HomeMy WebLinkAbout43-Council Office
CI'C OF SAN BERNAADOO - REQUtJ'T FOR COUNCIL AOON
From: Councilman Dan Frazier
Subject: Ways & Means Committee Report
Oept: Council Office
Da~: May 1, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
1. That minutes of Ways & Means Committee meeting held April 27, 1987
be received and filed.
2. That Committee recommended actions be approved and appropriate
departments implement these actions as necessary and as soon as
possible.
- ~ ~..~
Sig a re
Contact person:
Phil Arvizo
Phone:
1R1-'ilRR
Supporting data attached:
Yes
Ward:
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Agenda Item No 1./3
o
o
o
o
WAYS , MEANS COMMITTEE
April 27, 1987
ATTENDEES: Councilman Dan Prazier-Chairman, Councilwoman
Esther Estrada, Councilman Jess P10res, City Administrator -
Ray Schweitzer, Deputy City Administrator - Jim Richardson,
Asst. City Attorney - Bill Sabourin, Public Services Director
- Roger Hardgrave, Asst. City Engineer - Gene Klatt, Park,
Recreation , Community Services - Annie Ramos, Acting
Planning Director - Dave Anderson, RDA Deputy Director-
Sandy Lowder, Council Executive Assistant Phil Arvizo,
Mayor's Executive Assistant - Richard Bennecke, Marshall
Julian, Sam Catalano.
1. SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACT ANALYSIS REPORT Item
continued. The Committee requested a separation of Community
Development and Block Grant Punds in the totals of the
categories presented. It was understood that the Parks,
Recreation 'Community Services Department would be going
ahead with a request for proposal on existing agencies.
Agencies are to be notified that there is a possibility of
only six months funding and their planning should take this
into account. City commitment is to be researched and pre-
sented to this Committee.
2. PARKING IN THE ENTERPRISE ZONE Item continued.
The Acting planning Director, RDA staff and City Attorney
will coordinate on the wording for a recommended ordinance
which will weigh requests for incentives on a case-by-case
basis. The Planning Commission will be asked for their
input. The recommendation will be brought back to the
Committee at a special meeting at 1100 p.m. on May., 1987.
3. CITY ENTRANCE SIGNS - The City Administrator is to
review the financial issue further and submit recommendations
to the full Council. Locations of the signs and any options
will be presented.
.. CABLE 'rV PUNCTION - Item continued.
S. REVIEW OP OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS - Item con-
tinued.
o
o
o
o
I
6. DISCUSSION OF ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES - The
Committee recommended a workshop to consider the fees in
Public Works, Planning, and BUilding' Safety Departments.
Another workshop can be arranged for Public Service fees.
Meeting adjourned.
DF:ej
o
o
o
o
· J
WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE
May 4, 1987
ATTENDEES: Councilman Dan Prazier-Chairman; Councilwoman
Esther Estrada; Councilman Jess Plores; City Administrator -
Ray Schweitzer, Deputy City Administrator - Jim Richardson;
Assistant City Attorney - Bill Sabourin, Deputy City Attorney
- Cynthia Grace; RDA Deputy Director - Sandy Lowder; Public
B1dg.{Security & parking Control Supt. - Wayne OVerstreet;
City Librarian - Steve Whitney; CATV Coordinator - Dean Gray;
Council Executive Assistant - Phil Arvizo; Mayor's Executive
Assistant - Richard Bennecke, Council Administrative As-
sistant - John Cole.
1. PARKING IN THE ENTERPRISE ZONE Item continued.
The Committee recommended that th, Redevelopment Agency and
the City Administrator research other cities that have an
Enterprise Zone, obtain information concerning methods those
cities use to handle parking within the Enterprise Zone, and
present a report for reYiew by the Committee prior to
formulating a decision for Council action.
2. SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACT ANALYSIS REPORT Item
continued. The Cpmmittee directed the City Administrator to
draft a reso1ut~on for Council approval at the Council
meeting of May ll, 1987 authorizin~ Parks, Recreation and
Community Servic,s to request an RPP from all agencies
providing social ~ervices programs within the social services
contract. The UP should be amended to include in-kind
services provide~, broken down in terms of dollar amount,
closing date for submitting proposals, and the need for
providing these types of services. (See item 15 on Supple-
mental Agenda.)
3. REVIEW OP OUTSTANDING PURCHASE ORDERS -
A) ORDINANCE - The Committee recommended approval
of the proposed ordinance.
B> REPORT - Item continued,
~ tftf5
-
-
.
o
o
o
o
4. CABLE TV FUNCTION - Item continued. The Committee
discounted locating a studio facility in the Norman Fe1dhym
Library. The Committee requested more specific information
on the available studio at Operation Second Chance Building
'1. A future use profile of how studio would be used, cost
to City, revenue generating possibilities, disaster coverage
uses, etc.
Meeting adjourned.
submitted,
Counc lman Dan Frazier
Chairman
Ways & Means Committee
DF: ej
-
'0
o
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8705-103
TO: RAYMOND D. SCHWEITZER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: WARREN A. KNUDSON, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
SUBJECT: MAC FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR $28,000
DATE:
COPIES:
MAY 8, 1987
(7068)
Th I s Is
for the
entrance
In response to your request for funding alternatives
MAC Foundation request of $28,000 for the City
signs.
Alternative II - CDBG Funding
Per conversation with Ken Henderson, the entire
be eligible for CDBG funding If authorized by
Common Council, assuming procedural matters can
request would
the Mayor and
be resolved.
Alternative 12 - RDA Fundln~
The attached lIst of nine tentative locations contains four
locations which are within RDA project areas. At $3,500 per
sign, $14,000 In cost could be requested for funding from
RDA.
Alternative 13 - Cultural Fees
The Fine Arts CommissIon could be approached for a contribu-
tion of Cultural development construction fee monies to be
used for these signs.
Alternative 14 - General F~
General Funds
monies could
loan from the
could be utilized for
either be Included In
General Fund could be
the needed monies and the
the 1987-88 Budget or a
arranged.
'Ide
.
-0
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8705-103
MAC FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR $28,000
May 8, 1987
Page 2
o
Any of these alternatives or a combInation of them could be
ut III zed to fund the proJect.
tdc
c~
WARREN A. KNUDSON
Director Of Finance
vm
o
GITY OF SAN BE~ARDINOO- MEMORANDUa
To Warren Knudson, Director of Finance , From M. U. Julian
Su~~ Proposed Locations - City Entrance Signs Dau
Vt'~. /'. ' Oa.7
Approved
Date
The following are the tentative locations for the placement of
the new pedestal-type City Entrance signs. These are not "fixed"
locations in that they will each have to be approved by the Mayor
and Council and be "engineered" into the phyeical surroundings,
each of which are different.
Northbound
Mt Vernon at La Cadena
Tippecanoe n/o 1-10
Waterman at Hospitality Lane
Eastbound
Highland between State Street and the Wash
Fifth and Fourth Streete (Fourth Street Rockcrusher)
Southbound
Waterman at curve above Wildwood Park
State College Parkway n/o Freeway
Westbound
Highland w/o Boulder
Base Line w/o Victoria (or Del Rosa)
.
.
For The MAC
PRIDE -I
~ESS
SUBSTITUTE
l/Jc
o
o
o
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Raymond D. Schweitzer, City Administrator
SUBJECT:Fee Increases
DATE:
May 4, 1987
COPIES:
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the Ways and Means Committee meeting held on April 27, 1987,
the consensus of opinions of those members present was that
the City Administrator was to write a memo to the City Council
outlining the fee increases to be proposed by all the operating
departments in the City.
Enclosed with this memo are justification letters
creases from the Building and Safety Department,
Refuse and Planning, as well as Animal Control.
for fee in-
Cemetery,
It will be suggested by the members of the Ways and Means Com-
mittee that the City Council pick a date in the future for a
workshop and that the fees might be increased prior to the
July fiscal year beginning. The Mayor would suggest that the
workshop be at the May 18th meeting from 12:00 noon to 1:30 p.m.
If there are any questions concerning this, please do not hesi-
tate to contact me. I am available to answer any and all in-
quiries.
RDS/mw
Enclosure
~F
'bITY OF SAN BE~ARDINOO-
MEMORAftDU~
ROGER 'G.,H~GRAVE, Dir
From Publ ic ~r.l\s/~y Eng.
^:,.."" ~
Date March 17, i"':;n .
. /
File No. Y
RAY SCHWEITZER
To Acting City Administrator
Subject Engineering Fees and Development Fees
Approved
Date
During the past several months, staff has been investigating fees
and charges for development in surrounding communities and com- ~p.
paring it with our fee structure. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a
breakdown of the costs associated with three separate types of
development. A 45-unit, single-family tract, a 304-unit
apartment complex and a service station on a commercial lot.
These projects have actually occurred in San Bernardino, and the
fees are the actual charges collected. Exhibi t "B" is the
present "Chart System" now used to calculate fees. Information
on each development was provided to the other jurisdiction to
obtain a cost comparison. These are representative only and will
vary from project to project, but do reflect trends.
The attached charts do not have information on the total of all
fees collected. Specifically, they do not have building permit
or plan check fees, and in some instances, other jurisdictions
have additional fees that they collect which have no counter-part
in the City. These additional fees were omitted in order to make
a clearer comparison on presently collected fees.
Fees have been broken into two separate and distinct categories -
Engineering Fees and Development Fees. While Engineering Fees
are reimbursement for services provided in plan check and
inspection of construction, development fees are collected to
offset costs associates with expansion of existing facilities or
to provide partial funding for major facilities yet to be
constructed (i.e. storm drains, sewer systems).
ENGINEERING FEES:
A review of Exhibit "A" reveals that San Bernardino has the
highest fee structure of all agencies for commerical and multi-
family developments and very nearly the lowest for single-family
development. The current policy on multi-family development is
to collect map check and plan check fees on the number of units
within the development rather than on the amount of construction
CIT., 011 TH.=-~
\\J
Ray Schweitzer.
Re: Engineering
March 17. 1987
File No.
o
City Administrator
Fees and Development
o
o
o
Fees
to be done. Originally instituted to provide protection from
costly condominium developments, in which plan checking amounts
to substantial time even though there is only one lot, it is
currently applied to apartments as well.
In the case of the single-family development, fees are again
based on the number of units although the extent of construction
is much greater and the necessary inspection and plan check is
also much higher.
Commercial development encounters very high on site plancheck and
inspection charges as they are presently estimated by the chart
system.
Overall. Engineering fees represent only a small part of the
total cost per unit, generally less than 1-1/21 of the total.
However. there is a 1a rge dispari ty be tween the type of .deve 1 op-
ment and between the comparable fees collected by other agencies.
Adjustments need to be made to accurately reflect the costs
involved, provide similar services at similar costs and relate
costs to the amount of work involved in the project.
DEVELOPMENT FEES:
Development fees are imposed in various manners by the different
agencies. The purpose is to provide necessary improvements that
are not entirely related to the specific project. Street
lighting costs, traffic signal participation, drainage fees,
sewer plant fees and sewer connection fees, park fees and school
impact fees account for the major portion of the development
fees. As stated before, many agencies have other fees not listed
in this ana1ysi s.
Of the development fees listed. Engineering is concerned over the
drainage fee and its impact. At least two agencies require
construction of the drainage system or the formation of an
assessment district to fund the cost of the improvements. The
City of San Bernardino has some very serious drainage problem
areas, and is presently working with Colton to resolve at least
some of them. In order to meet the needs of the communi ty,
o
o
o
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No.
o
higher fees or some other mechanism needs to be adopted to
generate the funds necessary to complete system upgrades and the
construction of the missing segments of the system.
RECOMMEN DA TIONS:
Below is listed the recommended changes in the Engineering Fees:
1. MAP CHECKING FEE
C URRE NT FEE
$200 + $10 per
Lot or Unit
a) Residential Parcel Map
2. IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING FEE (SUBDIVISIONS)
...
b) All Others
c) Non Subdivision
Improvemment Plan
Checking Fee
3. IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION FEE
4. ON-SITE PLAN CHECK
RECOMMENDED FEE
$500 + $15 per
Lot (drop unit
charge)
$100 + $20 per: All plan checks
Lot or Unit would be 2S of
:.. estimated cost
of improvements
with a $50 min.
$200 + $20 per:
Lot or Unit
.
Based on Value:
of Work per
Chart
.
.. .
Based on Val ue
of Work per
C ha r t
Based on Val ue
of Work per
Chart
1.5S of Esti-
mated Cost of
Improvements
0.25S of Esti-
ma ted On- S fte
Cost of
Improvements
L
o
o
o
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No.
5. ON-SITE INSPECTION FEE
Based on Value
of Work per
C ha r t
6. GRADING PLAN CHECK
Based on
Quantity of
Earthwork per
UCB
7. GRADING INSPECTION FEE
Ba sed on
Quantity of
Earthwork per
U8C
o
0.301 of Esti-
mated On-Site
Improvemen t
Costs
No Change
Recommended
No Change
Recommended -
o
o 0
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
Fi le No.
o
The numbers on the fees correlate with those in Exhibit "A".
Below is listed the amount of fees that would be collected for
the sample projects if the recommended changes were to be made.
PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE MONIES COLLECTED
(See Exhibit "A" For Comparison)
Single Multi-
Family Family Commercial
1. Map Checking $ 1,175 $ 515 $
2. Improvemen t Plan $ 5,920 $ 3,580 $ 420
Checking
3. Improvemen t $ 4,440 $ 2,685 $ 315
Inspection
4. On-si te Plan Check $ $ 837 $ 64
5. On-si te Inspecti on $ $ 1,004 $ 77
6. Grading Plan Check $ 135 $ 75 $ 30
7. Grading Inspection $ 482 320 126
TOTAL $ 12,152 $ 9,015 $ 1,032
Cost pe r Un i t $ 270 $ 20.65
o
o
o
o
Ray Schweitzer. City Admfnfstrator
Re: Engfneerfng Fees and Development Fees
March 17. 1987
Ffle No.
By comparfson to current fees. commercial fees declfned 471 and
multf-family fees declfned 331. Sfngle-family fees fncreased
2331. However. the overall effect 15 to brfng the Cfty fees fnto
accord wfth that charged by surroundfng agencfes. collect for the
servfces provided C'l an equal basts regardless of type 0 f
development and relate fees to the actual cost of the
improvements thereby eliminatfng the need to make perf odic
adjustments in the WchartW used to calculate fees. Fees are tfed
to the actual cost of construction and will fluctuate with the
market and economy rather than be set at some present level only
to become out-da ted.
Changes in Development Fees are as recommended below:
Current Recommended
..... .
1. Drainage (Single $.05/sq. ft. $5500 per
Famfl y) Not to exceed gross acre of
$1000 per lot. area - all
. development.
. . . .
( Others) $.15/sq. ft. of pl us annual
buflding or adjustment
impervious area with ENR
.
. . . . . . .
2. Traffic Systems None $10/vehicle
Fees tri p ( all
development)
Our present drainage fee does not provide sufficient monies to
construct required storm drain improvements within the City. At
least two of the agencies contacted require full construction of
the required improvements and a third collects fees 2.5 times
greater than our own. Our present fee is different between
residential. trailer parks and all others with the fee based on
different cri terfa and areas. It is proposed that a single fee
of $5500 per gross acre be collected for all types of develop-
ment. Using the existfng master plan and current estimates of
construction costs. the remaining area to be developed would
provide sufficient funds to complete the drains shown on the
mas t e. r. p 1 an. Ass e ssm e n t d i s t I' i c t s to co vel' the sam e
construction have been estimated to be in the $5000 to $7000
o
o
o
o
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No.
range. The recommended factor would be the increase or decrease
in the construction cost index as established in the Engineering
News Record each July 1 and would maintain fees with the rise or
fall in the economy. The index established by ENR is widely
accepted and verified and provides a reasonable means to adjust
fees without having to survey surrounding agencies each time. We
have also proposed a Traffic System Fee for the City. Presently,
major developments are required to pay traffic impact fees for
signals, but not all developments are large enough to warrant
fees being collected. Additionally, there are no provisions made
for striping, signing and upgrading of the existing traffic
controls throughout the City. The proposed fee would be
collected from all developments and be used to offset the costs
of striping, signing, signal installation and upgrading
throughout the City. Necessary additional signs, upgrading signs
or additional control devices would be funded from this account.
In this manner, all new development would be assessed an equal
amount to provide for a proper and well maintained traffic
control system. As each development added to the traffic
congestion, each would be assesssed equally for their impact
City-wide. It would be recommended that in the cases where the
impact was so great that a signal was required immediately, the
developer would be required to install its, and the fees would be
waived up to the maximum fee or the cost of the signal, whichever
was less.
The proposed adjustments to Engineering Fees would bring the City
into line with surrounding agencies and provide for inflation or
deflation. It would also equalize the fees and base it on the
actual amount of work to be performed regardless of the type of
development. In view of the fact that the Engineering Fees
account for less than 1 1/21: of the total, the overall impact on
development would appear to be insignificant. Proposed changes
in development fees are greater, but are necessary if the City is
to provide the necessary improvements and level of protection.
Drainage fees would nearly double, but the City is rapidly
approaching a building moratorium if action is not taken to
o
o
o
o
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No.
alleviate some of the drainage problems. Adjacent communities
are considering legal action to prevent building if necessary.
The Traffic Systems Fee is collected by some of the other
agencies and would provide a necessary means to generate funds
for the required improvements. Presently, some developments pay
such a fee in the City while others do not and the imposition of
such a fee would equalize the impact on all. Again, overall
increases as compared to school impact or sewer connection fees
are relatively minor and should not have a major impact on
development.
The De par t men t sou g h tin put fro m the Fin a n ceDe par t men tin
determining the amount of monies collected verses the actual
costs of the work performed. The Finance Department was able to
supply raw salary figures and dollars collected for the period
7/1/86 through 12/31/86. Analysis of this information is
difficult as monies are collected for inspections that are yet to
be performed, no allowance is made for vehicles, tools and
equipment, office overhead, or support personnel used in the
performance of the required services (clerical, management,
outside contracting for prints or soils testing etc.). A
reasonable guess would be that the actual costs would be in the
range of 2.5 to 3 times the raw salary costs provided all time
was accurately reported.
Exhibi t "c" shows the work orders, salary, adjusted salary,
monies collected and the percentage over or under actual costs.
Again, it must be noted that the inspection services are paid for
in advance of the work performed whereas the other items are paid
after the work is complete. Inspection work is not yet complete
on many of the projects that are reflected in the study period.
We are collecting anywhere from 800Z to 30Z less than the true
costs of the work performed. This conclusion is further
supported by the costs associated with outside plan check
services. A review of the recent projects sent out for
consul tant plan check at the developers request and those
initiated by the Ci ty show the consultants collecting 2.5 to 3
times the fees collected by the City for the same work.
Considering our true cost is 2.5 times salary in this analysis
and the consultants are billing for actual time used, we are
sti 11 the 800Z to 30Z below true costs.
o
o
o
o
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
Re: Engineering Fees and Development Fees
March 17, 1987
File No.
It is apparent from this analysis that public agencies as a
whole collect fees below actual costs. This is in accord with
the public service we are providing and is perhaps justified.
However, the present Ci ty fee structure is in need of adjustment
and is well substantiated by the true cost data in our own
records and the comparison to other jurisdictions in the
immediate area.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director If Public Works/City Engineer
:i .'J~'
- /'/!j'
,</,~ /' /..{(;.7/V--
GENE R. KLATT
Assistant City Engineer
GRK:pa
Attach.
o
t
." '"
.. x
co '"
'"
-
o
... .
w .
'"
-<
,.
<"'>
o
V>
-<
."
'"
'"
<:
z
-<
...
'"
'"
V>
-
'"
....
'"
'"
-
-
'"
'"
"...
".
" '"
" '"
" '"
'"
'"
....
'"
-
'"
'"
'"
'"
-
'"
'"
'"
o
-
-
" '"
110 ......
II U"I ....,
"
lien O"l
II U"I N
110 U"I
...
'"
....
o
-<
o
-<
,.
...
-
'"
'" ....
.... ....
".
II C'\ 0\
II N N
II U"I U"I
-
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
o
."
...
<:
V>
-
'" -
'" '" ...
- '" '"
.
'" 0 ....
'" 0 '"
000
o~
V> ." V>
<"'> ,. '"
'" '" '"
0"''''
o '"
... ...
,." <"'>
,." ,.
" V> ."
." ,.
,. <"'>
<"'>
-< -<
-<
-
W
'"
'"
....
'"
'"
'"
...
'"
o
-
W 0
- 0
'" '"
o 0
o 0
'"
W
....
W
o
'"
o
o
o
o
z
o
:z
,."
w
'"
V> "
,." '"
'" ,.
'"
'" :z
,.
<"'> '"
o ,."
z
z ...
'" ,."
<"'> ,."
-<
o
:z
-
W _
- '"
'" '"
o 0
o 0
:z
<"'>
...
....
'"
o
o
o
,.
'"
o
<
,."
-
:z
<"'>
...
'"
....
,.
'"
o
<
,."
'"
o
o
- - -
...
'"
....
'"
o
'"
....
o
o
o
-
-
o '"
o .... z
o
'" '" Z
o '" ,."
o '"
-
'"
'"
'"
o
"
<:
V>
-<
n
o
:z
V>
-<
...
'"
....
'"
o
o
"
,."
<
,."
...
o
."
"
,."
:z
-<
...
,."
,."
V>
,.
<:
'"
....
a-
'"
It) en 0 0
:;:c ::::a :z :z
~ ~ I I
o 0 V'I V'I
z :z .... .....
cn cn rr'1 rr'1
." ."
:z r- :z r-
V'I > VI :>
.... ""C z: ""C z:
0"" '"
.... ('") n n n
> .... % ..... :z::
... ,." ,."
o (") 0 n
:z "" :z ""
<"'>
o
V>
-<
."
,."
'"
<:
z
-<
-
'"
Z
'"
'"
-
-
-
-
'"
"
" '"
".
n_ .
1lI,Q 00
II U"I N
...
...
-
-
'"
'"
'"
"
"
"'"
"
"'"
"'"
" '"
-
-
-
-
'"
w
....
"
"
" '"
" ~
".
" -
" '"
" '"
'"
w
-
-
'"
'"
...
...
"
"
"
" ...
".
u w W
11. N
" 0
-
-
w
....
'"
"
" -
" '"
"
II \,Q U"I
" '"
II 0'\ U"I
"
" "
"
" :z
"
'"
-
w
'"
,
o
,
w
'"
-
:z
o
:z
,."
'"
o
w
'"
:z
o
:z
,."
'"
o
'"
o
:z
o
:z
'"
:z :z
<"'> <"'>
... ...
'"
...
z :z
'" '"
'" '"
,. ,.
" "
z z
'" '"
...
w
" "
." ."
'" '"
" 0
< <
,." ,."
" "
,." ,."
z z
-< -<
"
:z ...
V> ,.
." :z
,."
<"'> <"'>
-< '"
'"
o <"'>
z '"
'" -
,
o
,
'" -
'" 0
'" 0
z
o
:z
,."
w
o
w
'"
z
o
:z
,."
-
o
..
w
:z
o
:z
,."
'"
a-
-,.
- -<"'>
0-<
0<::
~ \,Q 0>
...
'" '"
. 0'1 :J:n
_ 0\ _0
z V>
--<
'"
'"
'"
....
-
-
-
'"
'"
'"
'"
-
w
...
-
z
,.
...
"
,.
."
<"'>
'"
,."
<"'>
'"
-
a-
'"
o
-
'"
....
'"
-
-
...
'"
'"
-
-
o
o
o
-<
-<
."
,."
o
...
...
,."
,."
V>
,.
z
'"
'"
'"
z
,.
'"
"
:z
o
'"
<
,."
'"
V>
"
,."
..
'"
,
...
o
,." -<
Z
'" V>
Z Z
,." '"
,." ...
'" '"
z ...
I~ ~
-<
'"
,.
<"'>
-<
<"'>
o
...
-<
o
:z
...
<>
:z
-<
,.
z
,.
I~
'"
<"'>
o
<:
z
-<
-<
o
.
."
'"
'"
..
'"
>< ....
"'-
N
co."
...
-;<::
v>
o
...
,.
w
n
o
v>
-;
."
'"
..
<::
z
:0:
."
-; ,.
o n
-; -;
,.
...
-;
."
'"
'"
v>
-
..
" -
".
110 .Qro
II <.n ....
11(,0,1 -
".
II (.oJ W
11_ ......
Ilt.rl N
w
..
'"
..
co
'"
-
..
-
o
'"
'"
W
-
-
~
w
N
"'1::1 Vt <.n 0
:Ja l"I"I l"I"I ::a
::a E a: >
,. '" '"
V) ;1:1 ::a z
,.
.." n n en
l"I"I :> 0 l"I"I
'" ." Z
,. Z ."
n '" '"
n '"
-; -;
-<
v>
n
'"
o
o
...
'"
'"
....
w
'"
N
'"
w
o
'"
o
."
...
<::
v>
z
nnV'lCO W ("")
1l0~1.O ...., en
IIZ00 . 0
II V'):::tJ. :>
11-1:1:1.0 ..... CO c:a
1I:::a 0 0 0 0
!lCON N 0 <
IIn;l:l '""
II -I>>'"
II __r-
ltOZC
11 Z V'l
..
" -
" Z
IIN a'l n
llA_IOr-
tlCD W \D
".
IlW""" >
IlCXl a'l N CO
IlU"l CO 0 0
<
'"
-
,,-
" ....
" -
" ....
"
" CO
" N
" 0
N
w
'"
-
'"
'"
-
-
IIOCD
11:=0'\
1l>1.O
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'"
CO
'"
-
z'"
,.'"
"'0
'"
."
,....
v><::
v> v>
-;
,
o
,
-
- '"
'" CO
_ CO
_ CO
'" 0
o 0
..
-
-
,
o
,
w
-
'"
o
z
..
'"
w
'" w
_ 0
'" '"
CO '"
o ..
-
'"
o
.. ..
'" -
'" 0
'" ..
o '"
o ....
n
.. 0
z
v>
.. -;
'"
'"
..
o '"
o .0
o <::
-
CO CO
'" '"
.. '"
o 0
o 0
..
'"
w
-
w
'"
-
'"
o
'"
'"
CO
-
..
'"
o
-
,.
v>
v>
-<
"
v>
-;
o
"
'"
<
'"
...
o
."
:z
'"
z
-<
."
'"
'"
v>
.... '"
n
o
V>
-;
'" '" 0
.. .. z
,. ,. ,
" " v>
z z -<
'" '" '"
."
'"
..
<::
z
."
Z ... Z
-I V) :> V"
o "'1:1 z: ""a
-< '" '"
):10 ("") n ("")
r- -I % -l
'"
o n 0
z ,. z
-;
'"
z
'"
..
w w
.. ..
... ...
o 0
o 0
n
-<
-
-
...
...
"
" -
" w
".
II. W
1l\D N
tlO 0
w
....
..
..
-
....
"
" '"
"
11 W N
U'D ...... U"I
110'\ (,oJ 0
....
'"
-
..
....
o
"
" '"
" -
".
IIW N
II"'" .... U"I
II \D W 0
w
'"
-
-
...
CO
'"
"
" -
".
" ...
" '"
" ..
'"
-
w
-
-
'"
w
"
" ....
"
" '"
" '"
" ..
"
" :z
"
" z
"
w
CO
....
....
'"
n
-<
....
'"
'"
o
CO
'"
V>
-
o
..
w
z
o
z
'"
-
o
...
...
z
o
z
'"
z
n
...
<::
"
'"
"
z
'"
..
,.
"
z
'"
... w
o _
Z :0: :z
, ." ."
v> .. ..
o 0
-; < '"'
'" '" '"
:0: :z
." '" '"
... z z
,. -; -<
z
"0
n z ...
'" V> ,.
'" ." Z
n '"
,. n n
-; '"
'"
o n
z ,.
....
..
...
.... '"
CO CO
CO 0
z
o
z
'"
_ w
... '"
_ 0
'" '"
'" '"
'"
'"
w
w -
.... w
CO
z
o
z
'"
'"
'"
'"
z
n
...
<::
"
'"
"
-
%
....
CO
CO
'"
..
,.
"
z
'"
'"
'"
'"
CO
'"
....
..
'"
o
...
o
:0:
,.
."
n
'"
'"
n
,.
-;
-<
."
'"
z
'"
o
."
I~
-
v>
,.
Z
CO
'"
..
Z
,.
..
"
z
o
W
N
...
o
-
..
<
'"
..
v>
"
'"
,.
"0
,.
..
-<
'" :z
z '"
'" z
-;
z
'" n
'" 0
.. :z
."
z ...
'" '"
><
'"
-
'"
..
."
'"
'"
v> w
o
...
<::
z
-<
V>
....
n
o
r-
-;
o
z
'"
o
o
-
."
o
z
-;
,.
z
,.
N
N
o
,.
_n
--;
0<::
0"
Or-
v>
CO
:z
_n
%0
-v>
-;
n
o
<::
%
-;
-<
"
0 0 0 0
'" ... '"' '" - '" '" ... '"' '"
'" ... '" '" 0 en en 0 0
n ,. ... ... .. .. .. z z " "
. :z: .. E E ,. ,. ,. , , ... ...
0 "" ... ... 0 0 '" '" .. ..
0 .. .. Z .... - 0 0
,.. ... ,. Z Z .... .... < <
... n n en en en ... ... ... ... ....
... ,. 0 ... " " -<
Z ... Z ... ... ... ... ...
'" ,. Z ... Z ,.. Z ,.. Z Z ...
... n ... ... .... '" ,. '" ,. .... ....
.... ... n ... 0 ... Z ... Z 0
0 n .... .... .... ... ... ... ...
.... .... -< ,. n n n n z ,.. I~
,. 0 ,.. .... :z: .... :z: '" ,.
,.. 0 Z '" .... ... ... ... Z
Z '" 0 n 0 n ...
z "" z "" n n
... ,. .... :z:
... n z ...
... .. - - en 0 n
... '" '" Z ""
0 0
0 0
n n
-< -<
''''
,.
Z
.. .. .. ..
" '"
'" Z Z '" '"' " - ...
0 0 ". .. n
'" z z '" - ... " "' - .... ... '"' '" Z 0
0 ... ... ... '" 0 " ... '" '"' ... '" .... 0 ,. "
0 0 0 0 " 0 '" 0 0 CO - '" '" "
0 ...
..
z n
0
,.
,..
0
...
<
.. .. .. .. '" '"'
,..
" < 0
'"' Z '" 0 ,,- Z Z - '"' ... ...
0 ... ". 0 0 '" Z "
W Z '" 0 ... ... < " CO Z Z W ... '" en ...
- ... 0 0 0 - ... " "' CO '" ... ... .... '" - Z
.... 0 0 0 .... ,.. " "' ... 0 '" w 0 z ....
0 ... ...
" ... ...
- " ..
Z ... '"
,. Z Z '"'
,.. .... en '"
,.. <
... ...
"'.. .... .. n ... .. .. ... n
.... z 0 ... ... ...
0 n z '" '"
.. ,.. '" " n '"
"'- Z - .... " - 0 ....
0 ". ,.. ,.
0'" :z - ,. '" " w - - '" CO .... ....
'" '" ... '" '" 0 .. " "' CO '" 0 - '"' ... 0
,.0 0 0 0 ... " '" ... 0 CO - 0 ... Z 0
.... < .0 z
Z... ... <:
,..
n<: '"
0'" ... '"
'" 0 Z
.... Z Z '"'
'" n n
,.. ,.. ,..
.. .. .. .. ... '"
" E E '" ....
... Z Z - '" " - - - Z
0 0 ". en en ....
w :z :z w '" w " 0 .. '" '" .... ,.
- ... ... .... 0 ... " ... CO '" ,. ,. '" W Z
0 '" '" '" " .... ... '" 0 0 '" CO ,.
Z z
en en
z z I:
,. n n
,... .. '" .. ,.. ,.. ..
'" '"
'" .... E E
...'" Z Z '" - - -
",. 0 0 ". en en
"'''' z :z '" ... 0 " '" - '" .. '" CO n
... ... "''' ... ... W W " W '" '" ,. ,. - ... '"
.. >< ...... '" ... '" " .... ... CO 0 '" - ... <:
<0 :z: Z .... Z
to ....... Z Z ....
'" ,.. en en -<
w <:
.... '"
0
...
,.
W .
Q
101-S~I'ISIOI OE'ELO'"EIT <::)
o
I. O"-SITE (STREETI I"'RO'E"EIT 'LAI CHECl, IIS'ECTIOI AID STAlll' 'EES IRESO. 13-'011
,u. I 2
-.w! CIICI '11 INS'ECTIOI 'E[ ('UIIT HE!
CUll . o . 400 LF. 10.251L'
GUTTU I O,IO/L' IIlIl - 1000 L' . S100.00 . IO.IS/L'
OUR 1000 L' . 1110.00 . 10.101L'
ClOSS I o .05/Sf o . 2000 5' . 1O.10/Sf
GUTTU 2001 - 5000 5' . 1200.00 . 10.05/Sf
OnR 5000 H. U50.00 . 10,02/S'
Dunvu S O.02/S' o - 210 5' . 10.20/5.,.
U'ROACH 211 - 750 H. SSO . 10.101S'
. SlDE- 751 - 2000 S, . 1100 . 10.05/H
VAU O'ER 2000 Sf. 1162.50 . 10.02/S'
lET allin I D.IO/S' o - 210 5' . 10.25/S'
VALL 211 - 500 Sf. 162.50 , 10.20/S'
OYER 500 Sf . 1112.50 . 10.15/S'
'UEII(IT I 0.25/100 S, o - 5000 H. 11.00/100 Sf
5001 . 30,000 SF . 550 . 10.50/100 S,
OWER 30,000 S, . 1175 . 10.25/100 S'
AGGlEG .
uS(
S VO 'E[
o .
5001 .
O'ER
5000
30,000
30,000
S' . 10.25/100 S'
S' . 512.50 . 10.15/100 S'
5' . 550 . 10.10/100 S'
. S(VER I O.IO/L'
IAlI
o - ISO L' . 10.2I/L'
ISI - 500 L' . 137.50 . 10.20/L'
onR 500 L' . 1107.50 . 10.II/L'
4 OR LESS . 11S.00/EA
5 - 10 . 160 . 112.00/EA
onR 10 . 1120 . IIO.OO/EA
o - 400 L' . 10.20/L'
401 - 500 L' . 110 . 10,17/LF
O'ER 500 L' . 117 . 10.I5/L'
4 Lf OR LESS . IIZ.OO/EA
5 - 14 Lf . 115.00/EA
O'ER 14 Lf . UO.OO/EA
o - 100 Sf. 1O,50lSF
101 - 210 S, . SSO . 10.35/H
OYU 250 Sf. 5102.50 . SO.25/5F
"AIHDLE I 5.00/EA
.
CLEAI OUT
STORI
DUIN
I O.25/L'
CATCH
USIN
I 10.00/EA
lOX
CUL YUT
I D.IO/L'
STRnT
LI'HT
II ESTI"ATED
CONSTRUCTlDI
COST
31 ESTI"ATED COISTRUCTIOH COST
TUFFIC
51GVAL
II ESTIIATED
CONSTRUCTlOI
COST
31 ESTI"ATED COHSTRUCTIOI COST
IIS'ECTIOI OUTSIDE SCHEDULED
VORlllG HRS . 12D.SO/MAI HR
STAlllG 'EE II' A"LICAILE)
SA"E AS IIS'ECTIOI
0- 2000 SF. 10.10/5'
2001 - 5000 5' . 1200 . 10,OS/S,
lIYER 5000 SF . 1350 . 1O.03/SF
lOT APPL I CalLE
o - 250 . 10.10/Sf
251 - 500 . 125 . 10.01/S'
O'ER 500. S45 . 10.05/S'
o - 5000
5001 . 30,000
O'ER 30,000
S, . 10.10/100 5'
5' . 140 . 10.50/100 5'
S, . 1165 . 10.25/100 5'
lOT A'HICAlLE
o - 150 L' . 10.50/L'
151 - 500 L' . 160 , 10.35/L'
DYER 500 L' . 1112.50 . 10.'5/L'
NOT APPLICAlLE
o - 400 L' . IO,50/LF
401 - 500 LF . 1200 . 10.35/L'
O'ER SOD LF . 1235 . 10.30/L'
SAME AS INS'ECTION
o - 100 SF 10.25/SF
101 - 250 5F . 125 . SO,20/SF
onR 250 SF . SS5 . SO.I5/5F
lOT APPLl CAlLE
NOT APPLICABLE
SURVEY PART' OUTSIOE
VORllHG HR . 160.00/HR
OR FRAtTION THEREOF
1. A phn ."ltc.'to" ft. of SSO.OO .".11 b. p.1d for lie" .ppltutton for off-sit. phn ch.clling for non-
lub.ivt.ton dIV.lop..ntl.
2. A p.raU .,p1fcleion ftl of $1.50 shal' be Pltd 'or lIeh .ppHCltton for.off-sU, '.,ron.,nts p.r.tt
tl.pectton. Mtntaua of'-stt. ,.,.tt ft. 11 '1.00.
EXHIB IT "B"
Page 1 of 2
~
1 0 T[ IOIOHMENT PL.U CH[CIC ,"SPECTIOI STAKII' FEES IMOIIC COOE SECT. 411 0
PUI I ,
ITEM CHECK FU lI"ECTlOI HE STAUI' FU
CUll I I O.OU/LF o . 400 LF . SO.Olll' lOT A"LICAILE
IUTTU 401 . 1000 LF . U4 . O.OU/LF
on. 1000 L' . HI . o.OU/V
PUlfn I O.OU/L' o . 400 LF . 10.031/LF lOT APHICAILE
CU" 401 . 1000 LF . 114 . O. O"l'
OYn 1000 LF . UI . O.OU/LF
.
ClOSS I I O.OIlSF o - 2000 SF . 10.02111' lOT A"LICAlLE
1..101 ZOO I - 5000 SF . ISO . 10.01/Sf
'UTTn o'n 5000 Sf. 110 . SO.005I1'
S10EIALK I O.OOS/Sf o . 250 S, . SO.Ol/SF lOT A"L I CAlLE
Z51 - 750 S, . IIZ.50 . 10.0'5/SF
751 . '000 S, . us . SO.OI/Sf
OYU '000 SF . 537.50 . SO.005/5F
PAnMElT 5 0.011100 S, o . 5,000 S, . 50.'51100 SF lOT A"LICA.LE
SOOl . 30,000 Sf . 512.50 . SO.USlS,
on. 30.000 S, . 543.75 . SO.OI/S'
OU/lAGE '.51 ESTlMATlO IS 0' ESTIMATEO COISTIUCTIOI COST lOT A"L I CAlLE
'ACILITIES COIITlUCTlOI
COST
PUIATE . O.OU/L' o . 150 L' . .O.UIL, lOT A"LICAlLl
.un 151 . SOO LF . II. . 'O.IO/V
MA/lS OVU 500 LF . 1S3 . .0.OtlL'
A'UEGATE o . SOOO Sf. 50.12/100 Sf lor A"LICAlLl
lASE 5001 - 30,000 SF . 51 . '0,07/100 S'
o'n 30,000 Sf. "3.50 . 50.05/100 Sf
SEVU - 10 FEE
CLEAIOUTS
I
MAlHOLES
10TES:
1. .,1 non-lu_dt,1s1on pll. chlcktnt f,., ." due with slcond plan thlct IUb.tttll.
2. A Trlnetlhg P,,'.U shill bt r'Qu1r.d "0. Ult Stat. Dhhhn 0' Industrial Safety
prior to illulncf of I p.,.1t to tnlcal1 I..,rs or Itor. dratns ov.r 5' dl'P.
3. '"AOII' PLAI CHECK Ala IISPECTIOI 'EES (U.I.c. Ala TITLE IS MUIICIPAL COOEI
5... IS Subdivtston Grldil, ".1 Cblck and In,plct10n '.1.. S.. p.t. 1.
EXHIBIT "B"
Page 2 of 2
0 0 0 0
V> .... .,,:z .... 3:.... C) .... C) .... n....
C::N .....ON :toN "'N "'N ON
0:><11 :to:Z<11 "'<11 :to <11 :to <11 :z <11
00> :z I en <11 OW ON V> ....
- V> n - - -i :E
-< nc:: ::t: :z :z
- ::t:o:> ,.,., C) C) 0
V> ""'0 n - '"
- n_ ~ ." - :z ~
0 ~-< ..... :z V> 0
:z - :to V> ."
V> :z ." ,.,., '"
." - ,.,., n 0
..... 0 n n -i ,.,.,
:to :z ::t: -i - '"
:z ,.,., - 0
n 0 :z ""
n ~ :z
::t:
,.,.,
n
~
.... .... .... .... .... .... '"
.... .... :to
.... .... <11 N 1.0 0> :E
. V>
... N W en W ...
.... 1.0 0 .... W W :to
W 1.0 .... .... 1.0 N .....
:to
<11 W <11 en 0 en '"
0 .... <11 .... N <11 -< n
0
.... V>
I -i
....
I <
,.,., CO II>
V> en
-i 3:
.... 0
.... .... .... .... .... .... 3: M- :z
.... .... .... W N ... :to 0 -
0> CO W .... ... '" -i ,.,.,
,.,., V>
en N N <11 CO 0 0 ....
CO ... en ... ... CO N n
W 0> 0> ... 0> N -i I 0
'" W .....
0 '" <:> 0 0 0 c:: .... .....
0 0 0 0 0 0 ,.,., I ,.,.,
0> n
n en -i
0 ,.,.,
V> 0
-i
....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... en n
W <11 0> W 1.0 0 0
.",.,.,
<>>x en <11 N <11 <11 0 .....
<C ::t: .... <11 en .... .... N .....
I'D- en ... .... W 0 N ,.,.,
0:> n
....- W en <11 .... <11 ... -i
-i ... <11 0 .... 0 0 ,.,.,
0 0
..... =
n
.... = n
0
..... ""
.....
,.,., 0
+ no:>_
-i,.,.,.."
W N en 0> N W ,.,., -i.."
O:E,.,.,
.... N 0 0 .... 0 ,.,.,'"
... 0> "" '" "" "" .,.,.,.,,.,.,
"" "" zz
n n
0 ,.,.,
V>
-i
(tITY OF SAN ..JEIOJARDINOO-
lEMORANDUQ
To RAY D. SCHWEITZER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject RE FEE CHANGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
REC'D -AD H From
. IN. OFF
1387 APR 31 PI4Dt4i~:
JOHN E. TUCKER, DIRECTOR
BUILDING AND SAFETY
MAY 1, 19B7
~@-
Approved
Date
Pursuant to your request, please consider this memo as the Building and
Safety Department's fee change proposal for the next fiscal year.
The 19B5 Uniform Building Code Table 3-A as published by the International
Conference of Building Officials stipulates a 50% fee increase over that
published in the 19B2 version. In addition, the building valuation schedule
as published in the ICBO Building Standards magazine for use by the local
jurisdictions will reflect some minor increase in building valuation by the
time we adopt the 1985 UBC. Since the fee increase as published in Table 3-A
of the Building Code is so large, I am recommending that the City legally
adopt that schedule but discount that higher fee by 20%. The net result
under this discount would result in a 20% fee increase instead of a 50% fee
increase. If this discount is adopted by resolution as opposed to ordinance,
the discount could be modified from time to time as the needs of the City
change. Attached please find calculations for building permit fees for a
typical 1400 square foot wood-frame residence showing both the 1982 version
and the proposed 1985 version.
While it would be preferable to make this change at the beginning of the
fiscal year, the code review process being currently conducted within my
department and the adoption process time requirements will probably result
in this item going to Council in late July or early August. The budget
income projection which I have submitted to Finance is predicated on this
20% increase.
J n E. Tucker, Director
ilding and Safety Department
Encl.
cc: Jim C. Richardson
Deputy City Administrator/
Development
CITY Oil TH.~~"
o
<:)luation Calcula<:)n
o
1400 Sq. Ft. Residence
with 400 Sq. Ft. Garage
.
1986-1987
1987-1988
Residence
Residence
$46.30 valuation/sq.ft. as
as published
x .96 regional modifier
$44.40 valuation/sq.ft.
$48.15 vJluation/sq,ft.
as published
x .96 regional modifier
$46.42 valuation/sq.ft.
Ga ra ge
Garage
$16.50 valuation/sq.ft.
as published
x .96 regional modifier
$17.16 valuation/sq.ft.
as published
x .96 regional modifier
$16.47 valuation/sq,ft.
$15.84 valuation/sq.ft.
Valuation of 1400 sq.ft. Residence and
400 sq.ft. Garage
1400 sq.ft. x $44.40 = $62,160
400 sq.ft. x 15.84 6,336
Total valuation $68,496
Valuation of 1400 sq.ft. Residence and
400 sq.ft. Garage
1400 sq.ft. x $46.42 = $64,988
400 sq.ft. x .16.47 = 6,588
Total valuation $71,576
Permit Calculations
1982 UBC Table 3-A
Permit Calculations
1985 USC Table 3-A
Buil di ng Permit
Plan Check Fee (x .65)
Mechani ca 1, El ectri ca 1 ,
Plumbing (approx.)
$337.00
219.00
212.00
Building Permit
Plan Check Fee (x .65)
Mechanical, Electrical,
Plumb,lIg (x .63)
$495.00
322.00
312.00
Current fee
$768.00
Fee per 1985 Code $1,129.00
Less Proposed Discount (.20) -226,00
Proposed Fee
$ 903.00
NOTE: These fees do not include any fees collected for other departments
or school fees.
'CITY OF SAN dE~AROINOO- n,tEMORANOuQ
To
Raymond D. Schweitzer, Cit}1\&0101+MW~ OFF.
PROPOSED INCREASE \SU? APR 30 PM 3: 0 I
From
Dan Ustation, Cemetery
Superintendent
April 30, 1987 t?l'tr'
Subject
Date
-
-,
Approved
Date
The revenue lost from the sale of grave markers and the lower interest rate
received from the Endowment Care Fund will require the cemetery to increase
burial fees. The department lost approximately $50,000. in revenue in the
two areas. The proposed fee increases will generate an estimated $18,200.
in revenue.
The last fee increase was in August, 1984.
ADULT GRAVES - CURRENT PRICES
$ 240.00 - PUBLIC GUARDIAN
$ 325.00
$ 375.00
INTERMENTS - CURRENT PRICES
SIZES 3, 5, & 6 $ 250.00
DOUBLE DEPTH - $350.00
DISINTERMENT - $375.00
DISINTERMENT/REINTERMENT $500.00
CONCRETE BELL LINERS - CURRENT PRICE
SIZE 6 - $ 205.00
SIZE 5 - $ 160.00
CONCRETE VAULTS - CURRENT PRICE
SIZE 6 - $ 295.00
SIZE 5 - $ 275.00
SIZES 0, & 1 - $ 235.00
ADULT GRAVES - PRICE INCREASE
$ 275.00 - PUBLIC GUARDIAN
$ 375.00
$ 425.00
INTERMENTS - PRICE INCREASE
$ 270.'10
$ 400.00
$ 450.00
$ 550.00
CONCRETE BELL LINERS - INCREASE
SIZE 6 - $ 225.00
SIZE 5 - $ 180.00
CONCRETE VAULTS - PRICE INCREASE
SIZE 6 - $ 305.00
SIZE 5 - ~ 285.00
SIZES 0 & 1 - $245.00
BRONZE LAWN URN (CREMATION) - CURRENT
$ 159.00
BRONZE LAWN URN (CREMATION) - INCREASE
$ 185.00
Clry 011 rH.~""
o
o
o
o
Raymond D. Schweitzer, City Administrator
April 30, 1987
PROPOSED INCREASE - Continued
Page -2-
Listed below are the prices currently charged by other cemeteries for their
least expensive interment:
HERMOSA ------- $ 843.38
HILLSIDE ------- $ 976.90
RIALTO --------- $ 836.90
GREEN ACRES ---- $ 1014.30
MONTECITO ------ $ 979.30
MT. VIEW ------- $ 979.30
PIONEER MEMORIAL $ 744.60
&~~
DAN USTATION, Superintendent
PIONEER MEMORIAL CEMETERY
DU:mg
'CITY OF SAN BE~ARDINOQ.... MEMORANDU~
Subject
To Raymond D. Schweitzer, City Administrat&EC'O.-ADMIN.PJg~. Manuel P. Moreno, Jr.,
1ll071UV 6 AM ., c2 Director of Public Services
Rate Increase Justification - Refuse ColRH:tl1'ttl- o1te' May 5, 1987 ~
, 7'
Approved
Date
It will be necessary to increase refuse collection fees by 15% - 20% in order to
produce the shortfall required between revenue and expenditures. Refuse rates
have not been raised since 1983, and the increase should probably have occurred
last year.
Based on figures available, estimated revenue for 1986-87 should be approximately
$4,984,000, as opposed to projected expenditures of approximately $5,900,000.
The Department's 1986-87 Budget was balanced by using the Refuse Fund reserve.
The balance in the reserve on July 1, 1986, was $1,173,279; the sum of approximately
$916,000 has been used to offset the known difference between current revenue and
expected expenditures for 1986-87.
Additional costs during 1986-87, chief among which was an increase in the County
Landfill dumping fee from $6.00 per ton to $8.60 per ton,required the use of the
additional reserve funds. If the total amount remaining in the reserve were to
be applied toward the 1987-88 Budget (and exhausting the reserve is not reCOlTlllended),
there would still be a shortfall of more than $375,000.
The primary reasons for the required increase in rates are as follows:
County Landfill rate increase
S.W.A.T. Monitoring Program
Salary Increases
5-Year Equipment Purchases
$361,250
50,000
115,000
94,000
The proposed monthly rate increases are as follows and should produce an additional
$570,000 in revenue.
1. Single-family Residential
a. Removal from below ground
FRCto!
$6.10
6.60
TO
$7.00
7.60
% INCREASE
15%
15%
2. Multiple Dwellings
a. Two Units
b. Three Units
c. Four Units
d. Five Units
e. More than five
$ 7.54 8.65 15%
10.98 12.65 15%
14.31 16.45 15%
17.47 20.10 15%
17.47/+3.05 20.101+3.50 12%
o
Rate Increase J~tification<:)Refuse COllecti~
May 5, 1987
Page 2
o
3. Small-businesses (non-bin)
a. One time per week $ 4.45 $ 6.00 35%
b. Two times per week 5.80 7.00 21%
c. Three times per week 8.90 10.75 21%
d. Four times per week 14.70 17.78 21%
e. Five times per week 22.50 27.23 21%
4. Bin Service (one collection per week)
a. 2 cu. yds. $15.20 $17 .20 13%
b. 3 cu. yds. 22.70 25.80 14%
c. 4 cu. yds. 30.30 34.40 14%
d. 5 cu. yds. 38.00 43.00 13%
e. 6 cu. yds. 45.50 51.60 13%
f. 8 cu. yds. 60.70 68.80 13%
(No change in City bin rental rates of $8.00, 8.00, 9.00, 10.00, 12.00 and 15.00)
5. Medimum-size compactor-type containers
a. 3 cu. yds. $30.50 $32.25 6%
b. 4 cu. yds. 40.70 43.00 6%
c. 5 cu. yds. 50.85 53.75 6%
d. 6 cu. yds. 61.05 64.50 6%
e. 8 cu. yds. 81.40 86.00 6%
6. Large compactor-type containers and cormnercial drop-bodies
a. 10 cu. yds. $45.00 $52.50 17%
b. 20 cu. yds. 47.00 72.00 53
c. 30 cu. yds. 52.50 80.00 52%
d. 40 cu. yds. 65.00 90.00 38%
These proposed rate increases will be on the Council Agenda for the meeting of
May 18,1987, to set a public hearing (and adoption) on June 1st, with an effective
date of July 1, 1987. Since the Water Department is on a daily billing basis,
and bills in arrears, the rate increases will start producing additional revenue
about the middle of August (figures 10~ months .... $488,726). If the rate increase
were to be in effect for the entire year, the revenue increase would be $570,000.
/?1l~ ~ /iYwu/f1D iJ
Manuel P. Moreno, Jr. /1
Director of Public Services
o
o
o
o
~rr
C I T Y
o F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8705-1001
TO: Raymond D. Schweitzer, City Administrator
FROM: David H. Anderson, Acting Planning Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Fee Revisions
DATE:
May 6, 1987
(7066)
COPIES:
Ronald Running, Senior Planner
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attached please find the proposed increases
various Planning Department applications and
back-up material.
in fees for the
the respective
Table I presents the existing (adopted July 1, 1983) and
proposed fees for the numerous Planning Department applica-
tions. Table II compares the City of San Bernardino Planning
fees with ten other Inland Empire jurisdictions. City fees
are shown to be generally lower than the majority of juris-
dictions who have revised fee schedules as of 1986.
Table III lists the actual costs to the City for processing
the various applications compared to the existing fees.
Costs were calculated on the average hourly wage for manage-
ment, general employees (planners) and clerical. Benefits
and other overhead costs are factored in at a conservative
industry standard figure of 2.0 times actual wage. All
application fees are significantly below the actual costs of
processing.
Table IV compares the projected revenues the department would
collect if the existing fees were continued or if the pro-
posed fees were implemented. Budgeted departmental expenses
for fiscal year 1986-87 are shown at the bottom of the table.
~~/
DAVID ANDERSON
Acting Planning Director
mkf
attachments: Tables I, II, III, and IV
"
o
o
o
TABLE I
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEES
TYPE OF APPLICATION
AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS.
BUILDING MOVING
EXISTING FEE
( 7/01/87)
PROPOSED FEE
$ 100 $ 200
$ 175 plus bldg. $ 400 plus bldg.
insp. fee insp. fee
CHANGE OF ZONE.
. . . .
. . . . . $
350 plus $25
per acre
$
700 plus $40 ac.
Home Occupation Permit
Condominium and PRD
Developments . . . . .
$ 350
$ 150
$ 800 plus $20/lot/d.u./
or ac.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
$ 350 plus $10
per unit
$ 800 plus $20/lot/d.u./
or ac.
On-site/Off-site sale of
alcoholic beverages.
. . . . . . $
550
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Negative Declaration
Notice of Exemption.
$
$
75
25
$ 175
$ 75
Environmental Imapct Report. $ Cost of prep. $ SAME
borne by applicant,
plus 15%
EXTENSIONS OF TIME. . . . . . . . $ 100
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
$ 250
Less than 100 acres.
$ 500
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
$ 1,500 plus $32/hr after
50 hours
Greater than 100 acres
GEOLOGY REPORT. . . . . . . . . . $ Preparation cost $ 60/hr.
borne by applic.
Also, City Geologist
fee charged at $50
per hour
LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW . . . . . $ 50 $ 100
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
INTERPRETATION. . . . . . . . . $ 50 $ 350
Q
o
o
o
TYPE OF APPLICATION
EXISTING FEE
(7/01/87)
PROPOSED FEE
REVIEW OF PLANS . . . . . . . . . $ 125
SIGN PERMIT REVIEW.
SPECIFIC PLAN . . .
$
$ 200 plus $15/lot/d.u./
or ac.
. . . . . . $ 100 plus cost of
mail ing
$ 25
Appeal . . . . .
10
$ Cost of prep. $ SAME
borne by applicant
plus 15%
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
Single-Family Tract Map
(Per Tract No.). .
Extension of Time. .
$ 400 plus $40 $ 800 plus $40/lot
$ 10% of orig. $ 20% of original fee
fee
$ 50% of orig. $ SAME
fee
Revised Tentative Map.
Condominium, Townhouse, PRO,
Mobilehome Subdivision
(Per Tract No.). .
$ 400 plus $10
per unit
$ 800 plus $20 per unit
Extension of Time.
$ 10% of orig.
fee
$ 20% of original fee
Revised Tentative Map.
$ 50% of orig.
fee
$ SAME
Parcel Map. . . . . . . . . . $ 200 plus $30 $ 500 plus $30/parcel
per parcel
involved
Revised Parcel Map. . . . $ 50% of orig.
fee
$ SAME
Lot Line Adjustment. . . . . . $ 200 plus $30 $ 500
per parcel
involved
VARIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 300
$ 500
Variances for Single Family
Residences . . . . . . . . .
$ 300
$ 250
Appeal of Conditions by Applicant.
c
o
o
o
TYPE OF APPLICATION
EXISTING FEE
(]f01/87)
PROPOSED FEE
Appeal of Conditions by Adjacent Property
Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 100
Appeal of Environmental Review Committee
Determination. . . . .
PLAN CHECK OF BUILDING PLANS.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW
. . . .
$
N/C
$ 125
$ 25
$ N/C
SIGN PROGRAM
Adminsitrative Review. $
Minor Deviation. . $
N/C
$
$
$
$
N/C
Prezoning Application Fee. $
Single Family Residence. . $
OTHER
Letters Confirming Zoning.
Flood Control Report. .
Special Service Request.
Density Bonus. . . . . .
. . . . . . $ 25
$ 125 $ 125
$ 50
$ 500 plus application
fee
.
C>
o
-
o
TABLE III
Cost vs. Fee Comparison
Application Type
Tentative Subdivision
Review of Plans
Review of Plans Revision
Landscape Plans
Change of Zone
Environmental Negative Declaration
Environmental Notice of Exemption
Existing
Fee
$400 - $40/lot
$125
$100
$50
$350 - $25/acre
$75
$25
o
Actual
Cost*
$950
$668
$398
$96
$666
$280 ea. mtg.
$158
* Actual costs based on average hourly wages of management, general
employee and clerical staff and conservative overhead factor.
o
JURISDICTION
Table II-A
comparis~of Fees: Mi~llaneous
CHANGE OF
ZONE
o
GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
SPECIFIC
PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$350. + $25/ac
$500. (100 ac Cost plus
or less) 15%
$1,000. (100+
ac)
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
COLTON
(7/85)
$700. + $40/ac
$500.
$1,000 (100 ac Same
or less) $1,500
plus.$32/m after
50 mm's (100 + ac)
$500.
FONTANA
(8/86)
$750.
By City $150 minor
Contract $3,500 inter-
mediate
$7,500 major
$600 + $15/ac
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$400. (less than
100)
$450 (1-10 ac)
$500 (11-20 ac)
$!jig (Jl taB)
$400.
$400 (l ac or
less)
$450 (1-10 ac)
$500 (11-20 ac)
Uig (21 I as)
$1,300 + $lO/ac $1,300 + $10/ $700 + $lO/ac
over 35 acres ac over 35 over 35 acres
acres
RIALTO
(7/83)
$724.
$500 + 10/ac
(not to exceed
$642. )
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
$950 + $20 lot
or acre
appeal $100
$1,500 + $20/
lot or acre
$2,000 + $20/ $800. + $20/ac
ac
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
$1,655
$2,390 + $20/ac
UPLAND
$560.
$1,000.
CORONA
(10/85)
$600 + $lO/ac
$600.
$1,200 + $10/
ac
$800. + $10/
ac w/o C.Z.
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$1,272.
$1,251
.
Table II-B
APPLIC~ON TYPE: va~nces
SINGLE FAMILY OTHER
o
JURISDICTION
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$ 300.
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
$ 300.
$ 500.
COLTON
(7/85)
$ 30. minor
$ 300.
FONTANA
(8/86)
$ 125. individual
$ 275. non-individual
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
$110 minor deviation
$ 350.
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$ 65.
$ 325.
RIALTO
(7/83)
$ 100. wino hearing $ 290.
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
$ 125. + $lO/lot or acre $ 400. + $20/1ot acre
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
$1080.
UPLAND
$ 60.
$ 500.
CORONA
(10/85)
$ 500. + $lO/lot
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$ 62. minor
$ 272.
o
Table II-C
APPLICATION ~E: Tentativ~ubdivisions
o
JURISDICTION
SINGLE FAMILY
TRACT
MULTI-FAMILY
TRACT
EXTENSION OF
TIME REVISIONS
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$400 + $40/1ot
$400 + $lO/du
10% of original 50% of
fee original
fee
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
$800 + $40/lot
$800. + $20/du
20% of original Same
fee
COLTON
(7/85)
$400 + 20/1ot
FONTANA
(8/86)
$400 + $lO/lot
vested map @
150% of reg.
fee
$700 (5-20 par-
cels)
$700 + $20/lot
(21-40 lots)
*
20% of original $100 minor
fee $150 major
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
25% of
original
fee
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$700 + $5/1ot
RIALTO
(7/83)
$300 + $lO/lot
$25
RIVERSIDE
CITY $1400 + 20/1ot $50 $600 +
(8/86) $lO/lot
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY $1855 $1855 + $12/1ot $154 $1320 +
( 7/85) + $lO/ac $lO/lot +
$lO/ac
UPLAND
$500 + $5/1ot
CORONA
<10/85 ) $775 or $20/1ot $115 $560 or
whichever is $lO/lot
greater whichever
is qreater
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86) $649 + $32/1ot $62 /$251
appeal
o
Table II-D
APPLICATION TYPE:(:lOT LINE ADJU~NTS/PARCEL MAPS
LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
o
JURISDICTION
PARCEL MAP
REVISION
EXTENSION
OF TIME
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$200 + $30/1ot
$200 + $30/1ot
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
$300 + $30/1ot
$500 + $30/lot
50% of original
fee
COLTON
(7/85)
$200 + 20/1ot
FONTANA
(8/86)
$200 + $lO/lot
Vesting P.M. @
150% of reg. fee
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
$200
$400
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$100 + $70/1ot
RIALTO $98 (4 or less
(7/83) $158 parcels)
$300 + 10/lot
(5+ parcels)
RIVERSIDE
CITY $800 $50
(8/86)
RIVERSIDE $1262 + $27/1ot $164
COUNTY
(7/85) $160 Residential
$1890 + $12/1ot
Comm'l & Ind.
UPLAND
$250
CORONA
<10/85 )
$710
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$207
$125 appeal
$62
o
~Table II-E ~
APPLICATI~TYPE: CONDI~NAL USE
CONDITIONAL HOME OCCUPATION EXTENSION OF
USE PERMIT PERMIT TIME
o
JURISDICTION
APPEALS/
REVISIONS
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$350
#350 + $lO/du
$150
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
$800 + $20/1ot
or du
$350
COLTON
(7/85)
$350 + $5/ac
$35
FONTANA
(8/86)
#300
$50
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
$300
$60
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$325
$35 $50
RIALTO $500 + $lO/ac
(7/83)
(not to exceed
$649)
RIVERSIDE $950 + $20/1ot $50 $100
CITY
(8/86) or ac
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY $1896 #135
(7/85)
UPLAND
$560
CORONA
(10/85)
$590 + $lO/ac
PUD $660 + $10/ $470 +
du $lO/ac
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$398
o
JURISDICTION
Table
APPLICATIOA:)YPE:
REVIEW OF
PLANS
II-F
Develo~nt Review
REVISION/APPEAL
EXT. OF TIME
o
LANDSCAPE
PLANS
$50
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$125
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
$200 + $15/1ot/du/$100 appeal
ac Comm'l Ind. ~
of assessed value
$100
COLTON
(7/85)
FONTANA
(8/86)
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
ONTARIO
(6/86)
Res. $75 + $lO/du
Comm'l $150 +
S37.C;O/;:]~ *
based on valuation
$400 ($0-50,000) $100 appeal
$450 (50,001-
100,000)
$500 (100,001-
I:\nn. nnn~ *
$100 minor no
public hearing
$400 major
RIALTO
(7/83)
$25 + $lO/du (4
or less du)
$50 + $lO/du (5
+du) *
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
$200 + $40/ac
$100 + $40/ ac
$100
$50
$75 + $40/ac
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
$1087 w/o hearing
$1667 w/hearing
UPLAND
$50
$50
CORONA
(10/85 )
$370
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$251 (comm'l/ind)
$1212 (resid)
0 Table II-G 0
APPLICATIO~YPE: Enviro~ntal Review
NEGATIVE NOTICE OF ENVIRONNENTAL APPEALS/
JURISDICTION DECLARATION EXEMPTION IMPACT REPORT ASSESSMENT
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO $ 75.00 $ 25.00 Cost + 15%
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO $175.00 $ 75.00 Same
PROPOSED
COLTON -Varies
(7/85)
FONTANA
(8/86) $ 50.00 $ 25.00 Cost + $1,000.00
Overhead
LOMA LINDA
(9/86) $ 45.00 Cost + 15%
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$100.00
$900.00
RIALTO
(7/83)
Resid. $70.00 +
$lO./ac
Comm'.l & Ind.
($70 + $5/100 sq.
-Ft ..: R 9XQ9~~ *
$ 25.00
$334.00 Process-
ing Fee
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
$125.00
$2,000. deposit $ 35.00
$100.00 for
EIR's
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
UPLAND
$ 60.00
CORONA
<10/85 )
$250.00
Cost + 15%
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
/$87. DRC
Table II-H
0 APPQATION TYPE: Qgns 0
JURISDICTION PERMANENT REMODELED
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO $ 10.00
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO $ 25.00
PROPOSED
COLTON
(7/85)
FONTANA
(8/86) $ 50.00
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
$ 10.00 + 30C/sq.ft.
$10.00 + 20c/sq.ft.
ONTARIO
(6/86)
RIALTO
(7/83)
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
$ 50.00 (less than 40 sf)
$125.00 (40-99 sf)
$200.00 (100+ sf)
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
UPLAND
CORONA
<10/85 )
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$ 32.00
$ 93 sign program
Table II-I
JURISDICTION
APPLICATION
APPEALS OF
CONDITIONS
TYPE: Appeals
APPEAL BY ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNERS
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
COLTON
(7/85)
FONTANA
(8/86)
~ of original fee
$100.00
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
ONTARIO
(6/86)
$100.00
RIALTO
(7/83)
$ 25.00
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
UPLAND
$ 85. public hearing
$ 50. non-public
hearing
CORONA
(10/85)
$100.00
$220.00 to City
Council
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
$ 62.00
o
Table II-J
APPLICA~N TYPE: Mis~laneous
ON-SITE REQUEST FOR
SALE OF PLANNING
ALCOHOLIC GEOLOGY COMMISSION
BEVERAGES REPORT INTERPRETATIONS
o
JURISDICTION
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
$50/hour
$50
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
PROPOSED
$550
$60/hour
$350
COLTON
(7/85)
FONTANA
(8/86)
$200
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
ONTARIO
(6/86)
RIALTO
(7/83)
$50 + cost
of
consultant
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
UPLAND
CORONA
<10/85 )
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
0 0 0 0
FLOOD
PLAN CHECK CONTROL DENSITY
JURISDICTION OF BUILDING REPORT BONUS
CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO $125
EXISTING
(7/1/83)
CITY OF $500 +
SAN BERNARDINO regular
PROPOSED $125 $125 application
fee
COLTON
(7/85)
FONTANA
(8/86)
LOMA LINDA
(9/86)
ONTARIO
(6/86)
RIALTO
(7/83)
RIVERSIDE
CITY
(8/86)
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
(7/85)
UPLAND
CORONA
(10/85)
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
(2/86)
75 % of
Bldg. Permit
fee
0 0 0 0
TABLE IV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REVENUE PROJECTIONS
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
NUMBER OF REVENUE AT REVENUE AT
CASES EXISTING PROPOSED
APPLICATION TYPE 1987/88 RATES RATES
General Plan Amendment -0- $ -0- $ -0-
Change of Zone 30 13,500 28,500
Variance 35 10,500 17 , 500
Tentative Tracts 35 84,000 98,000
Extension of Time 8 2,240 4,480
Revision 3 3,000 3,000
Parcel Maps 30 12,000 21,000
Extension of Time 8 800 800
Revision 2 200 400
Lot Line Adjustments 40 12,000 16,000
Revision 2 360 400
Conditional Use Permits 85 45,900 88,400
Extension of Time 25 3,750 5,000
Revision 8 1,000 1,600
Review of Plans 175 21,875 48,125
Extension of Time 15 1,500 2,250
Revision 20 2,000 3,000
Landscape Plans 35 1,750 5,250
Sign Review 200 2,000 5,000
Environmental:
Negative Declaration 200 15,000 35,000
Categorical Exemptions 75 1,875 5,625
Materials 250/mo. 3,000 3,000
Total $ 238,250 $ 392,330
FY 1986/87 Department Budget $ 614,045
Estimated FY 1987/88 Department Budget
o
C I T Y 0 F nA N B ERN ~ DIN 0
INTE~FICE MEMORAN~M
8705-101
o
TO:
Ray Schweitzer, City Administrator
IH'~ ~
S C"l
:oJ: Q
~ -,
,~
en ~.
;l
FROM:
Paul E. Turner, Director, Animal Control
SUBJECT:
Animal Control Fees
DATE:
May 6,
1987
(7066)
r::
o
(;)
""
.."
COPIES:
-
Animal Control fees and charges were closely scrutinized by
Ways and Means Committee during spring of 1986 and by ful I
council during a public hearing on July 7,1986.
At that public hearing most fees charged were adjusted to
reflect current costs to provide those services. Increases
were approved in; dog license fees, research sales, contrac-
tee fees, I ivestock fees, apprehension fees, board fees and
vacc i nat i on fees.
Three fees previously charged for animal control services
were eliminated at that time; field service fees, verteri-
narian pick up fees and owner release charges. We propose
Mayor and Counci I re-institute two of these fees; field
service fees and owner release charges.
EI~b~_~~B~I~~~_E~~~l
Previously, when an owner of a dog, cat or other domestic
type animal, telephoned our office wanting to dispose of that
animal we provided that owner with the necessary information.
If that person requested we dispatch an animal control
officer to their location to pick up and transport their
animal, we collected a "field service pick up fee" of $6.00
(this fee only relates to an 2~n~~ of an animal requesting
our transporting, not to a citizen reporting a stray animal).
At the July 7, 1986 publ ic hearing staff was recommending
increasing that fee from $6.00 to $10.00. Counci I, after
discussion voted to eliminate the fee as it was believed
people would rather abandon these animals than pay the fees.
Since el imination of the fee, we have not seen any change in
reports of abandonment of animals. We have experienced a
significant increase in the number of requests to transport
2~n~~ animals because people are becoming more aware we
provide this service at no charge, therefore, they have no
incentive to bring the animal in themselves. Furthermore,
with increases in workload in nearly every other area of our
responsibil ities, Field Services Staff time must be redi-
rected from other areas to provide this "free" service.
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM:~705-101
Animal Control Fees
May 6, 1987
Page 2
o
o
Staff recommends re-establ ishment of the Field Service Pick-
up Fee, at $10.00. Thi s fee wi II hel p offset the cost to
provide the service to those who have no other way of trans-
porting their animals to the shelter, while at the same time
act as an incentive to others to provide their own transpor-
tation to the shelter. San Bernardino County currently
charges $12.00 for this same service. If the fee is re
establ ished at $10.00, we estimate an annual revenue of
$3,700.
Q~~~B_B~b~8~~_E~~~1
Owner Re I ease Fees is a comb i nat i on of fees co II ected to
offset the cost of providing the service for 2~n~~ !nlm!!~
(this fee is not related to a citizen releasing a "stray"
animal into our custody).
Prior to July 7, 1986 when these fees were eliminated, we
collected "owner release fees" as follows:
ADOPTION
~~Bn~~ ~1~EQ~8b
DOGS (over 4 months agel $1 2 . 00 $5.00
PUPS (under 4 months age) 6.00 2.00
CATS AND KITTENS 6.00 2.00
DEAD DISPOSAL 1.00
Persons who bring their animals to the shelter who no longer
can provide a home for the animal make their own decision as
to the fate of that animal. They may choose the "Adoption
Service" meaning we wi I I place that animal for adoption
(provide feed and maintenance) for a minimum of 4 days. At
the end of those 4 days, they may return and retake posses-
sion of the animal, or it will be humanely disposed of. They
may wish the animal be immediately "put-to-sleep" (for a
variety of reasons). Whatever their decision, a fee (out-
I ined above) would be charged to offset that cost of service.
We have experienced a significant increase in owner
from outside our city limits, due, (we believe) to
that virtually all other surrounding jurisdictions
fee for this service. San Bernardino County Shelter
fees s imi lar to those proposed.
re I eases
the fact
charge a
charges
Prior to July, 1986 we discovered that approximately 70Y. of
the persons wi shing to dispose of their animal s chose (and
wi II ingly paid for) the "Adoption Service".
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM:c:1705-101
Animal Control Fees
May 6, 1987
Page 3
o
o
The ~~!~ 8nlm!! ~lHl2~!! Fee is a charge lev i ed to those who
bring dead animals to our shelter for disposal. Current
costs to the City is $8,400 annually for freezer rental and
disposal service (not to include electrical charges). Some
veterinarians choose not to pay for dead animal removal
serv ices from the i r p I aces of bus i ness because they can
uti I ize our freezer at no charge.
Staff rec ommends re-estab Ii shment of the
as described to include, "Adoption
Service" and "Dead Animal Service".
generate an annual revenue estimated at
Q~n~~ B~!~!~~ E~~~
Set'"vicell, IIDisposal
These charges would
$32,000.
The proposed 87/88 Animal Control Budget includes a $220,000
deficit. The re-establ ishment of the herein proposed fees
would reduce that deficit to $184,300.
/
i
,
("-'-;?j;'/i~;~ ~c-,
Pau~ E. Turner
"Director, Animal Control
--~-