Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2009 Special Council AgendaSPECIAL 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. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL October 13, 2009 1. Cost Recovery Policies for Recreation and Community Development Departments Recommended Action: Direct staff accordingly 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 IIJ 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 8` day of October 2009 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan City Clerk tFOR MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Recreation Facilities CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Claudia Cauthorn, 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 Interim Recreation Facilities Director 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. 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. 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. Cost C HIGHLY I DUAL Benefi Recovery 147 Pyramid Q MOSTLY INDIVIDUAL Benefit cu. ttt 44 INDIVIDUAL Community Benefit COMMUNITY Individual Benefit 2 COMMUNITY Benefit 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% Los Altos has no internal service funds charged expenses adjusted 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 :F. 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 Expenditures Revenues 1 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 1,150,564.65 129,848.00 FY 00 -01 1,206,147.35 146,881.00 FY 01 -02 1,052,457.81 111,521.00 FY 02 -03 1,029,314.27 85,994.00 FY 03 -04 914,588.71 171,105.00 FY 04 -05 1,196,736.75 118,335.00 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 Years Revenue Expenditures FY 99 -00 1,150,564.65 595,779.00 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 -00 509,879.22 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 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 $2,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1 ,000,000.00 $500,000.00 CDD Department Total Revenues Expenditures Total CDD FY 99 -00 FY 00-01 FY 01 -02 FY 02 -03 FY 03-04 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 -08 FY 08 Revenue Expenditures $1,000,000.00 $900,000.00 $800,000.00 $700,000.00 $600,000.00 $500,000.00 $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 f 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 Building 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 Revenue Expenditures 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 i 0 76133 188 113533 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 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL rpoix, MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CMO CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR: 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: 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 B. HOOPER ELLEN J. GARBER TAMARA S. GALANTER ANDREW W. SCHWARTZ ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR WILLIAM J. WHITE ROBERT S. 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: (415) 552 -7272 FACSIMILE: (41 5) 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 (41 5) 552 -7272 EXT. 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.]