HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/1999 Work Session
.
.
.
;,
. '
,
.'
...
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 1,1999
The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 1, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Ballew
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Council President Ballew, Councilors Fitch, Lundberg and Simmons. Absent were
Mayor Maine, Councilors Hatfield and Leiken (all excused). Also present were City Manager
Michael Kelly, City Attorney Tim Harold, Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, City
Recorder Julie Wilson and members of the staff.
1. Fees and Charges Review.
Mr. Duey provided council with handouts regarding exception to fees presented as percentage
of cost recovery, Community Development Departments, Attachment D.
Mr. Duey then provided the staff presentation on this issue. The Council has reviewed
possible fee changes on two previous occasions and staffhas incorporated the
recommendations received during those reviews into the current information. Prior to
preparing a fee change resolution for Council consideration and public review, staff is
requesting that a final review be given.
The city regularly reviews established fees and charges. Many fees are on annual review
cycles, structured to automatically charge in relation to a particular index, or as part of the
city" policy of 100% cost recovery for those fees. Other fees charged by the city have been
updated less regularly. The final review by council, prior to formal adoption, is intended to
clarify the recovery policy for each of the fees included. Once established and adopted, these
fees will be included in the annual reviews.
The city collects numerous fees and charges for the services that it offers. They range from
complex calculations for the collection of sewer user fees, to the cost of a patron using a coin
operated copy machine in the library, to long term leasing arrangements for space at Booth-
Kelly or City Hall.
The fees and charges that are part of this review are those that do not have a current routine
review process in place and that are currently being recommended for a change. The intent is
to allow those processes that are currently in place for annual reviews to continue as
designed, attempt to bring these additional fees to an appropriate level, and then, starting next
fiscal year, follow an improved process that allows the city to review all fees on a timely
basis. At the May 11, 1998, work session certain fees were identified that would not be
recommended for a change at this time. Those fees are not included in this review process
and have been deleted from the charts.
Examples of fees that will not be part of this review because of the reasons stated above are:
. Fees currently reviewed annually
Sewer user fees, EMS ambulance charges, FireMed membership, SDC's
..
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1999
Page 2
.
Building Code (at State statutoriallimit)
. Negotiated Contracts
Booth-Kelly leases, City Hall leases, EMS account billing services
. Fees adjusted administratively
Routine photo copy office charges
. Internal fees
Indirects, internal service charges
. Service Fees
Direct charges to the public but where no change in the current fee is recommended
Previous discussions with Council have established a methodology for identifying the cost of
providing a particular service on which to base the fee. Although in some cases the costs
arrived at are based on estimates or average time spent on a particular task, it is believed that
the cost of service used in establishing fees are appropriate. The components that make up the
cost of services are:
. Full recovery of staff time spent (including wages and benefits)
. Cost of materials and services (in most cases an estimate or average)
. Department overhead cost (included supervision, space requirements, capital outlay)
. City overhead cost (includes city manager's office, support services, city attorney's time)
.
There are two charts included for review. The first chart, Recommended Fee Changes for
Full Cost Recovery, includes eleven (II) separate fees that are being recommended for
change. Each of these fees have been identified as ones that the city should expect to recover
100% of its cost. Four of the fees included will be new, having received direction at the prior
work sessions to have them included.
The second chart, Fees Presented as a Percentage of Cost Recovery, are all fees from the
City's Community Development Departments (development services and public works). The
Council last completed a review of these fees in 1996 and established a general policy that
within the urban growth boundary the expectation was to recover an average of 60% of the
cost of service through fees and charges. This policy was followed at that time and certain
fees were adjusted accordingly. In the May 1998 work session, Council reviewed the 60%
cost of service recovery policy and directed staff to draft a fee schedule following a 75%
recovery policy for their review. Attachment B identifies each of the services, the current fee
being charged, the full cost of providing the service, the fee ifthe policy was changed to 75%
recovery, and the appropriate fee ifthe fees were readjusted to follow the current 60%
recovery policy. If the policy is altered to reflect 75% service cost recovery, there are 9
services that staff would recommend be considered for a service cost recovery target of less
than 75%. These 9 will be discussed at the work session.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide staff with direction to proceed with the formal adoption of a new fee schedule that
includes an identified recommended percentage of service cost recovery for community
development services planning fees, and stipulate that these fees be included in the annual
review and adjustment of fees.
Mr. Duey reviewed Attachment B as follows:
.
.
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1 999
Page 3
.
.
MUNICIPAL COURT
Special computer reports
Collection fees
Non-sufficient funds fee
Current
Fee
RECOMMENDED FEE CHANGES FOR FULL COST RECOVERY
MUNICIPAL COURT, LIBRARY, AND POLICE
Recommended Fee
For Full Cost Recovery
$30. per hr wi $15. min.
20% + 5%
$20.00
#
Comments
Consistent wi Police charge for special reports
Contractual Service
City-wide
None
None
None
LIBRARY # Comments
Nonresident fee for Library card $36 per yr, $20 per 6 Study completed, adjusted for inflation
mo., and $11. per 3
mo.
Current Recommended Fee
POLICE Fee For Cost Recovery # Comments
Microfilm copies $5. first 4 pages, .50 $15. per report Consistent wi other local law enforcement agencies
each addt'l
Photographs .28 per photo Actual cost wi $5. min. Consistent wi other local law enforcement agencies
Copy charge for Police reports $5. first page, .50 $10.00 Consistent wi other local law enforcement agencies
each addt'l
Certified copies of Police reports $5. first 4 pages, .50 $15.00 Consistent wi other local law enforcement agencies
each addt'l
Vehicle impounds None $55.00 Based on costs and Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police study
Recommended Fee
Public Works For Cost Recovery # Comments
Sidewalk permit $10.+.15 per ft $60.+ .06 per lineal foot Based on cost of service
Curb Cut permit $10.+.15 per ft $60. for first, $30. For second Based on cost of service
Encroachment permit $20.00 $80.00 37 Based on cost of service
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1999
Page 4
.
Mr. Duey reviewed the Municipal Court fees related to special computer reports, collection
fees and the non-sufficient funds fee.
Mr. Duey reviewed Library nonresident fees for library cards. Library Director Bob Russell
answered questions from council.
Mr. Duey discussed the Police Department fees related to microfilm copies, photographs,
copy charges for reports, certified copies and vehicle impounds. Captain Jerry Smith
answered questions from council.
Mr. Duey reviewed Public Works Department fees. Public Works Director Dan Brown
answered questions from Council.
Mr. Duey reviewed Attachment C as follows:
.
.
.
.
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March I, 1999
Page 5
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
FEES PRESENTED AS PERCENTAGE OF COST RECOVERY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS
Vacation of ROW, etc.
Refine Txt Amendment
Amend Development Code
Site Plan Review Modification
Time Extension
850.00
1,175.00
1,155.00
195.00
100.00
1
1
5
12
8
790.00
3,360.00
1,770.00
840.00
115.00
590.00
2,520.00
1,325.00
630.00
85.00
Subdivision Plat
Vacate Easement
Modify. of Provisions
Partition Preliminary Plan
Refinement Plan Dia. Amendment
Appeal of Director's Decision
Manufactured Dwelling Park
Partition/Final Map
Metro Plan Major Amendment
Metro Plan Minor Amendment
840.00
1,770.00
575.00
4,670.00
1,930.00
HS Overlay District Development
HD Overlay District Development"
Discretionary Use
Discretionary Use/Site Plan Review
WG with Setback Established
1,970.00
1,580.00
472.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
2,016.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,060.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
504.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
68.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
736.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
468.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
732.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
676.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,812.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
672.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,416.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
460.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
3,736.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,544.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
412.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
856.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
724.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,996.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
724.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,180.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
948.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
.
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1999
Page 6
.
.
Minimum Development Standards
Variances
Expedited Land Division
0.00
600.00
1,600.00
13
9
1
420.00
1,300.00
2,290.00
315.00
975.00
1,715.00
252.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
780.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,372.00 Follow directive, increase recovery to 75%
1,412.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
sessIOn
Subdivision Tentative Plan 600.00 16 2,570.00 1,925.00 1,540.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
seSSIOn
Master Plan 750.00 4,135.00 3,100.00 2,480.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
sessIOn
Annexation 830.00 16 1,790.00 1,340.00 1,072.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
seSSIOn
Conceptual Development Plan 1,275.00 3,550.00 2,660.00 2,128.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
seSSIon
Pre- Application Conference 210.00 24 1,470.00 1,100.00 880.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
sessIOn
Pre Development Plan None 24 1,470.00 1,100.00 880.00 Discuss other cost recovery guideline during work
seSSIon
.
.
.
..
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1999
Page 7
Mr. Duey reviewed the fees presented as percentage of cost recovery. Mr. Duey reviewed the
direction provided by the previous council and explained the fee at 75% and 60%.
Councilor Simmons asked about cost accounting measures. Mr. Duey discussed this issue.
He discussed tracking of different cost recovery programs.
Councilor Simmons asked about timeframes. Ms. Daluddung discussed the history and
tracking of different applications. She said this is about the second or third time that this
information has been updated during the past decade. Councilor Simmons discussed the cost
recovery percentage and the match with the figures. He said the costs were greater than even
the 75 percent. Mr. Duey said staff has closely reviewed the hours and has approved them.
Councilor Simmons said better data was needed. He said there was a need to have numbers
that mean something.
Councilor Ballew discussed the passage of Ballot Measures 47 and 50. She discussed the
limited resources resulting from the ballot measures. Councilor Ballew also provided some
history and information on this issue.
Council agreed that the 75 percent recovery was acceptable at this time.
Councilor Simons was comfortable with the fact that the information was a "best guess."
City Surveyor Don Rogers and Planning Manager Greg Mott answered questions regarding
costs for projects. Mr. Mott discussed the initiation of right of way, and the difference in
cost, depending on who initiated the request.
Mr. Duey reviewed Attachment D as follows:
.
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1999
Page 8
.
.
,.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
EXCEPTION TO FEES PRESENTED AS PERCENTAGE OF COST RECOVERY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS
(Additional Handout at March 01, 1999 Fees and Charges Work Session)
Application Type
Current #
Fee App
s
Fee@
100%
Fee@
75%
Proposed Fee
Structure
Proposed
Fee
Site Plan Review
545.00 40 2,355.00 1,765.00 Flat fee or flat fee + $ per sq ft of impervious
surface*
$550 for::: 5,000 sq ft; or,
$550. + $50/1000 sq ft for> 5,000
sq ft
Conceptual Development
Plan
1,275.00 1 3,550.00 2,660.00 Variable fee. Standard deposit made, account
reconciliation at % of actual costs upon
Initial $3,000 deposit required,
final charge @ 75% actual costs
.
.
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March I, 1999
Page 9
.
* Impervious surface measures the amount of developable area to be reviewed
.
.
.
.-
Work Session Meeting Minutes
March 1, 1999
Page 1 0
Mr. Duey reviewed the fee and proposed fee structure related to attachment D. Application
typeS included site plan review, subdivision tentative plan, pre application session, pre
development report, master plan, conceptual development plan and annexation.
Council provided consensus on the proposed information. Additionally, it was recommended
that if the current fee is being changed to 75 percent, the fee should be no lower than actual
cost of service.
Mr. Duey will provide written information, via the Communication Packet, regarding the
master fee schedule for everything on Schedule B of the staff report and anything else council
would like (e.g., sewer fees). Schedule C would now be forwarded to the Planning
Commission since those are included in the Development Code.
Councilor Simmons requested examples of cost and how staff computes them (cost
methodology).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:36 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson
Attest:
C\ ~ WW~
JlIli~ Wilson
City Recorder