Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 O.C.F.A. PLNG FEES 05-06-02AGENDA REPORT 260-25 ~ MEETING DATE: MAY 6, 2002 ~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES SUMMARY: Orange County Fire Authority staff are recommending fee increases for Planning and Development Services for plan review, construction inspections, and annual inspections and the Board will consider adopting a new fee schedule on May 23, 2002. Mayor Pro Tem Worley requested that this item be placed on the agenda for City Council discussion. RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Fees associated with development review would be paid by applicants; there would be no fiscal impact to the City. DISCUSSION: On April 29, 2002, Mayor Pro Tem Wodey met with representatives from the Orange County Fire Authority to discuss a letter sent to staff about a recently completed fee study that evaluated Planning and Development Services fees for plan review, construction inspections, and annual inspections (Attachment 1). While 39 percent of the review and inspection costs are being subsidized by OCFA's general fund, the Board had previously established a policy to recover 90 percent of the costs. The study was prepared to identify necessary adjustments and resulted in two options, as follow: Option 1: This option would recover direct and overhead costs associated with plan review and inspections and would add four (4) new positions to maintain current service levels. This option represents an hourly rate of $90.80 and an average cost increase of 92 percent above the current fee schedule. Option 2: This option would recover direct and overhead costs and add nine (9) new positions to improve service. This option represents an hourly rate of $97.41 and an average cost increase of 99 percent above the current fee schedule. City Council Report Orange County Fire Authority Planning and Development Fees May 6, 2002 Page 2 For the most commonly used services based on the type of development in Tustin, the typical fee increase would range from 19 percent to 61 percent of current costs: Common Activities Site Plan Development Review Architectural Plan Check Fire Sprinkler Review- Commercial Hile Pile Storage Plan Revisions Cost Increase Option 1 or Option 2 $43 or $48 $109 or $144 Percentage Increase Option 1 or Option 2 49% or 55% 30% or 39% $119 or $154 32% or 42% $124 or $184 19% or 28% $31/$37 hourly 51% or 61%/hourly The Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors will meet on May 23, 2002, to consider these options. OCFA staff have indicated they will only recommend Option 2 if they receive support from their customers. If the fee study is accepted and an option is selected, the new fee schedule will be effective July 1, 2002. Mayor Pro Tem Worley requested that this item be agendized for City Council discussion. Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Letter from Laura Blaul, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated April 15, 2002 S:\Cdd\CCREPOR~FPM 2001-235.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Laura Blaul, Deputy Fire Marshal dated April 15, 2002 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY Fire Prevention Division PO Box 86, Orange, CA 92856-9086 ~180 South Water St., Orange, CA 92866-2123 Planning and Development Services · www. ocfa.org ° (714) 744-0499 / Fax (714) 289-7811 April 15, 2002 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack City of Tustin RECEIVED APR 1 8 2002 COMI IUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Planning & Develop~ne.,~'ee Increase The Fire Prevention Department is nearing completion of a ~ with the consulting firm of Zucker Systems. The consultants were asked to study fees charged by Planning & Development Services for plan review and construction inspections and by Inspection Services for annual operating permits and re- inspections (if a 3~d visit to the business is required). The results of the fee study idemified that the fee schedules developed in 1997 recover only a portion of the actual costs of providing the services. Zucker Systems was hired to determine currem service costs and develop a fee schedule to recove~100o/0 of Plarming & Development costs and the portion of Inspection Services costs associated with permit issuance and re- inspections (approximately 50% of total Section costs). The fee study was necessary for several reasom, including meeting fiscal and customer service responsibilities. Specifically, the study was requested because the OCFA' s general fund was subsidizing approximately 39%.of the costs of providing user based services when board policy was established to recover 90% of costs. In addition, customer feedback identified several service enhancements necessary to meet increasing demands for service. Finally, the Planning & Development Services workload increased 130°/0 since the 1997 study and no resources have been added (13,244 plans and almost 14,000 constmffdon inspections were completed during FY 2000/01). The result was an increase in turnaround times for both plan reviews and inspections despite artemis to mitigate the impact on customers through the use of staff from other OCFA sections, consultant services, and overtime (30°,4 of the 2001 workload was completed on overtime charged back to customers). These mitigation measures, although somewhat effective, created customer service and management issues that need to be addressed. Zucker Systems conducted a detailed analysis of our workload and associated costs and identified where adjustments were necessary. The increase in costs since the 1997 study is due to several factors: 1) salary increases due to cost of living and employee contract revisions; 2) two classification/compensation studies (1998 and 2001) that resulted in increased compensation for several of our technical positions; and, 3) additional data collected on each fee category and recorded in our database (on-line Jatmm~ 1997). Current data identified several discrepancies in our existing fee schedule, which were most were likely due to inadequate information available during development. Piaccmiaop, ancho Snma Margarita-Sm Clcmcntc,San Juan Capistmno*Scal Bcacl~Stnnton-Tusti~V'dla Park,~~Ymt~ Lindaoand Unincorporated Areas of Orange County RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES OCFA Fee Increase Page 2 of 3 The new fee schedules reflect time necessary to complete various plan review and inspection activities, as well as annual inspections of permitted occupancies/operations, and the hourly rate is calculated based on total costs. The hourly rate calculated by Zucker Systems is $90.80 for Option 1 and $97.41 for Option 2 (more on the options below). The new rate is approximately 50% higher than our current hourly rate of $60.00/hour and includes the recovery of direct and overhead costs associated with providing services. The overhead portion accounts for 19% of the costs/fees. As mentioned above, the study resulted in two options. Option 1 recovers full costs and adds four (4) new positions necessary to maintain current service levels. The additional staff will handle the increase in workload without use of resources from other sections and with less reliance on overtime. This should also increase consistency and reduce the need to require additional fees from customers to cover overtime use. However, it probably will not reduce turnaround times for plan reviews or inspections. The fee increase in this option averages 92% above the current fee schedule. Option 2 includes a total of nine new positions (the four in Option 1 and 5 additional staff). This option provides service enhancements including improved turnaround times (elimination of the 15-day category and creation of a 5-day category for re-submitted plans with minor corrections), over-counter reviews, preliminary meetings with customers, site visits, coordination meetings with cities/County, and customer outreach/training. This option was created to address customer concerns and requests over the past several years. By offering this option, we hope to improve customer satisfaction. The cost of this option is approximately 7% higher than Option 1. Option 2 will only be recommended if we receive customer feedback specifically supporting this option. We are sending a survey to each customer requesting support for either option. Enclosed is a copy of the packet mailed to all Planning & Development customers, including the new fee schedules. Customers also received a addressed/stamped return envelope for their surveys. We have presented an overview of the fee study to both BIA and NAIOP (before the schedules were complete) and also held a customer outreach on February 21 a where Option 1 was presented. All 50 customers in attendance asked that we prepare Option 2 for consideration, as they desired better service. I would also like to hear any comments from you or your staff before our public hearing on May 23ra . The hearing will be during the regular OCFA Board of Directors meeting which is held at Irvine's City Council Chamber beginning at 6:30 p.m. We realize that it is always difficult to increase fees and the timing of an increase is never good. Any suggestions you have to make the process and resulting fee increase more palatable to our customers are appreciated. If the study is approved during the May 23ra Board meeting, the new fee schedule will be effective July 1, 2002. We will work with you and your staff on implementation/training during the month of June. Some of you add an "administrative/handling" fee onto the OCFA fees and you may want to review those and, if necessary, update resolutions with your councils. We would also like you to consider a flat rate per plan rather than a percentage of the OCFA fee if you feel that the time to handle various plan types is consistent. We frequently receive customer feedback that the handling charge is too high for some plan types and OCFA Fee Increase Page 3 of 3 "(city staff) don't even look at them". However, I understand your need to recover costs and we have no desire to intervene other than m provide feedback from our shared customers. Please call me with any questions or comments at 714-744-0485. I will also make myself available to meet with any of you to provide additional detail. 1, Deputy Fire Marshal Planning & Development Services Enclosures: Customer letter Survey Fee Schedule April, 2002 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY Fire Prevention Division PO Box 86, Orange, CA 92856-9086 el80 South Water St., Orange, CA 92866-2123 Planning and Development Services · www.ocfa.org · (714) 744-0499 / Fax (714) 289-78II SUBJECT: New Planning & Development Fees (plan review and inspection) Dear Customer: The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is committed to community safety. This commitment includes performing planning and building/system reviews for new communities, buildings, residences and businesses, as well as tenant improvements to existing occupancies. OCFA invests considerable resources to coordinate with the planning and building departments of our member jursdicfions to ensure that plans for these communities and buildings incorporate applicable requirements in the California~niform Fire Code and adopted fire safety standards. That's the best tool for insuring that fires and other emergencies are prevented. In 1997, the OCFA Board of Directom adopted the first comprehensive fee schedule for fire plan review and inspection. The fees were developed to recover the majority of costs associated with providing this service. Since 1997, the actual costs have increased without a corresponding increase in the fees charged and additional data regarding time necessary to complete various activities was collected. In order to update the fee schedule, Zucker Systems was hired to perform a fee study and assist staff in developing a methodology that can be updated as needed. The fee study focused on the full costs of providing planning and development services in order to assess the extent to which current fees recover the costs of providing these services. The resulting fee schedules (see attached) include the recovery of both direct costs and overhead costs associated with the provision of plan review and inspection services. The study also looked at two different scenarios. Option 1 recovers full costs, including four (4) proposed new positions necessary to maintain current setwice levels. The increase in wor~oad since 1997 (130%) required the use of staff from other fire department sections and a significant amount of overtime to meet demands. Hiring the four staff (two plan reviewers and two inspectors) will allow us to complete the work with Section staff and less dependency on overtime. Option 2 includes a total of nine new positions (the four in Option 1 and 5 additional staff). This option provides service enhancements for improved turnaround times (elimination of the 15-day category and creation of a 5-day category for re-submitted plans with minor corrections), over-counter reviews, preliminary meetings with customers, site visits, coordination meetings with cities/County, and customer outreach/training. This option was created to address customer concerns and requests over the past several years. By offering this option, we hope to improve customer satisfaction. Option 2 will only be recommended if we receive customer feedback specifically supporting this option. You may either Serving thc Cities of: Aliso Viejo,, Buena Park*Cypress~.Dana Point*irv~neol..a~:~.s,. I! ;..ol aeur~ '~.g~.'~*l -.gut~. V.,.,o~.lake I~re~*La Palm*Los Alamitos. Mission Viejo~ Placenfia. Rancho Santa Margarita. San Ciemente*San Juan Capistrano,,Seal tk-,~. ',ox,am.,,-, l,~,~,no'~ dla I'ark*~s,:,,mmvdcr*'~,nlaa L~ndaeand Unincorporated Areas of Orange RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS 4 %t~ % ~ItlKE i.}ETE('T¢IRS SAVE LIVES OCFA Fee Increase' Page 2 of 2 complete and return the enclosed survey or, if you belong to an organization/association, write a letter from your group specifying which option you support. After you review both the fee schedules for both options, please let us know if you would like staff to recommend adoption of Option 2 by completing the enclosed survey and returning it to us by May 1,2001. The OCFA Board of Directors will hold a public hearing to adopt a new fee schedule during their May meeting which begins at 6:30 p.m. (the hearing is near the end of the agenda): Irvine City Hall One Civic Center Plaza May 23r~ 6:30 p.m. If the study is approved during this meeting, the new fee schedule will be effective July 1, 2002. Please call me with any questions or comments at 714-744-04~,5. Thank you for your time in returning the enclosed survey. ~~~l~Laura Bl'aul, Deputy Fire Marshal Planning & Development Services Enclosures: New fee schedule Survey with addressed/stamped return envelope Revised Fee Schedule for OCFA Planning & Development The OCFA is interested in your opinion. Please take a moment to fill out this survey. Completed surveys may be faxed to 714-744-0415 or mailed to/dropped off at 1110 East Chapman Suite 102, Orange 92866, by May 1st. Your input is appreciated. Thank you! The OCFA is currently considering one of two scenarios: Option ImNo change in service level Maintain current goal of 90% of plans completed in 5, 10, or 15 days; addition of four positions to account for 130% increase in workload since implementation of last fee schedule in 1997. Typical fee will increase approximately 92% over current amount. Option II--Enhanced service levels Addition of nine positions to meet customer service requests including: reduction of all 15-day turnaround times to 10 days and simple rasubmittals to 5 days; reduce inspection turnaround to ,8 hours, improved accessibility to staff, formalize and continue over-the-counter plan review pilot program, increased customer outreach and training, accommodate requests for pre-submittal meetings, assign project liaisons, and improve coordination with city/county building departments. Increase in fees of 7% over Option I. Current turnaround times for plan review are acceptable: I can get an inspection within 48 hours of calling for an appointment: P&D staff is readily available to attend meetings: My phone calls are returned in a timely manner: I would like the over-the-counter program continued: Projects are well coordinated with the city/County: I find the current level of service acceptable: I would support an additional 7°/0 increase for Option IFs enhanced services: I would prefer Option I: COMMENTS: Itl e~ :z -' 0  ~,, . ,.. ~~ · -.,.~..:-..~ ~ ~ ~& ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~~- - _ .'. ~ ':. .~ , qc' ........ '~'~': ~ I~ ~'~ ~:~~1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' ~..- ... ,~ ~ ..' .~.. ~ , I ..~ ..,.. ~ ~ ~'= ~.~ ~ .'...i:.,~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~~ ' · ~"' 0 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m -- -- .- ......... ~ o ...... ~'g ~' · ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ~... ~ ~ ~ · "'~ · ~ ~ ~ .,, ~-~ .... ; - . ~ i ii ii iii