HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Fees and Charges Work Session
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
January 22,2008
Work Session
Finance _ ~
Bob Brew \?Y
726-3698
30 Minutes
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
FEES AND CHARGES WORK SESSION
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Council is requested to discuss the information presented and to give
direction to ,staff if further information is desired.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The City of Springfield imposes a variety of discretionary fees and charges
on Springfield citizens and on those wishing to do business within the City
limits. Council directed staff to present general information on these charges
with special emphasis on cost recovery efforts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Council Briefing Memorandum
Attachment B: Fees and Charges Calendar
DISCUSSION:
Income from the City's various fees and charges are an important part of the
revenue stream needed to operate the City. The cost of providing the
services associated with some of these fees and charges is easily determined.
F or other charges, it is more difficult.
For several years, City staff have worked on developing a cost-recovery
model for land use activities. The City now recovers a significantly higher
proportion of its costs on these types of permit fees.
The City's schedules of fees and charges are brought before Council at least
once per year. A draft calendar of this process is attached.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 3, 2008
Gino Grimaldi, City Manag~._rd..
Bob Brew, Budget Officer ~
Fees& Charges Work Session
COUNCIL'
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
The City of Springfield imposes a variety of discretionary fees and charges on Springfield
citizens and on those wishing to do business within the City limits. Council directed staff to
present general information on these charges with special emphasis on cost recovery efforts.
BACKGROUND:
Like most cities, the City of Springfield uses a combination of taxes, fees, fines and other smaller
revenue sources to fund its operations and capital investments. These revenue sources each play
an important role in the finances of the City, but they are not interchangeable. Taxes, in general,
are defined as being applied to a class of citizens or businesses equally and are not avoidable.
The largest example in Oregon is the property tax. Fines are applied on an individual basis, but
are generally used to discourage undesirable behavior. Fees are assessed to businesses or
individuals as a method of recovering a portion of costs associated with permitting the activity
they wish to engage in. They differ from taxes in that they are entirely avoidable and are applied
to individuals or individual businesses based on their actions.
Many different departments in the City have specific fees and/or charges that change from time
to time, but they all must be reviewed and approved by the City Council before they can be
modified or new charges added. To the extent possible, staff try to bring all changes to the
primary fee schedules to the City Council at one time. '
There are three main documents that outline the fees and charges as~essed by the City of
Springfield:
· The Municipal Code specifies several activities for which a fee will be charged.
The actual fee amounts are adopted by Council Resolution.
· The Building Safety Code contains fees and charges as allowed by the State of
Oregon specifically related to construction activities. These fees are adopted via
Council Ordinance.
· The Master Schedule of Miscellaneous Fees and Charges, Rates, Permits, and
Licenses contains a variety of other fees and charges that are not required by the
Municipal Code or the Building Safety Code, but have been determined to be
necessary through other Council action or direction. Some examples include the
Fire Marshal inspection fees and ambulance transportation rates. These fees are
" also adopted by resolution. '
Attachment A - Page 1 of 4
The level of each fee is based on one or more of the following criteria:
. Maximum rate established by Oregon Revised Statutes (e.g. liquor license fees,
franchise fees)
. Rate is determined via calculation (e.g. Systems Development Charges, sewer
user charges)
. Rate is determined via negotiation with Council (e.g. garbage collection rates)
. Minimal charge to cover cost of processing paperwork (e.g. parade fees,
Christmas tree lots)
'. Charge is based on the work costs incurred, City-wide, to provide a service (e.g.
planning fees, land drainage and alteration permits)
Although no specific fee rates are determined by comparing our charges with similar fees
charged by other jurisdictions, it is a consideration in most fee discussions.
In all cases, the City cannot charge more for a particular permit or fee than the City's actual costs
incurred. Very few City fees lend themselves to full cost recovery: Either the City's processing
effort is so inexpensive that calculating costs would not be not cost-effective; there may be
overriding social issues that outweigh cost recovery; or charging the full cost would result in
individuals bypassing the permitting process altogether. One notable exception is planning fees,
also known as Land Use Application Fees.
Land Use Application Fees are a general category that covers multiple individual fees (See
current schedule of charges in Exhibit 1). All of these fees are associated with changing the
current or approved use of real property. The time associated with providing the services
described by these fees vary widely between types of applications and even within the same
application type. For instance, two Master Plan amendments (type II) may require vastly
differing amounts of staff time. No two applications are exactly alike or require the same amount
of staff time. Because of these differences, calculating cost recovery has been a long,
complicated, and necessarily inexact pro.cess.
Planning Fees Timeline
Prior to 1994:
During this period, Land Use development fees were set by comparing Springfield fees with
those established in other Willamette Valley jurisdictions. As an economic development tool,
fees were kept low in comparison with other jurisdictions.
1994:
Fees of comparable jurisdictions were considered, but the actual cost for providing service was
also looked at for the first time. Cost recovery was set at roughly 50%, but the costs included
only wages and benefits of direct Planning employees worl<ing on land use applications. Costs
for supervision, supplies and equipment (M & S), and overhead were excluded, as were all the
costs associated with Public Works and Fire and Life Safety employees processing the same
applications. The 50% cost recovery formula was based only on the amount of time it took staff
Attachment A - Page 2 of 4
to process a complete application with no changes or complications. The methodology,
therefore, did not account for the extra effort needed to process more difficult applications.
1996:
The City Council directed that the cost recovery target increase to 60% for parcels inside the City
limits and 65% for parcels outside the City limits. For the first time, costs of some Public Works
employees were included in the calculation. The formula did not change much otherwise.
1999:
The City Council directed that the cost recovery target increase to 70% for parcels inside the City
limits and 75% for parcels outside the City limits. The formula now contained salaries and
benefits for all Planning and Public Works staff working on Land Use applications and a
contribution equal to 10% of salaries for materials and equipment. The cost recovery target was
still based on the "Complete Application Processing Time" formula.
2001:
Council directed staff to set fees based on 100% cost recovery. Costs now included all personnel
costs (except for Fire and Life Safety reviews), some amount for M &, S, an overhead
contribution, and an inflator to allow revenues to keep pace with expenses.
2003:
A Full-costing or Activity-Based Costing model was approved by Council. This model is more
in keeping with private-sector cost recovery models, and takes into account the new realities of
Land Use Application processing time. In 2003, when this model was implemented, it was
estimated the City was recovering about 26% of costs based on this model. A 21 % fee increase
for 2004 brought the recovery up to 34%. Council directed fees were to be raised over several
years to ultimately bring the City up to 75% cost recovery. For Fiscal Year 2005, cost recovery
was at 39%. For Fiscal Year 2006, it was at 48%, and for Fiscal Year 2005, cost recovery was at
55%. The difficulty with reaching the 75% target is related to the developing nature ofthe
model; cost and revenue expectations are constantly being refined. Since most of the costs in the
model are related to personnel expenses, permit fees would have to increase each year at a rate
equal to the increase in personnel expenses just to stay at the same level of cost recovery. Since
Springfield's charges are among the highest in the state, there has been reluctance to consistently
raise them.
2007:
In 2007, it was recognized that the Fire Marshal's office had .5 FTE dedicated to Land Use
applications, and these costs were added to the model.
2008:
Estimates of cost recovery are being developed.
The cost recovery model used for Land Use fees has been relatively successful and could
theoretically be applied to other fee types; however the Land Use fees appear to be unique for
several reasons:
Attachment A - Page 3 of 4
. Processing these types of applications is a primary responsibility of several easy-to-
identify staff
. The volume of these permits is significant enough to justify a cost-recovery model
. There is sufficient variation between permit types and between individual permits, that
setting individual fees based on processing time would be inefficient and inequitable.
The City is embarking on a significant process improvement effort. As the City's fees and
charges are examined as part of this process, staff will continue to look for opportunities to
calculate cost recovery on other fee types.
Fees and Charges Calendar
City staff attempt to limit the number of times changes are made each year to the City's
schedules of fees and charges. Ideally, changes are processed on<;;e per year in the spring or early
summer, and the new rates go into effect on July 1. This coincides with the change in the fiscal
year and provides some level of certainty to our regular customers. In some cases, however, mid-
year fee changes or additions are unavoidable. These changes are almost always unusual or
unexpected and frequently involve new fees or changes that cannot wait until the July 1
implementation date.
A calendar of the projected fees and charges timeline is attached.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Council is requested to discuss the information presented and to give direction to staff if further
information is desired. '
Attachment A - Page 4 of 4
DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICATION FEES
Effective 12-3-2007
APP:LIGA:fIONTyPE; (:IT:\' LiM.IrS :iJR;BjiNG:RQWi:ii: BpuNrii\i{\i: TYPE
DESIGN REVIEW CASE TYPES
Accessory Dwelling Unit $705 $705 Type I
Demolition of Historic Landmark $3,37 I $5,086 Type III
Discretionary Use $3,717 $5,606 Type III
DWP Overlay District Development $990 $990 Type I
Establishment of Historic Landmark Inventory $1,866 $1,866 Type III
Final Site Plan Review/Development Agreement (I) See Footnote (I) See Footnote (I) Type I
Final Site Plan Equivalent $3,651 $3,651 Type I
HD Hillside Development Overlay District $888/acre $888/acre Type II
Historic Commission Review Under Type I $58 $152 Type I
Historic Commission Review Under Type II $171 $453 Type II
HS Hospital Support Overlay District $2,834+$568/acre N/A Type II
Temporary Use - Emergency Medical Hardship (SDC 36.135) $268 $268 Type II
Temporary Use - Manufactured Dwelling (SC 36,130) $360 $360 Type I
Minimum Development Standards $705 N/A Type I
Minor Variance (Up to 30%) $2,362 $2,362 Type II
Determination ofNon~Conforming Use Status $104 $155 Type I
Non-Conforming Use - ExpansionIModification $3,717 $5,606 Type II
Pre-Submittal Meeting $336 $505 N/A
Site Plan Review
a. <10,000 square feet of impervious surface $4,099 $4,099 Type II
b. 10,000 - 100,000 square feet of impervious surface $4,099+$264/1000 sq $4,099+$264/1000 sq ft Type II
c, >100,000 square feet of impervious surface $4,099+$308/1000 sq $4,099+$308/1000 sq ft Type II
Site Plan Review Modification - Major $3,956 $3,956 Type II
Site Plan Review Modification- Minor $1,205 $1,818 Type I
Solar Access Guarantee $759 $917 Type II
Tree Felling Permit Base Fee (2) $956 $956 Type II
Department of Motor Vehicles Licensing - New $683 $820 Permit
Departme,nt of Motor Vehicles Licensing - Renewal $273 $330 Permit
Final Site Plan Inspection for Occupancy/LUC/Change of Use $273 $273 Permjt
Land Use Compatibility Statement! Letter $273 $295 Permit
Plan Review - Minor $116 $277 Permit
Plan Review - Major $205 $277 Permit
LONG RANGE PLANNING CASE TYPES
Amendment of Development Code Text $7,189 $10,846 Type IV
Annexation (minor boundary changes) N/A Consisting of Less than I acre........ ..2,080 Type IV
Consisting of I acre> 5 acres..,...... ..2,660
Consisting of 5 acre> 10 acres....... ..3,550
Consisting of 10 acres> 25 acres" " .4,480
Consisting of25 acres> 50 acres"", ,5,560
Consisting of 50 acres> 100 acres.. ....6,400
Consisting of 100 acres or more....,......8,820
Annexation Comprehensive Plannin!? Fee per acre N/A $1,902 Type IV
Conceptual Development Plan $13,276 $20,026 Type III
Conceptual Development Plan Amendment $5,143 $7,758 Type III
Extraterritorial Wastewater or Water Line Extensions N/A 2,080 Type IV
. Master Plan Amendment Type I $2,554 $3,830 Type I
Master Plan Amendment Type II $5,143 $7,758 Type II
Master Plan Amendment Type III $9,391 $13,729 Type III
Master Plan Approval $1 8,266+$6 I 6/acre $27,498+6 I 6/acre Type III
Metro Plan Amendment Type I (acre fee for diagram amendment) $21,l19+$616/acre $31,859+$616/acre Type IV
Metro Plan Amendment Type II (acre fee for diagram amendment) $10,24it$616/acre $13, 137+$6 I 6/acre Type IV
Refinement Plan Amendment (acre fee for diagram amendment) $1O,242+$616/acre $1 5,450+$6 I 6/acre Type IV
Vacation Public Easements $1,205 $1,818 Type II
Vacation ROW, Subdivision Plat and other public property $4,604 $6,946 Type IV
Street Name Change $4,604 N/A N/A
Exhibit 1 - Page 1 of 3
I. . ' '<:::Appj:)(:ATioNTYrJt:<<<>:>:<:lciTYLlJVUTSluRBANGROWtiiBouNVARY :1>TYPE:1
SHORELINE CASE TYPES
Floodplain Development Base Fee (3) (4)
WilIamette Greenway Overlay District Development:
Greenway Setback Line already established
Greenway Setback Line not already established
SUBDIVISION CASE TYPES
LDR Subdivision Tentative Plan
a, <2 acres
b. 2 acres to 5 acres
c, 5 acres to 10 acres
d, 10 acres to 20 acres
e. Greater than 20 acres
Manufactured Dwelling Park
Manufactured Dwelling Park-Space Line Adjustment
Non- LDR Subdivision Tentative Plan
Partition Plat (5)
Partition Replat Plat (5)
Partition Replat Tentative Plan (5)
Partition Tentative Plan (5)
Property Line Adjustment
Serial Property Line Adj ustments
Non-LDR Subdivision Plat
Subdivision Plat LDR
Subdivision Replat Plat (5)
Subdivision Replat Tentative Plan (5)
Expedited Land Division (6) ,
ZONING CASE TYPES
Appeal ofType II Director's Decision (7) ORS. 227.175
Appeal of Expedited Land Division (7)
Appeal of Type III Decision to City Council
Development Issues Meeting
Fonnal Interpretation
Formal Interpretation involving Policy
Pre-Application Report
Major Variance
Zoning Map Amendment (8)
POINT OF SALE
Time Extension for Certain Improvements
Postage and Notification Fees:
Type II
Type III
Type IV
Ballot Measure 56 mailing & postage = stafftime at hourly rate of
$75 plus materials and postage
$1,073
$1,619
Type I
$2,804
$5,604+$568/acre
$5,936
$8,016+568/acre
Type III
Type III
$5,357+$230/lot
$7,583+$379/1ot
$10,031 + $602/lot
$1O,582+$614/1ot
$11,133+$669/lot
$9,580
$364
$9,458+$568/acre
$2,599
$1,781
$3,026
$4,729
$604
$1,210
$3790+$6 1 6/acre
$740+$462/lot
$1,781
$4,918
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$14,452
$965
$9,458+$568/acre
$2,599
$1,781
$7,989
$8,656
$912
$1,823
$3790+$6 1 6/acre
$740+$462/1ot
$1,781
$5,951
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type II
Type I
Type II
Type 1
Type 1
Type II
Type II
Type 1
Type II
Type 1
Type I,
Type I
Type II
Type II
$250 $250
$311 $311
$2,254 $3,400
$506 $506
$1,717 $2,232
$4,604 $6,946
$3,450 $3,450
$6,164 $9,298
$5,027 $9,858
$312 $1,013
$155 $155
$207 $207
$259 $259
Type III
Type III
Type IV
N/A
Type II
Type IV
N/A
Type III
Type III
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exhibit 1 - Page 2 of 3
(1) Final site plan and development agreement fee is 10% of the paid site plan fee,
(2) Tree Felling Fees - Tree Felling - Less than five (5) trees no charge or application required; 6-10 trees, base fee (see fee schedule) + $50 per tree; > 10
trees, Base Fee (see fee schedule) + $500 per acre. Filbert Orchards pay base fee only,
Any Tr,ee Felling processed after land use activity is conducted without required City approvals shall be charged an additional fee of $200 per tree in addition
,to the regular application fee, The City establishes these fees based on the average cost of providing programmatic service for activities conducted without
permits.
(3) An Floodplain permit processed after land use activity is conducted without required City approvals shall be charged an additional fee of $500 per acre in
addition to the regular application fee, The City establishes these fees based on the average cost of providing programmatic service for activities conducted
without permits.
(4) Floodplain - Subdivision $200 per lot and partitions and site plans $400 per acre in addition to the base fee, For development areas >5 acres a $13,650
deposit is required.
(5) A reconfiguration oflots or a decrease in the number oflots jn a platted partition or subdivision shall be charged the tentative replat/replat plat fee for
either subdivision or partition as appropriate. An increase in the number of lots in a platted partition or subdivision shall be charged either the partition
tentative plan/partition plat or subdivision tentative/subdivision plat.
(6) The fee for a Expedited Land Division (ELD) shall be twice the fee calculated for a regular land division plus an appeal fee established in ORS 197.380 to
defray costs in event the decision is appealed, If the decision is not appealed, the appeal fee for ELD shall be refunded, A separate postage fee is required for
an ELD.
(7) This fee is established by ORS, 227.175. Council acknowledge Neighborhood Associations shall not be charged a fee for an appeaL
(8) Thl: Development Services Department will process citizens-initiated zoning map amendments, for properties where the zoning and plan designation are
in conflict, three times a year beginning in January, There will be no application fee for applicants who choose to utilize this program, however a Type III
notification fee will be required for each application.
TechnolofllJ Fee: All applications will be assessed a 5% technology fee with the exception of Pre-Submittal Meeting, Development Issues Meeting, Pre-
Application Report, Appeal of Type II Director's Decision, Appeal of Expedited Land Division, and all Point of Sale fees (Time Extension and
Postag(:/Notification Fees) as indicated on this schedule. Technology Fee will be applied when the identified applications fees are imposed or collected,
Note for all local appeals: If an appellant prevails at the hearing or subsequent hearing. The filing fee for the initial fee shall be refunded, This applies to
local appeals only. The appellant prevails if the hearings body sustains one or more of the applicants allegations and amends, remands or reverses the land
use decision,
Hearinf! Official fee: Any applications except an appeal being processed before the Hearings Official shall pay an additional fee of $5,000. Any amount not
expended by the Hearings Official shall be returned to the applicant. Charges in excess of this additional fee shall be assessed to the applicant.
Low Income Fee Reduction: Any application fee related to the development of low income housing or facilities may be reduced pursuant to the criteria of
Section 1.070(4) of the Springfield Development Code.
Expedited Processinf! Fee: Any request to prioritize and expedite the review of a particular application submittal out of order in which applications are
received, shall be approved at the discretion of the Director and shall be charged a non-refundable fee $11,000 or 3 times the application fee, whichever is
greater; where the development area is greater than 10 acres an additrional fee of $550 per acre will be charged, '
Fee Wrriver: The Director may reduce or waive the fee for Temporary Use - Emergency Medical Hardship upon verification of low income status of the
owner occupant.
Resolution #04-29; July 1, 2004; Fee Increase
Resolution #05-03; January 18, 2005; Fee Increase Effective January 19, 2005
Resolution #05-36; June 6, 2005; Fee Increase Effective July 1. 2005
Resolution #06-12; March 20,2006. Effective Apri/20. 2006
Resolution #06-30; June 19, 2006, Effective August 1. 2006
Resolution #07-21; May 21,2007, Effective July 1. 2007
Resolution #07-56; December 3, 2007. Effective December 3, 2007
Exhibit 1 - Page 3 of 3
CALENDAR FOR UPDATES TO SCHEDULES OF
CITY FEES AND CHARGES
. December 2007 through February 2008 - Discussions with Department
Directors regarding need for new or changed fees during development of
the FY200812009 budget.
. April 7, 2008 - MWMC Council Work Session on regional rates
. April 14, 2008 - MWMC rate-setting Public Hearing before Springfield
City Council advertised.
. April 21, 2008 - Public Hearing and adoption of new MWMC rates
. May 12,2008 - Public Hearing on Fees and Charges advertised
. May 19,2008 - Council Work Session and Public Hearing regarding
adoption of new rates
. June 30, 2008 - New rates go into effect
Attachment B