HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2009 City Council agendaAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
October 13, 2009
SPECIAL MEETING —6:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER 6:00 P.M.
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
October 8, 2009)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS PUBLIC
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
OPEN SESSION 6:00 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER —6:00 P.M.
1. Cost Recovery Policies for Recreation and Community Development
Departments
Recommended Action:
Direct staff accordingly
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the
office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently
with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any
materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review
at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council.
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at 408/868 -1216.
Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA title
III
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for
the meeting of the City Council on October 13, 2009 for the City of Saratoga was posted
on October 8, 2009, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and
was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the
City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 8th day of October 2009 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan
City Clerk
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Recreation Facilities CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Claudia Cauthorn, DIRECTOR:
Interim Recreation Facilities Director
SUBJECT: Cost Recovery Policies for Recreation Facilities Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The City Council has requested a study session to review the feasibility of having the Recreation
Department operate on a cost recovery basis. The divisions of the Recreation Department that
this would apply to are the Recreation Services and Facility Rental Divisions. It is not
recommended that a cost recovery requirement be made of the Teen Services Division as
insignificant revenues are generated from this division, nor from the Building Maintenance
Division, as this function is funded through Internal Service Funds and as such the costs are
allocated to other operating departments.
DISCUSSION:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
During the budget preparation process for fiscal year 2009/2010, discussion focused on what an
appropriate level of cost recovery should be for the Recreation Department. It was determined
that additional research was needed to provide the City Council with a basis for establishing an
appropriate level of cost recovery and City staff was asked to return in the fall with data and
background information upon which the Council could set cost recovery levels.
The foundation of effective cost recovery is a well conceived, regularly reviewed policy. A fee
recovery policy should establish:
A procedure for evaluating the costs of specific services and programs that may be all or
in part supported by fees.
A target proportion of fee revenue recovery for each program or service;
A schedule for updating or revising the cost of service analysis and revenue recovery
policy.
1
Factors to consider. Fees will be periodically reviewed in order to keep pace with changes in the
cost of living and methods or levels of service delivery. There are many issues to consider when
determining what percentage of expenses should be recovered. One consideration is whether the
services provided will benefit the community as a whole or provide individual benefit to a small
or specialized group. The distribution of benefits from a public service can be viewed as a
continuum stretching in two directions.
Cost
Recovery
Pyramid
Community
Benefit
Individual
Benefit
Pricing of services can significantly impact demand (elasticity). Demand for most recreation
programs is extremely elastic. There is a definite correlation between the cost and level of
services demanded at that price. This relationship is a function of the wide availability of
substitute activities and services available within or near the City. The more substitute services
available, the more price conscientious the user becomes. Also, in a tight economy, demand for
non essential goods or services tends to decline. Because of the elasticity of recreation services,
virtually all recreation programs have some level of subsidy. Generally speaking, adult
recreation programs have the lowest level of subsidy while senior or youth programs usually
absorb higher levels.
General concepts. The development of the cost recovery philosophy and policy is built upon a
logical foundation, using the understanding of who is benefiting from the service to determine
how that service should be paid. The development of this cost recovery policy was based on a
Pyramid Model (see figure) and is widely used throughout the nation in determining appropriate
cost recovery levels for Recreation agencies. This model has been refined by GreenPlay, LLC
from Colorado.
Q
MOSTLY INDIVIDUAL
Soma
INDIVIDUAL Community
Benefit
COMMUNITY Individual
Benefit
HIGHLY INDIVIDUAL
Benefit
o
y COMMUNITY
Benefit
2
0 2001 GreenPlay. LLC
Cost Recovery Pyramid. The foundational level of the pyramid is the largest, and includes
those programs, facilities, and services that benefit the COMMUNITY as a whole. These
programs, facilities, and services can increase property values, provide safety, address social
needs, and enhance quality of life for residents. The community generally pays for these basic
services and facilities through taxes.
The second, third and fourth levels of the pyramid represent programs, facilities, and services
that promote individual physical and mental well being, and provide recreation skill
development. They are generally the more traditionally expected services and are usually
beginner to intermediate instructional levels. These programs, services, and facilities are
typically assigned fees based on a specified percentage of direct and indirect costs. These costs
are partially offset by both a tax subsidy to account for the COMMUNITY benefit and
participant fees to account for the INDIVIDUAL benefit.
At the top of the pyramid, the fifth level represents activities that have a profit center potential,
and may even fall outside of the core mission. In this level, programs and services should be
priced to recover full cost plus a designated profit or contribution to overhead percentage.
Target Cost Recovery Levels. To simplify and tie cost recovery into the Pyramid, it is easier to
think of three varying levels.
1. Low cost recovery levels (0% 30 are appropriate if:
There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received
Collecting fees is not cost effective
There is no intent to limit use of the service
The service is non recurring
Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements
The public at -large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service
2. High cost recovery levels (70% 100 are appropriate if:
The individual user or participant receives the benefit of the service
Other private or public sector alternatives could or do provide the service
For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct
relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received
3. Services having factors associated with both cost recovery levels would be subsidized at
a mid -level of cost recovery (30% 70
3
Functions
Benefit
Revenue Source
Cost Recovery Rate
Classes provide
both individual
community benefit
(CPR, CERT,
First Aid classes,
Leader in
Training)
Individual 85%
Community 15%
Fees for services
86%
Trip Program
Individual 100%
Fees for services
100%
Facility
Usage /Civic
Theater- both
individual
community benefit
Community /City
Functions 24%
Individual /Civic
Theater 76%
Fees for rental
113%
Primary users are West
Valley Civic Light
Opera (Lyric Theatre)
Saratoga Drama
Group (South Bay
Musical Theatre)
Facility
Use /Community
Centers -both
individual
community benefit
Individual 60%
Community 40%
Fees for rental
60%
Expected to increase
once North Campus is
fully on -line
Park and Field
Rentals both
individual
community benefit
Community 90%
Individual 10%
Fees to reserve picnic
areas and athletic
fields
225%
Does not include
maintenance costs (in
the PW/Parks budget)
Preschool
Individual 100%
Fees for services
100%
Youth
Commission
Community 100%
No fees charged
0%
The following table reflects who benefits from the different services provided by the Recreation
Department.
Recreation In order to achieve these levels of cost recovery it must be clear as to what costs
are to be included in the calculation. It is recommended that for Recreation and Facilities, all
costs and revenues associated with budget program unit 6101 (Recreation Services) and budget
unit 6201 (Facility Rentals) be included and all costs and revenues associated with budget unit
6102 (Teen Services) be excluded. It is further recommended that costs associated with budget
unit 6202 (Building Maintenance) be excluded in the overall departmental calculation as it is
considered an internal service fund charged back to individual departments and this division
provides services to all City departments as well as to the Library.
4
A survey was recently completed on the cost recovery rates of various City Recreation
departments in the area. The same cities used for benchmarking purposes were surveyed and the
results are included in Attachment A. As can be seen in the attachment, the cities of Campbell
and Los Altos are not truly comparable as Los Altos has no internal service funds charged in
their cost recovery calculations and Campbell has 50,000 square feet of office space it leases out
annually yielding approximately $450,000 in revenue that no other city has. Both of these
circumstances artificially skew their cost recovery basis. If the figures for these two cities were
adjusted so the costs and revenues were more consistent with those of the other cities (removing
the $450,000 in lease revenues from Campbell's overall revenues and adding a 24% overhead
internal service fund charge to Los Altos' expenses as is consistent with the internal service
fund charges for Saratoga), the average cost recovery for all cities surveyed would be 62.1%.
Saratoga's current cost recovery rate is 66 Much of the Council discussion in the past year
during the budget adoption process centered on the Recreation department achieving a 65% cost
recovery level. It is therefore recommended that the 65% cost recovery level (including the
exclusion of the Teen Services program and the Building Maintenance Division) be adopted as
the minimum for cost recovery for all future budgets.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Several alternative scenarios have been identified for Council consideration:
Adopt a policy as recommended in this document and continue the informal policy
utilized for FY 09/10 of 65% cost recovery for Recreation Services.
Adopt a policy that requires the Recreation Facilities Department (excluding Teens and
Building Maintenance) to recover the blended average cost recovery of the benchmark
cities of 62.1% as shown in Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
To be determined by Council Direction.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council could identify other policies to fund specific functions in the Recreation
Facilities Department.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
As directed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Survey of benchmark cities' Recreation Department's cost recovery levels
5
Jurisdiction
Population
(2000 Census)
GF Budget 2007/08
Total City
RCS Budget
Total
Program Expenses
Comparable to Saratoga
GF FTE's
Revenues
Comparable to Saratoga
Cost Recovery
Campbell
38,138
$36,100,000
$6,254,299
$2,470,282
8.0
$1,490,647
60.3%
Cupertino
50,546
42,477,000
7,942,148
3,190,878
16.38
2,129,366
66.7%
Los Altos*
27,693
26,556,348
2,229,632
2,615,618
6.0
1,681,762
64.3%
Menlo Park
30,785
$37,200,000
$3,161,349
$2,300,766
18.5
$1,513,769
65.8%
Morgan Hill
33,556
$26,150,000
$5,498,687
$4,733,750
$5,101,108
18.5
$3,409,380
66.8%
San Carlos
27,718
$32,500,000
$3,218,986
10.5
$1,659,672
51.6%
Average
34,739
33,497,225
4,969,978
3,149,606
13.0
1,980,766
62.9%
Saratoga
29,843
$16,051,511
$2,101,390
$1,397,244
6.6
$922,847
66.0%
service funds charge expenses adjuste by +24% to reflect consistency with Saratoga
*Campbell has approximately 50,000 square feet of meting and banquet space available for rent which brings in approx. $450,000 annual revenue
Campbell revenue adjusted $450,000 to reflect consistency with other recreation departments.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Cost Recovery Policies for the Community Development Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The City Council has requested a study session to evaluate the extent to which the Community
Development Department (CDD) consisting of the Planning, Building, Code Compliance, and
City Arborist can recover its costs.
DISCUSSION:
The economic downturn has significantly reduced the number and size of development projects
submitted to the CDD for review and processing. This slowdown of development activity
caused a 30% reduction in anticipated revenues for FY 2008/09; therefore, the CDD had
decreased revenues to cover its operating costs.
Saratoga is not the only City experiencing decreased revenues for operating their Community
Development Departments during this economic slowdown. Staff distributed a survey to the
cities customarily used for comparison; survey results are provided as Attachment "A Of the
five size comparable cities that responded, each experienced a situation in which expenditures
exceed revenues in fiscal year 2008/09.
Cost recovery for the CDD is a means to recover or fund the full or partial costs of providing
services to the public in the Planning Division (Current and Advance Planning), Building
Division and Code Compliance under the long standing concept that individuals utilizing city
resources should bear the burden of the cost. Total departmental expenditures include both
direct and indirect costs as CDD's services contribute to the City's operational costs and
services, such as building heating and lighting.
There are many issues to consider when determining what percentage of operating expenses
should be recovered. One consideration is whether the services provided will benefit the
community as a whole or provide individual benefit to a small or specialized group. The table
Functions
Benefit
Revenue Source (s)
Cost Recovery
Rate
Current Planning
Provide customer service at the
front counter and phones. Process
various types of development
applications and conduct tree
protection/preservation activities.
Support the Heritage Preservation
and Planning Commissions.
Individual 90%
Community 10%
Development Fees
61%
Advanced Planning
Maintenance of the City's
Municipal Code, General Plan and
Specific Plans.
Individual 5%
Community 95%
Building Permits
86%
Code Compliance
Investigate and abate public
nuisances and ordinance violations.
Issue temporary use permits,
citation appeals, and
peddler /solicitor /masseuse licensing.
Individual 20%
Community 80%
Licensing/Testing
and Permit Fees
10%
Building Division
Provide building code information.
Review plans, and conduct building
inspections and investigations of
building code violations.
Individual 100%
Building Permits
100%
below identifies departmental functions, who benefits from the functions, revenue sources, and
recovery rates based upon 2008/09 revenues and expenditures.
Target Cost Recovery Levels
In looking at the table above, based upon fiscal year 2008/09 data, it is evident that Planning and
Code Compliance functions are not self funding, whereas the Building Division does fully
recover costs. If we employ the Cost Recovery Pyramid discussed in the staff report concerning
cost recovery policies for the Recreation Facilities Department, a high cost recovery level
would be appropriate for the Current Planning and Building functions, since they primarily
provide an individual benefit.
Similarly, from a benefit standpoint, the table shows that Advanced Planning and Code
Compliance functions primarily provide a community, rather than individual benefit. According
to the Cost Recovery Pyramid, a low cost recovery level would be appropriate for these
functions.
Survey Data from Comparable Cities
Staff collected data about Community Development Departments in the cities customarily used
for comparison. Unfortunately, even after numerous inquiries, staff did not receive data from
two of the cities, and the data we received from the other five cities, with the exception of Los
Gatos, does not appear to be directly comparable. For example, staff was able to confirm that the
data for Campbell is not directly comparable, as it does not include indirect costs. Similarly,
Cupertino is not directly comparable for several reasons, including significantly higher staffing
in Code Enforcement, much higher commercial development activity, and only a portion of
indirect costs included in the expenditures data. It is unclear why Morgan Hill appears to have a
much lower cost recovery rate than the other cities; staff was not able to obtain additional data to
clarify their numbers.
The two conclusions that can be drawn are that:
All of the cities from which we received data for fiscal year 2008/09 had operating costs
that were not offset by revenues received; and
With the exception of Cupertino, all of the cities have cost recovery rates well below
100% for their Community Development Departments.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Several alternative scenarios have been identified for Council consideration:
Adopt a policy that enables the CDD to offset the impact to the General Fund by
"banking" excess revenues over expenses in profitable years and drawing down these
reserves during times when building activity is low.
Adopt a policy to use General Fund revenues to subsidize functions in the CDD in
relation to the degree of community benefit provided.
Adopt a policy to subsidize Code Compliance with General Fund revenues, as it
primarily provides a community benefit and does not currently have a dedicated revenue
source.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
To be determined by Council Direction.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council could identify other policies to fund specific functions in the CDD.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
As directed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Survey of comparable cities' CDD cost recovery levels
Jurisdiction
FY2008/09
Development
Advanced Planning
Code Compliance
Building Inspection
Revenues
I Expenditures
Revenues
Expenditures
Revenues
Expenditures
Revenues
Expenditures
Campbell
124,000
498,000
200,000
440,000
2,500
81,000
989,000
743,000
Cupertino
379,821
1,235,833
260,179
576,523
2,716,366
1,132,435
Los Altos
745,940
1,156,050
98,150
1,206,660
983,690
Los Gatos
538,887
935,818
236,298
324,709
400
54,048
1,144,379
1,201,401
Menlo Park*
Morgan Hill
566,368
946,024
467,865
1,049,611
2,004
123,530
681,210
San Carlos*
Saratoga
609,876
993,349
131,563
211,313
22,263
224,583
1,038,584
1,021,303
Jurisdiction
FY 2008/09
FTE's
Total GF
Expenditure
Budget
CDD Budget
Campbell
172.00
36,005,000
1,762,000
Cupertino
120.75
43,098,120
4,207,724
Los Altos
130.00
27,000,000
3,400,000
Los Gatos
141.50
34,746,558
2,813,960
Menlo Park*
Morgan Hill
106.67
26,421,564
4,507,344
San Carlos*
Saratoga
58.35
17,438,143
2,711,580
Totals by City
Revenues
Expenditures
1,315,500
1,762,000
3,096,187
3,204,970
1,952,600
2,237,890
1,919,965
2,515,976
1,237,723
2,676,845
1,802,286
2,450,548
Did not respond to repeated requests for information
Los Altos combines advanced planning with development program.
NOTE: Morgan Hill's Community Development Department is NOT part of the General Fund, and includes costs in addition
to "Development "Advanced Planning" and "Code Compliance." Also, "Building and Inspection" below appears to be the
equivalent of Morgan Hill's Public Works Engineering function, which is in Public Works, not CDD
Cost
Recovery
75%
97%
87%
76%
46%
74%
NOTE City financial information is not directly comparable as department organization structures differ from city to city. In addition, cost recovery rates would differ as some
cities do not allocate indirect costs to their operating departments, and /or they do not have the same structure of indirect cost allocations.
Years
Revenue
Expenditures
FY 99 -00
509,879.22
FY 00 -01
233,148.90
922,635.00
FY 01 -02
329,719.88
818,029.00
FY 02 -03
225,959.86
869,758.00
FY 03 -04
395,298.26
898,121.00
FY 04 -05
626,765.18
595,131.00
FY 05 -06
835,721.45
603,641.00
FY 06 -07
627,582.00
875,702.00
FY 07 -08
731,759.00
972,894.00
FY 08 -09
609,879.00
993,349.00
FY 09 -10 (3 Mo)
128,726.67
193,795.69
Years
Revenue
Expenditures
595,779.00
FY 99 -00
1,150,564.65
FY 00 -01
1,206,147.35
596,779.00
FY 01 -02
1,052,457.81
781,500.00
FY 02 -03
1,029,314.27
816,421.00
FY 03 -04
914,588.71
828,717.00
FY 04 -05
1,196,736.75
513,029.00
FY 05 -06
1,471,857.50
571,800.00
FY 06 -07
1,267,168.00
746,871.00
FY 07 -08
1,419,548.00
985,353.00
FY 08 -09
1,038,584.63
1,047,021.00
FY 09 -10 (3 Mo)
274,435.81
197,773.36
Years
Revenue
Expenditures
FY 99 -00
129,848.00
FY 00 -01
146,881.00
FY 01 -02
111,521.00
FY 02 -03
85,994.00
FY 03 -04
171,105.00
FY 04 -05
118,335.00
FY 05 -06
51,799.00
95,830.00
FY 06 -07
47,303.00
103,553.00
FY 07 -08
71,993.00
61,575.00
FY 08 -09
131,563.00
211,313.00
FY 09 -10 (3 Mo)
15,947.02
34,078.88
Community Development Revenues Expenditure
Current Planning Revenues Expenditures
Building Revenues Expenditures
Advanced Planning Revenues Expenditures
CDD
Years
Revenue
Expenditures
FY 99 -00
1,660,443.87
725,627.00
228.83%
FY 00 -01
1,439,296.25
1,666,295.00
86.38%
FY 01 -02
1,382,177.69
1,711,050.00
80.78%
FY 02 -03
1,255,274.13
1,772,173.00
70.83%
FY 03 -04
1,309,886.97
1,897,943.00
69.02%
FY 04 -05
1,823,501.93
1,302,628.00
139.99%
FY 05 -06
2,359,565.95
1,384,804.00
170.39%
FY 06 -07
1,943,383.00
1,870,026.00
103.92%
FY 07 -08
2,248,809.00
2,233,127.00
100.70%
FY 08 -09
1,802,289.63
2,476,266.00
72.78%
FY 09 -10 (3 Mo)
425,167.50
468,358.07
90.78%
Years
Revenue
Expenditures
FY 99 -00
FY 00 -01
FY 01 -02
FY 02 -03
FY 03 -04
FY 04 -05
76,133.00
FY 05 -06
188.00
113,533.00
FY 06 -07
1,330.00
143,900.00
FY 07 -08
25,509.00
213,305.00
FY 08 -09
22,263.00
224,583.00
FY 09 -10 (3 Mo)
6,058.00
42,710.14
Community Development Revenues Expenditure
Code Enforcement Revenues Expenditures
Total CDD Department Revenues Expenditures
CDD
CDD Department Total Revenues Expenditures
FY 99 -00 FY 00-01 FY 01 -02 FY 02 -03 FY 03 -04 FY 04 -05 FY 05 -06 FY 06-07 FY 07 -08 FY 08 -09
Revenue
Expenditures
Total CDD
$1,000,000.00
$900,000.00
$800,000.00
S700,000.00
$600,000.00
5500,000.00
$400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
S-
Current Planning
FY 99 -00 FY 00 -01 FY 01 -02 FY 02 -03 FY 03 -04 FY 04 -05 FY 05-06 FY 06 -07 FY 07 -08 FY 08-09 FY 09 -10
(3 Mo)
Revenue
Expenditures
$1,600,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
FY 99 -00 FY 00-01 FY 01 -02 FY 02 -03 FY 03 -04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07 -08 FY 08-09 FY 09 -10
(3 Mo)
0 76133
188 113533
Building
Revenue
Expenditures
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
Advanced Planning Revenues Expenditures
FY 99 -00 FY 00 -01 FY 01 -02 FY 02 -03 FY 03 -04 FY 04 -05 FY 05 -06 FY 06-07 FY 07 -08 FY 08 -09 FY 09 -10 (3
Mo)
Revenue
Expenditures
0 76133
188 113533
MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009
DEPARTMENT: CMO
PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell
Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Review of Ordinances Approved at Council Retreat Subsequently
Approved, and Analysis of Their Associated Costs
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
DIRECTOR:
Council member Miller requested a review of ordinances that were approved by the City Council
at its 2009 retreat as workplan items for the Community Development Department and City
Attorney, together with ordinances approved by the Council subsequent to the retreat. Council
member Miller also requested an analysis of costs associated with ordinance preparation.
At the suggestion of Mayor Page, and concurrence of Council member Miller, the issue has been
included as a discussion item at the Council's October 13, 2009 study session, along with cost
recovery policies for the Community Development and Recreation Facilities Departments.
City Attorney Richard Taylor has prepared the attached memorandum for Council's
consideration.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
As directed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum
1
E CLEMENT SHUTE, JR
MARK I WEINBERGER (1946-2005)
FRAN M LAYTON
RACHEL 5 HOOPER
ELLEN J GARBER
TAMARA S GALANTER
ANDREW W SCHWARTZ
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD 5 TAYLOR
WILLIAM J WHITE
ROBERT 5 PERLMUTTER
OSA L WOLFF
MATTHEW D ZINN
CATHERINE C ENGBERG
AMY J BRICKER
GABRIEL M B ROSS
DEBORAH L KEETH
WINTER KING
*SENIOR COUNSEL
SHUTE, MIHALY WEINBERGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (41S) 552 -7272
FACSIMILE: (415) 552-5816
WWW.SMWLAW COM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Anderson, City Manager
FROM: Richard S. Taylor
DATE: October 9, 2009
RE: Ordinance Costs
AMANDA R GARCIA
HEATHER M. MINNER
ERIN B CHALMERS
KRISTIN B BURFORD
MARY J REICHERT
LAUREL L IMPETT, AICP
CARMEN J. BORG, AICP
URBAN PLANNERS
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
RTAYLOR@SMWLAW COM
I415) 552 7272 Exr 244
You asked for information on legal costs associated with drafting ordinances. In general,
an ordinance that is not unduly complex typically requires between $5,000 $10,000 in
legal fees. Staff in the Community Development Department reviewed billings for the
period March 1, 2009 through August 31, 2009. Their results are presented below
together with additional information from a brief review of our records. The figures are
consistent with this estimate in that the projects carried out primarily during the period of
analysis (Housing Element, Expedited CUP, and Nonconforming Uses) had costs in the
range of $6,300 to $7,100.
Council Retreat Work Plan Ordinances Costs between 3/1/09 and 8/31/09
Fence Ordinance $500
Housing Element $6,300
Village Parking $400
Non Work Plan Ordinances
Expedited CUP $6,500
Nonconforming Uses $7,100
Misc. Ordinance Update /Story Poles $1,800
Sustainability $500
Tobacco Ordinance $400
Most work on starred matters occurred outside of the billing period analyzed.]