $67
SUBTOTAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $1,101,995 $705,098 $396,897
HOUSING SERVICES
S-066 TITLE REPORT $193 $0 $193
S-067 HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING $262 $180 $82
S-068 HOME INSPECTION $386 $0 $386
S-069 LEAD BASED PAINT INSPECTION $386 $0 $386
S-070 HOUSING TAX SERVICES $1,529 $1,000 $529
S-071 LOAN PROCESSING $2,575 $250 $2,325
S-072 DEMAND NOTICE $405 $0 $405
S-073 RECONVEYANCE $405 $0 $405
S-074 SUBORDINATION REVIEW $783 $0 $783
S-075 TERMITE INSPECTION $96 $0 $96
S-076 HOUSING RECORDING $265 $792 ($527)
S-077 PRINT STATEMENT - HOUSING $39 $0 $39
S-078 LOAN SERVICING $1,928 $0 $1,928
S-079 HOUSING MONITORING $17,227 $0 $17,227
SUBTOTAL - HOUSING $26,865 $2,282 $24,583
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
S-081 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $42,532 $5,000 $37,532
S-082 POLICE ALARM PERMIT $2,466 $20 $2,446
S-083 DUI ACCIDENT RESPONSE $7,836 $0 $7,836
S-084 VEHICLE IMPOUND RELEASE $73,954 $28,518 $45,436
17
S-085 VEHICLE REPOSSESSION PROCESSING $1,396 $1,500 ($104)
S-086 BOOKING PROCESSING $229,875 $0 $229,875
S-087 SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM CALL-OUT $5,242 $0 $5,242
S-088 VIN VERIFICATION $483 $0 $483
S-089 CITATION SIGN-OFF $4,758 $2,500 $2,258
S-090 BICYCLE LICENSE N/A N/A N/A
S-091 CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT $64,042 $0 $64,042
S-092 POLICE DOCUMENT COPY $1,425 $6,340 ($4,915)
S-093 CLEARANCE LETTER $3,580 $0 $3,580
S-094 FINGERPRINTING $9,495 $8,000 $1,495
S-095 TOW BUSINESS PERMIT $1,170 $0 $1,170
S-096 TAXI BUSINESS PERMIT $1,212 $125 $1,087
S-097 TAXI DRIVER PERMIT $1,010 $123 $887
S-098 MASSAGE BUSINESS REVIEW $242 $82 $160
S-099 NON-CERTIF MASSAGE THERAPIST PMT $1,695 $574 $1,121
S-100 CABARET PERMIT $92 $25 $67
S-101 FORETUNETELLER PERMIT $121 $41 $80
S-102 SECONDHAND DEALER PERMIT $1,574 $533 $1,041
S-103 FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT $121 $41 $80
S-104 PRIVATE SECURITY GUARD PERMIT $1,950 $250 $1,700
S-105 SOLICITOR PERMIT $841 $250 $591
S-106 MISCELLANOUS POLICE PERMIT $121 $41 $80
S-107 FIRE PERMITS/INSPECTIONS $59,841 $33,858 $25,983
S-108 FIRE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW $15,173 $10,572 $4,601
S-109 FIRE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $545 $0 $545
SUBTOTAL - PUBLIC SAFETY $626,022 $98,393 $527,629
18
SUMMARY OF FEE SERVICES AND CURRENT FINANCING
LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES
S-112 YOUTH & TEEN PROGRAMS $110,117 $61,713 $48,404
S-113 ADULT CONTRACT REC. CLASSES $58,428 $9,751 $48,677
S-114 ADAPTIVE PROGRAMS $1,453 $1,024 $429
S-115 RECREATION SWIM/LAP SWIM $426,569 $184,349 $242,220
S-116 SWIM LESSONS $197,698 $150,578 $47,120
S-117 WATER EXERCISE CLASS $67,269 $35,667 $31,602
S-118 LIFEGUARD/WATER SAFETY CLASSES $12,945 $11,600 $1,345
S-119 POOL SPECIAL EVENTS $17,120 $2,630 $14,490
S-120 POOL RENTAL $112,008 $63,739 $48,269
S-121 SCHOOL DISTRICT POOL USE $63,009 $3,209 $59,800
S-122 PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENT SUPPORT $75,496 $6,000 $69,496
S-123 CITY SPECIAL EVENTS $141,325 $60,000 $81,325
S-124 FACILITY/PARK RENTALS $209,337 $165,589 $43,748
S-125 PASSPORT PROCESSING $5,680 $14,700 ($9,020)
S-126 BLOCK PARTY PERMIT $412 $0 $412
S-127 RIVER PARK CAMPGROUND $306,286 $203,642 $102,644
S-128 DAMAGED LIBRARY MATERIALS PROC. $1,110 $0 $1,110
S-129 LIBRARY CARD REPLACEMENT $1,620 $500 $1,120
S-130 SELF-SERVE LIBRARY COPIER/PRINTER $3,625 $7,250 ($3,625)
SUBTOTAL - LEISURE & CULTURAL $2,109,383 $1,085,190 $1,024,193
ENTERPRISE AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES
S-132 COMMUTER TRANSIT SERVICES $1,078,032 $1,011,104 $66,928
19
S-133 DIAL-A-RIDE TRANSIT SERVICES $278,801 $239,107 $39,694
S-134 AIRPORT SERVICES $537,989 $510,492 $27,497
S-135 PERMANENT ELECTRIC METER INSTALL $30,380 $35,700 ($5,320)
S-136 TEMPORARY ELECTRIC METER INSTALL $9,114 $5,856 $3,258
S-137 PERMANENT ELEC SERVICE INSTALL $38,717 $0 $38,717
S-138 TEMPORARY ELEC SERVICE INSTALL $2,589 $0 $2,589
S-139 ELECTRIC PANEL UPGRADE $7,554 $0 $7,554
S-140 ELECTRIC LINE EXTENSION/UPGRADE N/A N/A N/A
S-141 ELECTRIC POLE CUT/RECONNECT $3,797 $306 $3,491
S-142 DELINQUENT ELECTRIC TURN-OFF/ON $183,245 $70,000 $113,245
S-143 REQUESTED ELECTRIC TURN-OFF/ON $41 $0 $41
S-144 DELINQUENT UTILITY TURN-OFF/ON $218,710 $60,622 $158,088
S-145 NEW UTILITY ACCOUNT $282,420 $36,700 $245,720
S-146 UTILITY METER TEST $382 $0 $382
S-147 TEMPORARY WATER METER RENTAL $2,897 $1,496 $1,401
S-148 WATER METER INSTALLATION $2,983 $2,500 $483
S-149 BACKFLOW DEVICE INSPECTION $29,007 $0 $29,007
S-150 GREASE INTERCEPTOR INSPECTION $9,749 $0 $9,749
S-151 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - GEN USER $69,627 $0 $69,627
S-152 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - ZERO USER $1,733 $0 $1,733
S-153 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CLASS II $3,061 $0 $3,061
S-154 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CLASS I $1,530 $0 $1,530
S-155 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CATEG USER N/A N/A N/A
S-156 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CATEG ZERO N/A N/A N/A
S-157 WASTEWATER ADD’L SERVICES/INSP $90 $0 $90
S-158 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN $1,742 $0 $1,742
S-159 ROLL-OFF PROVIDER PERMIT $1,672 $0 $1,672
S-160 CITY ASPHALT PAVING $1,971 $1,174 $797
SUBTOTAL - ENTERPRISE & MAINT. $3,970,472 $3,255,972 $714,500
20
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
S-162 BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL $6,530 $25,000 ($18,470)
S-163 PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT $514 $0 $514
S-164 CARNIVAL & DANCE PERMIT $1,530 $125 $1,405
S-165 DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION $84 $20 $64
S-166 ELECTRONIC FILE COPY $5 $30 ($25)
S-167 CANDIDATE FILING $887 $0 $887
S-168 INITIATIVE FILING $591 $0 $591
S-169 CREDIT CARD PROCESSING $165,000 $0 $165,000
S-170 PEG TV ACCESS SERVICES $274,875 $230,621 $44,254
SUBTOTAL - ADMINISTRATIVE $456,848 $261,396 $195,452
GRAND TOTAL $8,291,585 $5,408,331 $2,883,254
21
Tax Revenues
The revenues that were not directly associated with a personal choice service are itemized on Schedule 2 below.
SCHEDULE 2
REVENUE CATEGORY REVENUE REVENUE (1) (2) (3)
SALES & USE TAXES $4,117,228 $99.33 SALES & USE TAXES - MEASURE A $3,459,425 $83.46 PROPERTY TAXES $3,440,430 $83.00 PROPERTY TAXES IN LIEU OF VLF $3,041,175 $73.37 STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS $2,679,923 $64.65 SALES & USE TAXES - GASOLINE $1,337,735 $32.27 PROPERTY TAX - FORMER TAX INCREMENT $1,321,594 $31.88 TRANSIENT LODGING TAXES $1,284,178 $30.98 GAS TAX REVENUES $981,102 $23.67 COUNTY LIBRARY REVENUES $448,729 $10.83 FRANCHISE TAXES $381,583 $9.21 BUSINESS TAXES $330,309 $7.97 INTEREST INCOME $168,054 $4.05 VEHICLE CODE FINES/PARKING CITATIONS $139,579 $3.37 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER $113,381 $2.74 SALES & USE TAXES - PUBLIC SAFETY $103,378 $2.49 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SITE RENTAL $86,817 $2.09 JAIL SERVICE REVENUE $70,000 $1.69 POST REIMBURSEMENT $57,875 $1.40 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES $54,347 $1.31 AQUATIC CENTER ASSESSMENT $33,603 $0.81 SB 90 CLAIMS $28,969 $0.70 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $25,552 $0.62 MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES $24,966 $0.60 HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION REIMBURSEMENT $24,438 $0.59 UTILITY CHARGES: WATER SERVICE CHARGES $9,702,219 $234.06 ELECTRIC SERVICE CHARGES $22,269,199 $537.24 WASTEWATER SERVICE CHARGES $13,576,317 $327.53 BROADBAND SERVICE CHARGES $592,570 $14.30 SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES $7,518,193 $181.38
TOTAL $77,412,868 $1,867.58 Per Capita costs are based on a current City population of 41,451
22
Tax Services
On a simplified level of discussion tax services might be defined as any activity the City provides that the public has paid taxes for. Yet, the analysis is more complex than it appears. Other definitions suggest that tax services are derived from a social contract, generally used by all, related to benefit services received, and not always easily measured. Taking a pragmatic view of tax services, they can be understood to be anything that a City Council decides to support by taxes given the availability of commensurate levels of revenue. This being considered, there is no one true classification of tax services, only services that policy makers have decided to be tax supported. In other words, determining just what a tax service is entails “backing into” those services that can be funded once available and allocable amounts of tax revenues are determined. This makes more sense when one considers the alternate models that exist in charging for some traditional tax services as exemplified below: Fire Service: Some fire authorities in rural areas directly contract with property owners in providing fire suppression services. This follows a per-household priced subscription based model that contrasts with the tax-based model that typifies local government models. Park Services: Open space is generally considered free for use yet, once facility improvements are set into place, a degree of charging the benefitting user may be set into place. Such an improvement could be as basic as providing rescue services to the weekend or off-hours hiker/climber. The above noted examples in no way suggest that the City charge for the above mentioned services but only illustrate that policy decisions, sometimes influenced by past practice or habit, define the extent to which services, or at least a certain service level, is supported with taxes. Given these broad views of classifying and defining tax services, this report discusses services in the context of being Community Supported Services, or fully tax supported, in contrast to Personal Choice Services that are partially or entirely fee supported. This is important, as we will see below, the context of policy discussions change when they relate to partially tax supported services.
Personal Choice versus Community Supported Services
Personal Choice Services are those offered to identifiable customers at a measured level. They are also services that can be withheld for non-payment. These services are not precisely likened to fee- based services to the extent that policy makers may have decided to subsidize them in full or part. These services are distinguished from Community Supported Services that carry an implicit requirement and rationale for setting a level of subsidization typically based on social, safety or general community welfare.
23
As the voter initiative most concerned with fee services, the initiative authors of Proposition 4 were not concerned with what categories of services were being subsidized as long as subsidy levels set by policy were explicit decisions made by the authorizing body with knowledge of full cost information. The following Schedule 3 summarizes, and Appendix C details, the Tax Supported Services.
SCHEDULE 3
TOTAL PER CAPITA
TAX-02 ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT $79,512 $1.92
TAX-03 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES $272,022 $6.56
TAX-04 MEDICAL RESPONSE/FIRE SERVICES $4,925,653 $118.83
TAX-05 CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES $66,395 $1.60
TAX-06 RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE $2,561,576 $61.80
TAX-07 TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES $110,939 $2.68
TAX-08 DOWNTOWN R-O-W MAINTENANCE $56,728 $1.37
TAX-09 STORMWATER SERVICES $159,589 $3.85
TAX-10 PARKS MAINTENANCE $1,404,335 $33.88
TAX-11 URBAN FORESTRY $1,142,093 $27.55
TAX-12 CIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT $793,197 $19.14
TAX-13 INFRASTRUCTURE GIS SERVICES $56,748 $1.37
TAX-14 ADVANCED PLANNING SERVICES $292,187 $7.05
TAX-15 PLANNING CUSTOMER SERVICE $199,297 $4.81
TAX-16 HOUSING SERVICES $311,430 $7.51
TAX-17 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $317,895 $7.67
TAX-18 CDBG SERVICES $365,942 $8.83
TAX-19 SUCCESSOR AGENCY SERVICES $1,422,225 $34.31
TAX-20 ASSESSMENT REDEMPTION DEBT SERVICE $175,448 $4.23
TAX-21 WATER SERVICES $9,594,301 $231.46
TAX-22 WASTEWATER SERVICES $13,404,635 $323.39
TAX-23 SOLID WASTE SERVICES $7,095,924 $171.19
TAX-24 ELECTRIC SERVICES $20,446,667 $493.27
TAX-25 BROADBAND SERVICES $366,117 $8.83
TAX-26 RECREATION SERVICES $65,697 $1.58
24
TOTAL PER CAPITA
TAX-28 YOUTH COMMISSION SUPPORT $30,739 $0.74
TAX-29 SPECIAL OLYMPICS $23,844 $0.58
TAX-30 SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY USE $59,118 $1.43
TAX-31 HUMAN SERVICES $45,501 $1.10
TAX-32 BEAUTIFICATION $6,753 $0.16
TOTAL TAX SERVICE COSTS $78,113,036 $1,884.47
TAX SUBSIDY OF FEE SERVICES (SCH 2, COL 5) $2,883,254 $69.56
TOTAL TAX RESOURCES REQUIRED $80,996,290 $1,954.02
Per Capita costs are based on a current City population of 41,451.
The above two schedules suggest that the following is the true picture of the City's finances using accrual accounting:
TOTAL FEE SERVICE COSTS (SCH 1, COL 3) $8,291,585
TOTAL TAX SERVICE COSTS (SCH 3) $78,113,036
TOTAL SERVICE COSTS $86,404,621
TOTAL TAX REVENUES (SCH 2) $77,412,868
TOTAL REVENUES $82,821,199
25
As can be seen in the above table, tax and utility revenues just about cover the cost of providing tax and utility services. Therefore, taxes and utility rates pay for tax and utility services provided to the whole community. There is no funding left over to pay for subsidies for personal choice services that we have identified. This will either create a deficit or eat into available fund balance.
Policy Review Information
As the Council conducts its policy review of each of the revenue-cost match-ups in the next chapter, it should refer to comments on the bottom of the service center worksheets in Appendix B and also in the text in the next chapter to assist in that review. The policy review should review the tax revenues used to subsidize each service and address the following options available to the City for each service center:
1. Reduce costs and thereby the tax subsidy by reducing the level of service or restructuring the service to provide it differently.
2. Adjust or institute a fee or charge to recover all of the "costs reasonably borne". 3. Eliminate a tax subsidy to another "less deserving" service to utilize the taxes in order to
provide this service.
Result of Acceptance of Fee Suggestions
If the suggestions in the following Chapter and on the Service Center Worksheets are adopted in full then a significant amount of added revenues will be available to the City, which would provide taxpayer equity. Most of these new revenues will be from fee increases to replace tax monies used to make up the difference between fees collected and costs incurred in providing the services, which will then be available for those services which can only be funded from taxes. These tax "diversions" are the now-documented tax subsidies to potentially self-supporting City services. Thus additional monies could be made available for police services, infrastructure maintenance, and other City services which are not generally conducive to service charges, thereby achieving much closer equity between benefits and associated payments. Policy Guidance. But far more importantly, the Council would be able to make its decisions based on business principles as much as is possible. Understanding of Equitable Charging for Government. The City Council now has to assist its constituents to understand that under the California Constitution the intent is:
• That taxes finance those services for which there is no other alternative way to finance
them.
• That service charges and special assessments should be utilized to finance those things for
which benefits can be determined.
26
• That the beneficiaries of such services be charged in direct relationship to the benefits
derived.
Then there no longer will be a feeling that the old definitional saw of "a good tax" being "the one which you pay and from which I get the benefits" exists in the City.
27
CHAPTER IV
SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this Chapter is to present the services which RCS has initially labeled as Personal Choice and to suggest the magnitude of tax revenues that could be diverted from these services to Community Supported Services. City Council has Final Judgment. It must be understood that considerable judgment--albeit experienced--was exercised by RCS in suggesting what services were Personal Choice as opposed to Community Supported Services and in suggesting that most Personal Choice Services should be paid for by the service requestor rather than subsidized by the entire community. However, the final decision on the nature of the service and whether it deserves to be subsidized will have to be made by the City Council.
Service Groups
RCS has organized Personal Choice Services into the following five service groups for purposes of discussion:
Community Development Services
Administrative Services
These groups, explained in turn, are program oriented. Each group includes a table summarizing the revenues and costs of each service. A Table summarizing the group tables (Table 7) is found at the end of this Chapter. Appendix A, following the text, summarizes the current fees and the proposed fees for each of the Personal Choice service centers
Service Center Detail Found in Appendix B
Appendix B, which is in sequence by the Reference Number (Column 1 on each of the following Tables), includes detail information for each service on two facing pages. The left page has textual and summary information including RCS’s suggested service fee. The right page has the service cost detail.
28
General Commentary on Chapter Tables
Each table has eight columns, explained here: Column 1 is the Report Reference Number. Column 2 is the title of the service. Column 3, 4 & 5 are the same amounts for revenue, cost and profit (subsidy) found on the left page of the detail service sheets in Appendix B. Column 6 is the current percentage of costs recovered from the user fees and charges with the difference being subsidized by taxes. Column 7 is the percentage of user fee cost recovery which might be obtainable without tax subsidy. Of course, decisions regarding tax subsidies to a service are a City Council policy decision on how to allocate its tax and general revenues. Column 8 contains the estimated amount of revenues which RCS suggests could be raised or reduced.
Suggestions For Services Analyzed
It is suggested that the City Council review each of the services in this Chapter for the following reasons:
• To confirm or negate the decision that the service is a Personal Choice Service.
• To insure that any service which has been and which will continue to be subsidized meets the purpose (e.g. Social Goal) and reporting criteria established by the City Council.
• Where services have been unconsciously subsidized, to direct staff to bring costs into line with the revenue generated by such service.
Special Circumstances
When a service is marked with a pound sign (#), it occurs infrequently; and, therefore, RCS does not project any possible new revenue for the service. When a service is marked with an asterisk (*), the fee for that service is limited by State or Federal law.
Chapter IV – Service Revenue Recommendations
29
Development Services
When basic City development services are supported by general taxes, there is little reason for taxes to also finance those Personal Choice services which mainly benefit a developer or specific property owner. Thus, the expenses distributed across these service centers are primarily the incremental additional expenses caused by community development. Were no development to take place, most of these costs could be eliminated, or at least significantly reduced.
Table 1
REF # SERVICE REVENUE COST (SUBSIDY) ACTUAL SUGGEST REVENUE
S-001 MINOR USE PERMIT $5,268 $8,826 ($3,558) 59.7% 100% $3,600
S-002 MAJOR USE PERMIT $23,800 $41,406 ($17,606) 57.5% 100% $17,600
S-003 DESIGN REVIEW $2,400 $3,707 ($1,307) 64.7% 100% $1,300
S-004 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW $1,044 $2,789 ($1,745) 37.4% 100% $0 #
S-005 PRE-APPLICATION/CONCEPTUAL REV $1,856 $13,495 ($11,639) 13.8% 50% $2,400
S-006 AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PERMIT $441 $1,943 ($1,502) 22.7% 100% $0 #
S-007 ZONE CHANGE REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-008 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-009 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-010 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-011 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-013 ANNEXATION REQUEST N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-014 SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATION REQ N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-015 VARIANCE REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-016 ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGOR EXEMPT $680 $913 ($233) 74.5% 100% $200
S-017 ENVIRONMENTAL NEG DECLARATION $731 $1,454 ($723) 50.3% 100% $700
S-018 ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT REV N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-019 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-020 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEW N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-021 REVERSION TO ACREAGE N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-022 CERT OF COMPL/LOT LINE ADJUST $4,200 $5,941 ($1,741) 70.7% 100% $1,700
S-023 LOT MERGER $755 $1,474 ($719) 51.2% 100% $0 #
S-024 PARKING PLAN REVIEW $0 $696 ($696) 0.0% 100% $0 #
S-025 MINOR TIME EXTENSION $74 $92 ($18) 80.4% 100% $0
S-026 MAJOR TIME EXTENSION $680 $480 $200 141.7% 100% $0 #
S-027 DEPOSIT BASED DEVELOPMENT SVC $100,000 $219,206 ($119,206) 45.6% 100% $60,000
S-028 LARGE HOME DAY CARE PERMIT $126 $1,245 ($1,119) 10.1% 100% $1,100
S-029 LAND USE CLEARANCE - MINISTERIAL $20,882 $7,001 $13,881 298.3% 100% ($13,900)
S-030 LAND USE CLEARANCE - MINOR TI $7,734 $5,186 $2,548 149.1% 100% ($2,500)
S-031 LAND USE CLEAR - LARGE NON-BILL $7,734 $3,889 $3,845 198.9% 100% ($3,800)
S-032 SIGN PROGRAM REVIEW $929 $3,571 ($2,642) 26.0% 100% $2,600
S-033 PLANNING SIGN PERMIT $3,880 $6,179 ($2,299) 62.8% 100% $2,300
S-034 TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT $25 $104 ($79) 24.0% 100% $100
S-035 TEMPORARY USE PERMIT $2,496 $5,017 ($2,521) 49.8% 100% $2,500
30
S-036 HOME USE/COTTAGE FOOD PERMIT $6,960 $4,541 $2,419 153.3% 100% ($2,400)
S-037 FOOD TRUCK PERMIT $0 $1,300 ($1,300) 0.0% 100% $1,300
S-038 FENCE MODIFICATION $1,341 $1,786 ($445) 75.1% 100% $400
S-039 ANIMAL PERMIT $0 $362 ($362) 0.0% 100% $0 #
S-040 ZONING VERIFICATION/REBUILD LETTER $2,166 $2,607 ($441) 83.1% 100% $400
S-041 STREET NAME CHANGE $0 $214 ($214) 0.0% 100% $0 #
S-042 ADDRESS CHANGE $0 $214 ($214) 0.0% 100% $0 #
S-043 BUSINESS LICENSE REVIEW $0 $7,260 ($7,260) 0.0% 100% $7,300
S-044 APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION $258 $1,697 ($1,439) 15.2% 100% $0 #
S-045 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL $258 $3,446 ($3,188) 7.5% 100% $0 #
S-046 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $40,000 $72,500 ($32,500) 55.2% 50% $0
S-047 DOCUMENT IMAGING N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-048 GRADING PLAN REVIEW $11,520 $13,551 ($2,031) 85.0% 100% $2,000
S-049 GRADING INSPECTION $6,147 $5,260 $887 116.9% 100% ($900)
S-050 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/INSPECTION $436,416 $553,713 ($117,297) 78.8% 100% $100,000
S-051 STORMWATER BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $0 $18,541 ($18,541) 0.0% 100% $18,500
S-052 STORMWATER BUSINESS INSPECTION $0 $43,232 ($43,232) 0.0% 100% $43,200
S-053 STORMWATER STOP WORK ORDER $0 $3,040 ($3,040) 0.0% 100% $3,000
S-054 STORMWATER ADDITIONAL SERVICES N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-055 STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT INSPECT $0 $21,054 ($21,054) 0.0% 100% $21,100
S-056 CONCRETE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $4,990 $4,170 $820 119.7% 100% ($800)
S-057 TRENCH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $5,283 $3,164 $2,119 167.0% 100% ($2,100)
S-058 WATER UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT $1,468 $1,537 ($69) 95.5% 100% $100
S-059 SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT $1,468 $1,447 $21 101.5% 100% $0
S-060 LANE CLOSURE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $117 $123 ($6) 95.1% 100% $0
S-061 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $384 $403 ($19) 95.3% 100% $0
S-062 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $587 $484 $103 121.3% 100% ($100)
S-063 OVERWIDE/LONG LOAD PERMIT $0 $1,668 ($1,668) 0.0% 100% $800 *
S-064 FLOOD HAZARD WAIVER LETTER $0 $67 ($67) 0.0% 100% $100
SUBTOTAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $705,098 $1,101,995 ($396,897) 64.0% $267,800
Key to Symbols: # - Occurs Infrequently * - Limited by Law
City As Impartial Arbiter of Land Use. The City staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council require the processes enumerated in the above list as the price of community review, input and ultimate acceptance by neighboring properties of land development. Such municipal review is basically required by State law, assigning the role of impartial arbiter of land use decisions to local government.
31
While it would be grossly unfair, and probably foolhardy and expensive as well, to totally deny all development, some cities have chosen this course. The City is by law put into the unenviable position of being the impartial arbiter; a referee over development. Therefore, it seems logical that the development industry bear the full cost of the services to regulate its development; not more than cost, nor less than cost, but only full cost recovery through fees charged. Infrequent Services. To avoid overstating possible new revenue, some services are marked with the pound sign (#). These services have been included to calculate the current cost but there may be no demand for some or all of these “marked” services in any single fiscal year.
Conclusion of Development Services
If the suggestions made in Appendix A are approved, approximately $267,800 in new revenue could be realized annually.
32
Housing Services
These service centers are identified for those who use the City affordable housing services.
Table 2
Housing Services
S-065 NEW LOAN CREDIT REPORT $60 $386 ($326) 15.5% 25% $0
S-066 TITLE REPORT $0 $193 ($193) 0.0% 100% $200
S-067 HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROC. $180 $262 ($82) 68.7% 100% $100
S-068 HOME INSPECTION $0 $386 ($386) 0.0% 100% $400
S-069 LEAD BASED PAINT INSPECTION $0 $386 ($386) 0.0% 100% $400
S-070 HOUSING TAX SERVICES $1,000 $1,529 ($529) 65.4% 100% $500
S-071 LOAN PROCESSING $250 $2,575 ($2,325) 9.7% 50% $1,000
S-072 DEMAND NOTICE $0 $405 ($405) 0.0% 100% $400
S-073 RECONVEYANCE $0 $405 ($405) 0.0% 100% $400
S-074 SUBORDINATION REVIEW $0 $783 ($783) 0.0% 100% $800
S-075 TERMITE INSPECTION $0 $96 ($96) 0.0% 100% $100
S-076 HOUSING RECORDING $792 $265 $527 298.9% 100% ($500)
S-077 PRINT STATEMENT - HOUSING $0 $39 ($39) 0.0% 100% $0
S-078 LOAN SERVICING $0 $1,928 ($1,928) 0.0% 100% $1,900
S-079 HOUSING MONITORING $0 $17,227 ($17,227) 0.0% 100% $17,200
SUBTOTAL - HOUSING $2,282 $26,865 ($24,583) 8.5% $22,900
Conclusion of Housing Services. If the suggestions made in Appendix A are approved, approximately $22,900 in new revenue could be realized annually.
33
Public Safety Services
These service centers are identified for those who use the City public safety services disproportionately from others.
Table 3
S-080 PUBLIC DISTURBANCE RESPONSE $0 $93,230 ($93,230) 0.0% 100% $0
S-081 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $5,000 $42,532 ($37,532) 11.8% 100% $0
S-082 POLICE ALARM PERMIT $20 $2,466 ($2,446) 0.8% 100% $2,400
S-083 DUI ACCIDENT RESPONSE $0 $7,836 ($7,836) 0.0% 100% $0
S-084 VEHICLE IMPOUND RELEASE $28,518 $73,954 ($45,436) 38.6% 100% $45,400
S-085 VEHICLE REPOSSESSION PROCESS $1,500 $1,396 $104 107.4% 100% $0 *
S-086 BOOKING PROCESSING $0 $229,875 ($229,875) 0.0% 100% $50,000
S-087 SPEC RESPONSE TEAM CALL-OUT $0 $5,242 ($5,242) 0.0% 100% $0
S-088 VIN VERIFICATION $0 $483 ($483) 0.0% 100% $500
S-089 CITATION SIGN-OFF $2,500 $4,758 ($2,258) 52.5% 100% $2,300
S-090 BICYCLE LICENSE N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0 *
S-091 CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT $0 $64,042 ($64,042) 0.0% 100% $0 *
S-092 POLICE DOCUMENT COPY $6,340 $1,425 $4,915 444.9% 100% ($4,900) *
S-093 CLEARANCE LETTER $0 $3,580 ($3,580) 0.0% 100% $3,600
S-094 FINGERPRINTING $8,000 $9,495 ($1,495) 84.3% 100% $1,500
S-095 TOW BUSINESS PERMIT $0 $1,170 ($1,170) 0.0% 100% $1,200
S-096 TAXI BUSINESS PERMIT $125 $1,212 ($1,087) 10.3% 100% $1,100
S-097 TAXI DRIVER PERMIT $123 $1,010 ($887) 12.2% 100% $900
S-098 MASSAGE BUSINESS REVIEW $82 $242 ($160) 33.9% 100% $0 */#
S-099 NON-CERT MASSAGE THER. PMT $574 $1,695 ($1,121) 33.9% 100% $0 */#
S-100 CABARET PERMIT $25 $92 ($67) 27.2% 100% $0 #
S-101 FORETUNETELLER PERMIT $41 $121 ($80) 33.9% 100% $0 #
S-102 SECONDHAND DEALER PERMIT $533 $1,574 ($1,041) 33.9% 100% $1,000
S-103 FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT $41 $121 ($80) 33.9% 100% $0 #
S-104 PRIVATE SECURITY GUARD PERMIT $250 $1,950 ($1,700) 12.8% 100% $1,700
S-105 SOLICITOR PERMIT $250 $841 ($591) 29.7% 100% $600
S-106 MISCELLANOUS POLICE PERMIT $41 $121 ($80) 33.9% 100% $0 #
S-107 FIRE PERMITS/INSPECTIONS $33,858 $59,841 ($25,983) 56.6% 100% $26,000
S-108 FIRE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW $10,572 $15,173 ($4,601) 69.7% 100% $4,600
S-109 FIRE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $0 $545 ($545) 0.0% 100% $0
SUBTOTAL - PUBLIC SAFETY $98,393 $626,022 ($527,629) 15.7% $137,900
Key to Symbols: # - Occurs Infrequently
*- Limited by Law
Conclusion of Public Safety. Consideration of the above suggestions would result in more equitable fees among the group of users of these services.
34
Leisure & Cultural Services
Table 4 lists the services reviewed under the heading of Leisure and Cultural Services.
Table 4
S-110 CITY OPER YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAMS $52,999 $153,293 ($100,294) 34.6% 50% See Text
S-111 CITY OPER ADULT SPORTS PROGRAMS $50,250 $144,583 ($94,333) 34.8% 50% See Text
S-112 YOUTH & TEEN PROGRAMS $61,713 $110,117 ($48,404) 56.0% 50% See Text
S-113 ADULT CONTRACT REC. CLASSES $9,751 $58,428 ($48,677) 16.7% 50% See Text
S-114 ADAPTIVE PROGRAMS $1,024 $1,453 ($429) 70.5% 50% See Text
S-115 RECREATION SWIM/LAP SWIM $184,349 $426,569 ($242,220) 43.2% 100% See Text
S-116 SWIM LESSONS $150,578 $197,698 ($47,120) 76.2% 100% See Text
S-117 WATER EXERCISE CLASS $35,667 $67,269 ($31,602) 53.0% 100% See Text
S-118 LIFEGUARD/WATER SAFETY CLASSES $11,600 $12,945 ($1,345) 89.6% 100% See Text
S-119 POOL SPECIAL EVENTS $2,630 $17,120 ($14,490) 15.4% 100% See Text
S-120 POOL RENTAL $63,739 $112,008 ($48,269) 56.9% 100% See Text
S-121 SCHOOL DISTRICT POOL USE $3,209 $63,009 ($59,800) 5.1% 100% See Text
S-122 PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENT SUPPORT $6,000 $75,496 ($69,496) 7.9% 100% See Text
S-123 CITY SPECIAL EVENTS $60,000 $141,325 ($81,325) 42.5% 50% See Text
S-124 FACILITY/PARK RENTALS $165,589 $209,337 ($43,748) 79.1% 100% See Text
S-125 PASSPORT PROCESSING $14,700 $5,680 $9,020 258.8% 100% $0 *
S-126 BLOCK PARTY PERMIT $0 $412 ($412) 0.0% 100% $400
S-127 RIVER PARK CAMPGROUND $203,642 $306,286 ($102,644) 66.5% 67% $0
S-128 DAMAGED LIBRARY MATERIALS PROC $0 $1,110 ($1,110) 0.0% 100% $0
S-129 LIBRARY CARD REPLACEMENT $500 $1,620 ($1,120) 30.9% 60% $500
S-130 SELF-SERVE LIBRARY COPIER/PRINTER $7,250 $3,625 $3,625 200.0% 100% $0
SUBTOTAL - LEISURE & CULTURAL $1,085,190 $2,109,383 ($1,024,193) 51.4% $900
Key to Symbols:
*- Limited by Law
35
Recreation Cost Breakdown
859,098
2,115,594
(1,256,496)
40.6%
The above breakout of direct and indirect costs can be reviewed in more detail in Appendix F.
Leisure Services Findings
As anticipated, the above findings suggest that a subsidy level exists for leisure activities – an
amount that varies depending upon whether one considers direct versus indirect costs.
This report recommends that Leisure cost recovery goals be set as a percentage of Recreation
Division costs. This practice is quite common in local government operations, not because
indirect costs do not exist and are not important, but rather to insure that the cost recovery goals
remain relevant, market competitive, and are easily reproducible.
Recreation belongs in the General Fund. The City’s use of multiple funds in its budget process
actually has the effect of making it harder to determine the cost of providing Recreation services
to the community. Even though many programs are allocated to the Revolving, Community
Center, and Aquatics Funds, much of the work to support those programs comes from personnel
budgeted in the General Fund. This ends up giving an incomplete picture of those programs in
those separate funds.
By combining all Recreation services into the General Fund there can be a clearer picture of the
cost of providing Recreation services to the community. This is also very common in local
government operations. The City can still track certain revenues in certain funds if there is a
need to preserve the monies from year to year as fund balance. But by putting the expenditures
into the General Fund, the City can now focus on identifying budgetary programs that
correspond to the services provided.
36
Recreation services are going to require General Fund support. The City Council just needs to
determine how much General Fund support it is willing and able to provide.
Given the above mentioned observations, much remains to consider in evaluating price and
costing levels in this sensitive service area – considerations that are further detailed below.
By their nature, leisure services are highly market driven and subject to a variety of external
factors including consumer demand, location, facility amenities, demographics, and competing
service providers. Adjustments in fees can arguably have a significant impact on consumer
demand given a variety of elasticity factors that may be in play. This comment does not imply
that additional revenues are unavailable but makes the case that fee levels are best set at the
delivery point based on a flexible and market based pricing model. It also suggests that
recreation performance levels might be best set at a macro level, rather than at the individual
program level, to allow for optimal marketing and program pricing flexibility.
In pondering these cost results, the City should consider the following observations common to
Leisure services.
been done in this study, is founded on key assumptions:
First, service volumes are fairly constant and void of wide fluctuations in consumer patronage
from year to year.
Second, consumers have come to accept the economic value of continuing to use the identified
service at a value that equates to the cost of providing the service.
It is important to note that these two assumptions are not particularly valid for leisure type
activities that are characterized by commonly noted annual changes in program popularity
combined with the influence of seasonal conditions. Furthermore, leisure dollars are highly
sensitive to overall market and economic conditions as a service that strives to compete for an
elusive discretionary income dollar.
37
Leisure service fees are influenced by two factors generally not a factor in the delivery of other
City services - marketing and social policy.
Marketing
Given that these services are highly market sensitive and financed mostly by discretionary
income, a special burden is placed on program managers to innovate and promote attendance.
Those who run these programs know too well the need to convince customers of the value added
features of their services. Their market is unforgiving. If fees are set too high, attendance and
consequently revenues will drop. On the other hand, establishing fee levels artificially low will
result in a flood of demand beyond resource capabilities.
Pricing
If priced strictly at average cost, fee increases can result in reduced participation leading to
additional reactionary price increases and further losses in patronage. As such, prices for leisure
services must be set carefully. The potential number of target customers should be estimated as
part of an aggressive program marketing those services at determined price levels. Some
important considerations in setting pricing follow:
• Has a marketing study been performed?
• Have programs been selected for their popularity?
• Do City programs compete with offerings made by other agencies, organizations, or
private businesses who can supply the program at less cost?
• Is there a less costly way for the City to supply the service?
• Has sufficient money been budgeted to advertise the program adequately and how is the
number of participants affected by the level of advertising?
• What costs would NOT be incurred or REMAIN were the program not to be offered?
38
• What is the cost of adding one more participant; of opening one more section of the
activity?
• Are participants polled for their reaction to the offering, the instructor, the facility, and
for their ideas for possible programs and the amounts that they are willing to pay?
• Are some facilities more costly to operate than others? What are the costs of electricity,
water, gas, janitorial, maintenance, telephone, vandalism, and the like for each facility?
• How do existing facilities compare to those provided by the competition in creating either
a price advantage or disadvantage?
• Has the clientele of the activity been defined allowing the City to understand the social
purpose in subsidizing the activity?
A number of these issues have already been addressed by City staff and are merely presented to
illustrate the issues involved in operating such services.
In determining what should be charged for services it ultimately is the responsibility of
recreation professionals to recommend a combination of decreased costs, increased participation
and fee adjustments needed to meet the degree of recovery that is ultimately determined by City
Council.
What Can Be Charged?
In so far as Leisure services are market driven by definition, they are not subject to the cost
limitations of Proposition 4. As such, pricing for class programs and related facility rentals can
be set at market rate and consumer valued pricing levels subject to policy defined discount and
subsidy levels.
Social Policy
The City Council should develop a conscious policy as to what programs and service centers,
and to what extent, should be subsidized with tax monies in promoting social benefit. It may well
be that some level of subsidy for many of the services identified in this group is not only
39
necessary, but also appropriate. If that is deemed to be the case, subsidy levels can be set as part
of a budgetary or programmatic policy statement. These policy statements can also explicitly
describe the social reasoning involved in the decision making process.
Achieving & Tracking Social Goals
In many of the cities studied by RCS, there is an almost universal lack of meaningful statistics
useful in measuring participation in subsidized leisure activities. The City should actively
develop a mechanism for obtaining such important data, especially if a program is benefitting
from subsidy levels. In this way taxpayers and their elected body can know exactly and
completely, who and how many participants have been served with impact of the City’s social
policy and justify the diversion of tax dollars from other vital services such as safety,
maintenance, and infrastructure improvements.
Discounts & Exemptions: The provision of scholarships and exemptions to disadvantaged
youths and seniors is a viable and appropriate alternative to reducing fees to the entire
community and should be considered in the fee setting process.
40
Conclusion of Leisure and Cultural Services
City staff and the City Council may wish to ponder the marketing criteria set out earlier in this
Chapter and review the cost figures provided herein. It may well be the case that additional
revenues can be generated if the marketplace permits it. In setting fiscal goals for such services,
it is recommended that financial targets be established at the macro (Division or Major Program
Level) level to allow for maximum price adaptability at the minor program and class level. That
being said, monitoring and reporting performance at the targeted level is critical in assessing
class/program viability as a bias for properly allocating resources to the most financially and
socially productive activities.
41
Enterprise & Maintenance Services
Transit, Airport, Electric, Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste services are the primary services in this group.
Table 5
S-131 FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES $1,280,915 $1,172,639 $108,276 109.2% 100% $0
S-132 COMMUTER TRANSIT SERVICES $1,011,104 $1,078,032 ($66,928) 93.8% 100% $0
S-133 DIAL-A-RIDE TRANSIT SERVICES $239,107 $278,801 ($39,694) 85.8% 100% $10,000
S-134 AIRPORT SERVICES $510,492 $537,989 ($27,497) 94.9% 100% $0
S-135 PERMANENT ELECTRIC METER INSTALL $35,700 $30,380 $5,320 117.5% 100% $0
S-136 TEMPORARY ELECTRIC METER INSTALL $5,856 $9,114 ($3,258) 64.3% 100% $3,300
S-137 PERMANENT ELECTRIC SERVICE INSTALL $0 $38,717 ($38,717) 0.0% 100% $38,700
S-138 TEMPORARY ELEC SERVICE INSTALL $0 $2,589 ($2,589) 0.0% 100% $2,600
S-139 ELECTRIC PANEL UPGRADE $0 $7,554 ($7,554) 0.0% 100% $7,600
S-140 ELECTRIC LINE EXTENSION/UPGRADE N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-141 ELECTRIC POLE CUT/RECONNECT $306 $3,797 ($3,491) 8.1% 100% $3,500
S-142 DELINQUENT ELECTRIC TURN-OFF/ON $70,000 $183,245 ($113,245) 38.2% 100% $113,200
S-143 REQUESTED ELECTRIC TURN-OFF/ON $0 $41 ($41) 0.0% 100% $0
S-144 DELINQUENT UTILITY TURN-OFF/ON $60,622 $218,710 ($158,088) 27.7% 100% $120,000
S-145 NEW UTILITY ACCOUNT $36,700 $282,420 ($245,720) 13.0% 100% $245,700
S-146 UTILITY METER TEST $0 $382 ($382) 0.0% 100% $0
S-147 TEMPORARY WATER METER RENTAL $1,496 $2,897 ($1,401) 51.6% 100% $1,400
S-148 WATER METER INSTALLATION $2,500 $2,983 ($483) 83.8% 100% $500
S-149 BACKFLOW DEVICE INSPECTION $0 $29,007 ($29,007) 0.0% 100% $29,000
S-150 GREASE INTERCEPTOR INSPECTION $0 $9,749 ($9,749) 0.0% 100% $9,700
S-151 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - GEN USER $0 $69,627 ($69,627) 0.0% 100% $69,600
S-152 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - ZERO USER $0 $1,733 ($1,733) 0.0% 100% $1,700
S-153 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CLASS II $0 $3,061 ($3,061) 0.0% 100% $3,100
S-154 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CLASS I $0 $1,530 ($1,530) 0.0% 100% $1,500
S-155 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CATEG USER N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-156 WW DISCHARGE PERMIT - CATEG ZERO N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% $0
S-157 WASTEWATER ADD’L SERVICES/INSP $0 $90 ($90) 0.0% 100% $100
S-158 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN $0 $1,742 ($1,742) 0.0% 100% $1,700
S-159 ROLL-OFF PROVIDER PERMIT $0 $1,672 ($1,672) 0.0% 100% $1,700
S-160 CITY ASPHALT PAVING $1,174 $1,971 ($797) 59.6% 100% $800
SUBTOTAL - ENTERPRISE & MAINT. $3,255,972 $3,970,472 ($714,500) 82.0% $665,400
Conclusion of Enterprise and Maintenance Services. If the suggestions made in Appendix A are approved, approximately $665,400 in new revenue could be realized annually.
42
Table 6
Administrative Services
S-161 NEW BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION $5,600 $6,832 ($1,232) 82.0% 100% $1,200
S-162 BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL $25,000 $6,530 $18,470 382.8% 100% $0
S-163 PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT $0 $514 ($514) 0.0% 100% $500
S-164 CARNIVAL & DANCE PERMIT $125 $1,530 ($1,405) 8.2% 100% $1,400
S-165 DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION $20 $84 ($64) 23.8% 100% $0 *
S-166 ELECTRONIC FILE COPY $30 $5 $25 600.0% 100% $0 *
S-167 CANDIDATE FILING $0 $887 ($887) 0.0% 25% $200 *
S-168 INITIATIVE FILING $0 $591 ($591) 0.0% 33% $0 */#
S-169 CREDIT CARD PROCESSING $0 $165,000 ($165,000) 0.0% 100% $100,000 *
S-170 PEG TV ACCESS SERVICES $230,621 $274,875 ($44,254) 83.9% 100% $0 *
SUBTOTAL - ADMINISTRATIVE $261,396 $456,848 ($195,452) 57.2% $103,300
Summary of Administrative Services. If the suggestions made concerning the service centers grouped here are implemented, a group of services would be paid for by those using them - not the general taxpayer, who does not use these services. $103,300 in new revenues would result, with $100,000 of that total coming from the Credit Card Processing fee.
43
Summary of Personal Choice Services
The following Table 7 summarizes the recommendations and suggestions made in this Chapter.
Table 7
SERVICE REVENUE COST (SUBSIDY) ACTUAL SUGGEST REVENUE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $705,098 $1,101,995 ($396,897) 64.0% VAR. $267,800
HOUSING SERVICES $2,282 $26,865 ($24,583) 8.5% VAR. $22,900
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES $98,393 $626,022 ($527,629) 15.7% VAR. $137,900
LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES $1,085,190 $2,109,383 ($1,024,193) 51.4% VAR. $900
ENTERPRISE & MAINTENANCE SRVCS $3,255,972 $3,970,472 ($714,500) 82.0% VAR. $665,400
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $261,396 $456,848 ($195,452) 57.2% VAR. $103,300
GRAND TOTAL $5,408,331 $8,291,585 ($2,883,254) 65.2% $1,198,200
If all the recommendations and suggestions made in this Chapter and in Appendix A are adopted, the City would raise $1,198,200 on an annual basis. Taxpayer Equity Achieved. By taking such positive actions, the City’s financial picture would be improved, far more equity between taxpayers and fee-payers could be gained, and fairness between property-related and non-property-related services could be secured. The above table shows that the City is subsidizing Personal Choice Services with $2,883,254 in tax dollars. Should the City Council feel that tax dollars are insufficient this chapter has shown that there are many opportunities to either increase the fee or lower the cost of Personal Choice Services.
A Master Fee Resolution
RCS recommends that the City adopt a Master Fee Resolution which Administrative Services updates and the City Council adopts annually. RCS will work with the Administrative Services Department to help implement this Resolution.
Policy Regarding “New” Services
RCS also recommends that the City Council adopt a policy of not starting any new service without a cost analysis, using the costing approach utilized in this Report, so as to determine ways in which the service could be fee-financed, if at all possible. This approach could be used when considering new parks or public buildings, improved police protection, or any other desired function or service.
44
Conclusion
RCS is available to discuss the process and results with the City Council. In addition, we can share our experience of doing this for over two hundred cities as the City Council determines what action to take.
45
Elimination of Subsidies
This Report highlights tax subsidies and recommends that most be eliminated as being unintentional. Service users thus can vote with their dollars and not use a service for which they are unwilling or unable to pay. Hidden subsidies, which have existed for many of the City’s supposedly self-financed and self-supporting services, can now be re-evaluated.
Issues Involved
The basic issue involved in viewing the results of the analysis presented by this text is to what degree fees should be expected to support the costs of the services. Or viewed another way, to what extent should general taxes be utilized to subsidize the difference between the costs of each service center and the revenue produced from fees paid by the user of that service'? Pressure on Tax Money Use. The opposite side of this issue is the increasing pressure on the use of public tax monies. Tax monies have severely decreased for local government in California. If fees do not pay all costs, then taxes must make up the differences not paid for by fees generated by users of specific services, or those services are threatened with extinction.
Addressing of Issues by City Council
The City Council should address the principles and issues enumerated herein to determine where, and to what extent, taxes will be utilized to cover costs incurred in the provision of special services. This is the current nature of competition between deserving public services for the scarce tax dollar. Who gets the dollars -- Police or Public Works? City streets or persons wanting zone changes? Code Enforcement or Animal Control? This is the nature of the tough policy questions involved in being an elected official in local government today. Specific Cost Issues To Be Answered. Hopefully, the data provided in this Report will aid the Council in addressing the following cost issues:
• Are full costs recognized on a businesslike basis, or are some costs to be ignored?
• Are overhead costs to be distributed on a rational proration basis to benefitting City
programs, or handled "generally"?
46
Specific Policy Alternatives to Be Answered. Once the above cost issues are determined then the City Council has four clear policy alternatives available as to the revenue/cost mix of each service center:
• Continue any tax subsidy which might be found.
• Eliminate the tax subsidy by increasing fees to cover all "costs reasonably borne".
• Reduce costs by reducing the level of service.
• Decide on an appropriate level of tax subsidy, being aware that taxes are now limited in
rate, base and, consequently, in amounts yielded and available.
Conclusion
The City has appropriately responded to the mandate and spirit of Proposition 4. It is utilizing the passage of Propositions 4, 13 and 218 and the attention given to them as an opportunity to review its financial structure and philosophy, and to institute a businesslike cost control system, tailored to the City's needs, to supplement its governmental accounting and budgeting systems. The cooperation, excellent support and data provided in accomplishment of the work reported herein speaks well of the way in which a City organization can adapt to the so-called "new realities" of California governmental finance.
END
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$360 plus $1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for project planners and engineers and outside costs.
Actual Cost with a $500 deposit
S-002 MAJOR USE PERMITREF #: TITLE:
Existing Building - $495 plus $2,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for project planners and engineers and outside costs. New Building - $865 plus $3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for project planners and engineers and outside costs.
Actual costs with a $500 deposit
S-003 DESIGN REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
$435 per application plus a $3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for project planners and engineers and outside costs.
S-004 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
S-005 PRE-APPLICATION/CONCEPTUAL REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
$2,000 per review
50% of this fee is credited towards that project's future Planning fees.
$464 per review
September 15, 2015 1
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
Actual Cost with a $1,000 deposit
S-008 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTREF #: TITLE:
S-009 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
None
None
None
S-013 ANNEXATION REQUESTREF #: TITLE:
S-014 SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATION REQUESTREF #: TITLE:
None
S-015 VARIANCE REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
S-016 ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONREF #: TITLE:
$150 per applicationActual Costs
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
Development Project - $91.40 per application Other Projects - Actual Costs
S-018 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
S-020 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
S-021 REVERSION TO ACREAGEREF #: TITLE:
None
S-023 LOT MERGERREF #: TITLE:
New Lot - $410 per application Existing Lot - $285 per application
None
S-027 DEPOSIT BASED DEVELOPMENT SERVICESREF #: TITLE:
These fees are included as other deposit services in this Report.
Other services not identified - deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
Actual Costs
S-029 LAND USE CLEARANCE - MINISTERIALREF #: TITLE:
S-030 LAND USE CLEARANCE - MINOR TIREF #: TITLE:
S-036 HOME USE/COTTAGE FOOD PERMITREF #: TITLE:
S-039 ANIMAL PERMITREF #: TITLE:
$2,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside and material costs.
None
S-045 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCILREF #: TITLE:
S-047 DOCUMENT IMAGINGREF #: TITLE:
Actual Costs with a $1,000 deposit
S-049 GRADING INSPECTIONREF #: TITLE:
0-50 CY - $115 51-100 CY - $295 101-500 CY - $295 + $54.50 per 100 CY 501-5,000 CY - $513 + $5.75 per 100 CY 5,001-50,000 CY - $772 + $5.75 per 1,000 CY 50,001+ CY - $1,031 + $5.75 per 1,000 CY
Subdivision Overexcavation - $115 per lot
0-50 CY - $69.40 51-100 CY - $176.10 101-500 CY - $176.10 + $32.02 per 100 CY 501-5,000 CY - $304.20 + $10.67 per 100 CY 5,001-50,000 CY - $784.40 + $3.20 per 100 CY 50,001-500,000 CY - $2,225.10 + $3.20 per 1,000 CY 500,001 - $1,000,000 CY - $3,665.80 + $2.13 per 1,000 CY $1,000,000+ CY - $4,733 + $4.27 per 10,000 CY
S-050 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/INSPECTIONREF #: TITLE:
S-051 STORMWATER BUILDING PLAN REVIEWREF #: TITLE:
Minor (<5,000 sq ft of impervious area) - $25 Major (>= 5,000 sq ft of impervious area) - $190
None
$305 per stop orderNone
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED

Date post:	28-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Cost of Services Study for the City of Lompoc

Documents