COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 
 

Date:

May 12, 2003

Set Time:

10:15 a.m.

Hearing Date:

June 10, 2003

 
 

To:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

From:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

Subject:

Increases in Planning and Building, Parks and Recreation, Agriculture/Weights and Measures and Animal Control Fees

 
 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.

Adopt a Resolution approving increases in Planning and Building fees, as follows: (a) a 36% increase in Planning and Building fees to achieve near full cost recovery in providing development review services, plus (b) an additional 15 % increase to recover from permit applicants, in accordance with Government Code Section 66014, up to 100 % of the cost of providing long range planning services (preparation and maintenance of County General Plan and development regulations).

   

2.

Adopt a Resolution increasing Parks and Recreation fees as follows: (a) an increase in selected park use and special activity fees with most increasing by 20-25%, (b) a 3% increase in Coyote Point Marina berth rate fees, and (c) a new fee of $24 annually for interested parties to maintain their name on the Marina Berther Waiting List.

   

3.

Adopt Ordinances increasing/establishing Agriculture/Weights and Measures fees, as follows: (a) amend Section 2.24.080 of Chapter 24 of Title 2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code to increase fees charged by the Agricultural Commissioner for the inspection and certification of certain plant products, annual registration of agricultural pest control businesses and pest control advisers and establishing fees for certified farmers' markets and certified producers; (b) add Chapter 5.144 of Title 5 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code providing for a registration certificate and fee and consumer notification posting for automated point-of-sale stations (scanners); (c) amend Section 5.124.020 and 5.124.030 of Chapter 124 of Title 5 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code increasing annual device registration fees for certain commercial weighing and measuring devices.

   

4.

Adopt the Resolutions increasing Agriculture/Weights and Measures fees as follows: (a) establishing an annual registration fee for inspection of automated point-of-sale stations (scanners); (b) amending the fee schedule for stand-by charges for weights and measures inspections; and (c) amending the fee schedule for verifying the accuracy of non-commercial weighing and measuring devices.

   

5.

Adopt an ordinance increasing all Animal Control fees, including humane services fees and dog licenses.

   

BACKGROUND

 

Pursuant to your Board's direction, the Environmental Services Agency was asked to reduce its Net County Cost (NCC) by 20% for FY 2003-04; and where feasible, raise fees to fully recover costs for services.

 

The fee increases proposed by the Planning and Building Division will further reduce the divisions NCC beyond the 20% reduction already made and achieve near full cost recovery. The fees proposed by the Parks and Recreation Division and Agriculture, Weights and Measures have been included in the Recommended 2003-04 budget and will, in addition to the elimination of vacant positions and other reductions made, allow each division to meet its budget target. Should the proposed fees outlined by these two division not be adiopted, the divisions will need to make further significant reductions in staff and customer service levels to meet their FY 2003-04 budget targets.

 

Planning and Building Fees. County Ordinance 2512 adopted June 13, 1978 authorizes the setting of building fees by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Ordinance 2193, April 10, 1973, authorizes a similar process for planning fees. State law requires that fees not exceed the cost of providing services. Recent County practice has been to adopt multi-year fee schedules that correlate with the Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) in the divisions labor contracts. Since labor is the major cost in providing planning and building services, this has maintained a consistent relationship between planning and building revenues and the cost of providing planning and building services. Fee increases have been regular but modest and clearly linked to labor cost increases. Your Board approved such an increase on April 8, 2003.

 

Parks and Recreation fees. Periodically, Parks and Recreation staff reviews the fees charged for specialty use of the parks, park features and park services. This review includes facility usage, operational costs, changes in the cost of living index and market rate comparisons. Based on that review, staff has recommended fee schedule changes to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission at its May 1, 2003 regular meeting recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the proposed changes in the Parks and Marina fees. Park usage fees were last increased in November 1997.

 

Per the County's loan agreement with the California Department of Boating and Waterways, the Coyote Point Marina fees are reviewed annually and adjusted by a rate not less than the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI). They were last raised in August 2002 by 3%.

 
 

The Parks Division is also proposing a new fee of $24 annually for interested parties to keep their name on the Marina Waiting List. The Marina did not have a waiting list until two years ago. It was established after a successful marketing campaign to fill empty berths and the closure of two marinas in the area. Currently, there are over 300 names on the list. Maintenance of the list has become very time consuming and labor intensive as calls must be placed to a significant number of names before finding someone who is truly interested in having a boat in the Coyote Point Marina. Implementation of the fee would cover staff time necessary to maintain the list and possibly reduce the number of names listed.

 

Agriculture/Weights & Measures fees.


Phytosanitary inspection fees
. Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) Sections 5202 and 5204 provide authority for County Boards of Supervisors to establish a schedule of fees for certification of plant shipments performed at the request of shippers and limits the fees to the approximate cost of inspection. Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 2.24.080 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code authorize the Agricultural Commissioner to charge a fee for the inspection and certification of produce and plant product shipments destined to other states and countries. In the past, revenue from these fees partially offset the program costs associated with providing inspection and phytosanitary certification services to the agricultural industry. The fee ordinance was last amended in October 2000. By November 2003, the Division's costs for providing this service will have increased 12% due to negotiated salary increases.

 

Agricultural pest control fees. FAC Section 11734 provides authority for County Boards of Supervisors to establish reasonable fees for the annual registration of agricultural pest control businesses. Subsection (c) of Section 2.24.080 currently authorizes the Agricultural Commissioner to charge an annual fee of $50 for agricultural pest control businesses. FAC Section 12034 provides authority for County Boards of Supervisors to set fees for the annual registration of agricultural pest control advisers. Subsection (d) of Section 2.24.080 currently authorizes the Agricultural Commissioner to charge an annual fee of $10 for agricultural pest control adviser registration. These two fee ordinance subsections were established in 1978.

 

Direct marketing program fees. The statewide Direct Marketing Program allows growers to sell their own agricultural commodities directly to consumers at certified farmers' markets provided specified requirements are met. FAC Section 47020 requires annual certification and periodic inspections by the Agricultural Commissioner at certified farmers' markets and certified producer growing sites and provides authority for County Boards of Supervisors to charge inspection and certification fees. FAC Section 47020 limits these fees to itemized actual costs or a weighted hourly average rate as determined on an annual basis by the County. San Mateo County does not currently have a fee in place for these services.

 

Scanner inspection program and fees. California Business and Professions Code Section 12024.2 states that it is unlawful to charge, at the time of sale of a commodity, a value which is more than the price which is then advertised, posted or quoted. The authority for enforcing this regulation is vested in each County Sealer acting under the supervision and direction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture as stated in Section 12103.5 of the Code.

 

Regulatory inspections of retail automated point-of-sale stations, commonly known as "scanners," are performed statewide to ensure that consumers receive the posted or advertised price at checkout. The inspection verifies that the electronically stored price information used to charge consumers for the purchase of commodities is in fact accurate. Three counties currently have ordinances requiring annual retail scanner registration and a corresponding fee: San Bernardino County (1996), San Diego County (1999) and Los Angeles County (2002).

 

Other Device fees. Section 12240 of the Business and Professions Code authorizes each Board of Supervisors to establish an annual device registration fee to recover the sealer's cost of inspecting or testing commercial weighing and measuring devices. Section 12240 sets forth the maximum annual fees which counties can charge based on the number of devices at each location. In 1984, the Board adopted County Ordinance Section 5.124.010 which enacted annual device registration fees for commercial devices in San Mateo County. The fee schedule was last amended in January 1994.

 

Section 12210.5 of the Business and Professions Code enables a sealer, if authorized by the Board of Supervisors, to charge a fee for the testing of commercial devices when the test is requested by the owner/user and the testing could be performed by a registered repairman.

On March 8, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted County Resolution No 50143, implementing a fee schedule for commercial device inspections when the device owner requests that a Biologist/Standards Specialist and the County's equipment be available while a device is being adjusted. The fee does not include the time performing the initial inspection or the final retest to seal the device.

 

Section 12210 (b) of the Business and Professions Code states that the Board of Supervisors may authorize the sealer to establish a schedule of fees to cover the cost of the inspection and testing of non-commercial weighing and measuring devices. The fee would apply only to the inspection of non-commercial devices when the owner/user requests testing for accuracy.

 

Animal Control fees. The twenty cities of the County contract with the County for the provision of animal control services, and the County in turn contracts with the Peninsula Humane Society for all field and shelter services. Animal Control fees such as animal licenses and humane services fees, which encompass all fees charged at the shelter, are set by ordinance for the unincorporated areas of the County. According to the contracts between the County and the twenty cities, all cities must maintain the same fee structure as the County. After adoption by the County, the twenty cities will be asked to adopt the same animal control fee structure.

 

DISCUSSION

 

1.

Planning and Building Division fees.

   
 

This fee increases proposed will allow the division to achieve near full cost recovery. The increases consist of a combination of the following: (a) a 36% increase to recover the cost of development review services from permit applicants; plus (b) an additional 15% increase to recover from permit applicants the cost of preparing the general plan and development regulations pursuant to recent changes to Government Code 66014.

   
 

The Planning and Building staff has determined the percentage change needed to accomplish near full cost recovery by determining the division's projected Net County Cost attributable to development review services and long range planning services next fiscal year after meeting the division's assigned Net County Cost target. The percentage increase required to fully recover the cost of development review services is the projected NCC of those services divided by projected development review revenues after the "base" 5% increase approved on April 8. The same approach was taken for the additional increase required to recover the cost of long range planning services.

   
 

Regarding Government Code Section 66014, it was recently amended to expressly authorize the recovery from permit applicants of the cost of preparing the plans and regulations against which their projects must be evaluated. The logic here is that for development to proceed in any given jurisdiction, the community must have adequate plans and regulations conforming to State requirements, that plans and development regulations are prepared largely for the benefit of new development, so that it can be accommodated, and that it is appropriate for that development to pay those costs.

   
 

With regard to cost recovery, the term near full recovery is used to reflect the divisions belief that revenues should remain slightly below costs, so as to remain in compliance with State law that limits fees to the cost of providing services.

   
 

The Planning and Building Division conducted a fee survey to compare the proposed fees for common applications or projects with similar fees in comparable jurisdictions (those the County uses for salary comparisons). The results appear in Attachment B. In each case there are three levels of County fees displayed ("base" 5% increase approved April 8, base plus increment for recovery of development review costs, base plus increment for recovery of development review costs plus increment for recovery of long range planning costs). In all cases, the base increase already approved falls within the range of costs in other jurisdictions. The higher "cost recovery" fees would generally put the division beyond the high end of the range however, it is expected that other jurisdictions will be considering similar fee increases to substantially reduce or eliminate the general fund contribution to planning and building services and that the County will remain within the range of fees charged elsewhere.

   
 

Two other minor changes are being recommended to the Planning and Building fee schedules: (1) a 2% surcharge on fees paid by credit card to recover what the County is charged for this service; and (2) a reduced fee for administrative parking exceptions where no public hearing is involved.

   
 

Finally, on April 8, your Board asked for information about alternative methods for recovering the full cost of permit processing from applicants. There are basically two methods: fixed fees set at a level to recover, in the aggregate, close to the full cost of the operation. That is the approach recommended above. The alternative is to track the time spent on each permit and bill the applicant the full cost, including all overhead, of processing his/her permit. That approach is usually combined with deposit accounts, where the applicant makes an up-front deposit to cover the typical cost of processing the permit in question. The department then bills against the deposit and, when it is exhausted, a notice is sent and processing is suspended until an additional deposit is made. The latter approach is in use in some jurisdictions for planning permits, but staff is not aware of it being used for building permits. This approach is discussed in more detail in Attachment C but, in summary, is not recommended because (a) establishing a system of this type would be complex, time-consuming and expensive; (b) it can actually add to permit processing costs due to the cost of maintaining the billing system; (c) it makes permit costs less predictable; (d) it can create conflicts between staff and applicants over time billed to projects; and (e) in a jurisdiction like ours, where development is controversial, it can become a point of leverage whereby project opponents can drive up project costs by making demands that consume additional staff time.

   

2.

Park and Recreation fees.

   
 

Since the last fee increases, the CPI shows a cost of living increase for the San Francisco Bay Area of approximately 35%. For the same period, the labor costs for providing Parks Division services has increased an average of 38%.

   
 

After reviewing the increase in personnel costs, materials, and supplies, the increase in the Bay Area CPI, the fees being charged by surrounding jurisdictions and the change in revenue as a percentage of expenditures, staff is recommending a number of fees be increased by approximately 20-25%. Staff has attempted to fairly and equitably apply increases amongst many service areas, while understanding that a sharp increase or going to full cost recovery could negatively impact the number of visitors to park facilities and decrease the ability of economically disadvantaged residents to use County Park facilities.

   
 

The existing park usage fee schedule and fee increase proposals are included as Attachment D-1 of this document. They include a 20-25% increase in costs for the specified activities.

   
 

Staff is recommending a 3% increase in berthing rates for the Marina. Attachment D-2 outlines the increases based on berth size; and Attachment D-3 shows the results of the annual Marina berth survey. The County's loan with the California Department of Boating and Waterways requires an annual adjustment of fees by at least the Bay Area CPI. Marina fees have been adjusted annually. Last year's fee increase was also 3%. These fees cover full cost recovery for Marina operations and add some funding to the Marina reserve used to fund capital projects. The Marina is expected to complete a dredging project in the next fiscal year that will seriously deplete the reserves for this enterprise fund. Staff is in the process of completing a capital projects assessment of the Marina in order to develop a multiple year implementation plan. Once completed, an analysis will be made of what level of fees may be needed in future years to be able to fund those projects.

   
 

The only new fee the Parks Division is proposing is a $24 fee to maintain an interested party's name on the Marina Waiting List. The Waiting List, which currently has over 300 names on it, is very complex and labor intensive to maintain. The fee will reimburse the Harbor Fund for the cost of maintaining the list.

   
 

In accordance with State law, the resulting fees would not exceed the cost of providing services. Staff completed a survey of fees in comparable jurisdictions. The results appear in Attachment D-4.

   

3.

Agriculture/Weights and Measures fees.

   
 

Phytosanitary inspection fees. A comparison of the existing and proposed fee schedule for phytosanitary certification inspection of produce and plant products is summarized below.

   
 

Number of Packages

Existing Fee

Proposed Fee

 

1-75

$22.00 (minimum)

$25.00

 

76-200

$25.00

$28.00

 

Over 200

$30.00

$34.00

   
 

If the proposed fee schedule is adopted, the total annual revenue collected from phytosanitary certification fees would increase from $ 110,000 to $ 131,000. This additional revenue of $21,000 will provide full cost recovery for the current level of staffing and will assist the Division in meeting its budget target.

   
 

The division recently surveyed seven other Bay Area counties and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to determine their fee schedules for phytosanitary inspections. The results of the fee survey are outlined in the enclosed Attachment E-1. Even with the proposed increase, San Mateo County's charges for phytosanitary certification will be among the lowest in the Bay Area.

   
 

Agricultural pest control fees. The annual registration fee for agricultural pest control businesses has not changed since 1978. The Food and Agricultural Code specifies that a Board of Supervisors may set a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the mandatory annual registration. The division conducted a survey of seven other Bay Area counties to determine their annual registration fee. Alameda County has charged an annual registration fee of $60 for several years. Other counties surveyed charge $50 per year. The results of the fee survey are outlined in the enclosed Attachment E-2. The division proposes to increase its fee to $60 per year.

   
 

The agricultural pest control adviser ordinance amendment incorporates the current language outlined in FAC Section 12034 for this type of business. The current language authorizes an $10 annual fee for agricultural pest control advisers based in San Mateo County and limits the annual registration fee for out of county agricultural pest control advisers to $5. There will be no change in the current fee for registration of pest control advisers.

   
 

Direct marketing program fees. The division's direct marketing responsibilities include issuance of certified producer certificates and site inspections for farmers and backyard gardeners as well as issuance of annual certified farmers' market certificates and periodic inspections at certified farmers' markets. FAC Section 47020 mandates minimum inspection frequencies. This code section also authorizes Boards of Supervisors to charge fees for these inspections at a rate set by either itemizing actual costs or using a weighted hourly average. The division is proposing to establish a new fee structure using a weighted hourly average of Biologist/Standards Specialist salaries and benefits and associated overhead to support these state mandated inspection and certification activities. The fee for FY 2003-04 will be $52/hour. The Agricultural Commissioner will update the weighted hourly average as program costs (salaries, benefits and overhead) increase or at least on an annual basis as specified in FAC Section 47020. The fee would apply to agricultural operators and backyard gardeners who request an annual certified producer certificate and to certified farmers' markets whose certification must be renewed by the Agricultural Commissioner annually. The division would also charge certified farmers' markets for periodic inspections performed to ensure that vendors are in compliance with California direct marketing laws and regulations. The division proposes to inspect each certified farmers' market quarterly. The revenue collected will provide cost recovery for Biologist/Standards Specialist staff time spent on certification and periodic inspections at County certified farmers' markets and at certified producer agricultural growing ground locations.

   
 

The division recently surveyed seven other Bay Area counties to determine their direct marketing fee schedules for certification and inspection. The counties included in the survey were Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. The results of the fee survey are outlined in the enclosed Attachment E-3.

   
 

Scanner inspection program and fees. San Mateo County currently has no provision for the Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer Division to recover costs for the inspection of retail businesses that utilize scanners for price verification. For this reason, only limited staff resources have been available to perform scanner inspections and less than 10% of County businesses have been audited in any given year.

   
 

In San Mateo County, the compliance rate for businesses over the past four years has averaged only 50%. One of every two stores inspected had at least one overcharged item. A statewide survey conducted in December 2002 under the direction of the state Division of Measurement Standards documented a similar low compliance rate of 58% for the 494 stores inspected. Other counties have recognized the importance of a proactive scanner inspection program that protects the consumer. Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino counties have all adopted scanner registration ordinances, and scanner registration proposals are under consideration in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Ventura counties. A comparison of the county fee schedules for annual scanner registration is outlined in Attachment E.

   
 

Annual costs for the expanded scanner inspection program would total $110,000, and would include inspection of an estimated 550 business locations, re-inspections for businesses not in compliance, and response to consumer complaints regarding scanner overcharges. Businesses would be inspected at least biennially or as frequently as necessary to ensure compliance. This cost estimate is based on the salary, benefits and associated overhead for a .9 FTE Biologist/Standards Specialist IV position. The Division would not be augmenting staff, as existing personnel hours currently allocated to other weights and measures and agricultural program activities would be redirected. Program costs would be recovered through an annual registration fee of $200 for each business location that utilizes scanners. A flat rate per business location is proposed, since a test of one scanner is a test of the entire system (all scanners in a store are connected to a central computer server). Although the number of scanners varies with the size of the store, the use of specialized inspection equipment makes the actual inspection time per location fairly uniform.

   
 

In addition to authorizing an annual registration certificate and fee, the proposed ordinance provides for an assessment for late renewal, a requirement that the Scanner Registration Certificate be available at the store location, and penalties for violations of the provisions of the Chapter. Additionally, the ordinance includes a requirement for posting a consumer notice at each point-of-sale station. The consumer notice (in the form of a sticker) would be provided to businesses by the division and would display the following statement: Attention consumer: You are entitled to the lowest advertised or posted price offered by this store. For information or complaints, you may call the County of San Mateo Sealer of Weights and Measures at a number provided by the Division. The consumer notice posting requirement is modeled on a program currently in place in Los Angeles County and under consideration in Santa Clara County. The notice would address an ongoing concern that consumers are unaware of whom to contact when they are overcharged at a retail business that utilizes scanners. By requiring a posted notice, consumers would be advised of contact information for complaints, and the division would obtain specific information on scanner problems that could then be addressed.

   
 

Other device fees. Section 12240 of the state Business and Professions Code includes specific exceptions to the "Table of Maximum Annual Charges" for annual registration for certain devices. The proposed amendments to the County fee schedule would incorporate the exceptions outlined in Section 12240 pertaining to motor scales, livestock scales, utility meters and scales at certified farmers' markets that were omitted in the previous fee resolution (No. 57900) adopted in January 1994.

   
 

Although fees would increase for only 26 county businesses with motor or livestock scales, the increase will allow the Division to recover the maximum revenue for costs associated with the inspection of these devices. In general, the annual registration fee for motor and livestock scales would increase from $40 per location to $100 per device. There will be no change in the fee currently charged for utility meters and scales at farmers' markets as the amended fee resolution only incorporates the current language outlined in Section 12240 for these devices.

   
 

Business and Professions Code Section 12210.5 requires that the fee for testing commercial devices at the owner/user's request be based on a uniform schedule of fees established by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement Standards (DMS). The state uniform schedule of fees was last amended on August 10, 1999 in DMS Notice D-99-7. The proposed County fee schedule will align charges with the State fee schedule as required, and will allow the County Sealer of Weights and Measures to recover the costs of stand-by time for testing commercial weighing and measuring devices.

   
 

On May 25, 1982 the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution implementing a fee schedule for the inspection of non-commercial weighing and measuring devices. On March 8, 1988, the Board adopted County Resolution No. 50141, which amended the fee schedule. The proposed fee schedule would allow the County Sealer of Weights and Measures to recover the actual current costs of verifying the accuracy of non-commercial weighing and measuring devices.

   
 

In FY 2001-02, the Division responded to inspection requests from 15 owner/users of non-commercial devices. In most cases, the devices were medical scales required to have a annual certificate of accuracy from the County Sealer. The current fees are insufficient for recovering the actual costs of testing these devices. The proposed fee schedule takes into account current salary, benefits, overhead and mileage costs for providing this service. A comparison of the existing and proposed fee schedule is included in Attachment J-1.

   
 

A second reading of the proposed ordinances will be scheduled for the next Board of Supervisors meeting.

   

4.

Animal Control fees.

   
 

A new set of three-year contracts between the County and the Peninsula Humane Society, and the County and the twenty cities commences in FY 2003-04. Given the budgetary situation of the County and all contracting cities, an effort was made to examine all animal control services and increase the operational efficiencies of the program.

   
 

Animal Control Services has seen a dramatic increase in costs because of the passage of the state mandated Hayden and Vincent bills in FY 1999-2000, which increased holding periods for animals and instituted mandatory spay/neuter of adopted animals. FY 1999-2000 Peninsula Humane Society contract costs totaled $2,257,049. By 2000-01, contract costs increased to $3,993,000, with an additional payment of $847,770 for Hayden/Vincent costs incurred in 1999-2000.  Costs have increased 5% between contract years, culminating in a FY 2003-04 contract cost of $4,454,397. This represents an approximate 100% increase in animal control costs over the past four year period. Animal Control fees have not been increased since before this state legislation was enacted.

   
 

In order to gauge San Mateo County animal control fees with other jurisdictions, a survey of comparable city and County agencies was conducted, as show in Attachments L and M. The proposed fee increases will make San Mateo County animal licensing and humane services fees commensurate with comparable jurisdictions.

   
 

Staff is proposing a $1/per year increase in dog license fees for altered dogs. This increase will bring San Mateo County's fee to just under the average for comparable jurisdictions, as detailed in Attachment L. Larger increases are proposed for the dog license fee for unaltered animals, in an effort to encourage the responsible spay/neuter of companion animals, and in support of the County's Pet Overpopulation Ordinance, which encourages citizens to actively combat pet overpopulation through responsible spay/neuter, enforced by the issuance of breeder's permits, regulation of spay/neuter hearings, and discounts for animal licenses for altered animals. No increases are proposed at this time for cat licenses or senior discount rates.

   
 

Various increases are proposed to Humane Services Fees, which are the fees charged to citizens who use shelter and field services, such as impound fees, boarding fees, surrender fees, euthanasia fees, and disposal fees, as detailed in Attachment M. The proposed increases will make San Mateo County fees commensurate to the other jurisdictions surveyed. Notable fee increases include the adoption fee, which is proposed to increase from $55 to $70, making San Mateo County fees on par with similar agencies, and the dangerous animal permit fee, which is proposed to increase from $100 to $200. Dangerous animal permits are costly to implement and monitor, therefore cost recovery is imperative in these cases. The increased permit fee is also intended to be a disincentive for individuals to maintain dangerous animals in this County. Dangerous Animal Permit Fees range from-$100 to $500 in other jurisdictions.

   
 

County Counsel review.

 

The Fee Proposals, Ordinances and Resolutions have been reviewed and approved as to form by the County Counsel's Office.

   

ALTERNATIVES

   

Planning and Building fees. If your Board prefers a lesser increase in Planning and Building fees, staff offers the following options: (1) adopt an across-the-board 36% increase to essentially eliminate the general fund subsidy to the development review process, but not the additional 15% increase to do the same for the long range planning function; or (2) adopt any other percentage below that recommended by staff. If your Board chooses either of these options, we recommend you identify the preferred percentage increase and, then, in moving the resolution, direct that the fee schedule attached to the resolution be modified to correlate with the selected percentage.

   

Parks and Recreation fees. If your Board prefers not to increase park usage fees, the Parks' Division will need to eliminate three filled ranger positions to meet the mandated 20% reduction of Net County Costs. If you choose not to increase the Marina berth rates, we will be in violation of the loan agreement we have with the California Department of Boating and Waterways.

 

Agriculture/Weights and Measures fees. These proposed fees have been included in the division's FY 2003-04 budget. If these fees are not adopted the division would have to develop another plan to meet its Net County Cost reduction target, which would include reductions in staff and customer service levels.

 

If your Board prefers, the $200 flat rate fee for annual scanner registration could be modified to a two-tiered annual registration fee schedule to provide a lower rate for small businesses. Businesses would be charged based on the number of point-of-sale stations at each location as follows:

 
 

1-3 scanners

$160

 

3 or more

$260

     

The two-tiered fee schedule would generate the same revenue to recover program costs assuming that Division estimates of store size are fairly accurate. If an annual scanner registration fee is not adopted the current limited scanner inspection program as well as other related consumer protection activities would be discontinued

 

Animal Control fees. Conservative estimates on proposed fee increases have been built into the FY 2003-04 Animal Control Budget. If the proposed fee increases are not enacted, offsetting revenues will not be realized as anticipated, resulting in increased costs to the County and cities for Animal Control Services.

   

VISION ALIGNMENT

 

Maintaining a proper relationship between costs and revenues serves the Commitment of Responsive, effective and collaborative government, and goal #20: Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain, and it also serves the Commitment of Leaders work together across boundaries to preserve and enhance our quality of life, and goal #24: Residents accept individual responsibility for contributing to the qualify of life of the County as a whole, by assuring that those who utilize County services pay the cost of providing those services, rather than receiving a subsidy from taxpayers and thereby diverting resources from other needed programs without a source of cost recovery.

 

FISCAL IMPACT

 

Planning and Building. In the submitted budget, the fee increase of 5% approved on April 8 has been combined with the elimination of two vacant positions and a reduction in extra help funding to meet the Planning and Building Net County Cost target of $1,610,911, which is based on a 20% NCC reduction goal. Approval of the 36% "development review" fee increment recommended above would increase revenues by approximately $1,022,911, thus reducing Planning and Building's NCC to approximately $588,000. Approval of the additional 15% "long range planning" fee increment recommended above would further increase revenues by approximately $588,000, thus reducing Planning and Building's NCC to approximately zero. All of the above scenarios include the elimination of two positions and reduction of extra help funding. Adding back any of those cuts in conjunction with whatever fee increase is approved would increase NCC above the indicated levels.

 

Parks and Recreation. To meet the 20% reduction of Net County Cost target, the Parks and Recreation Division has proposed a variety of strategies, including elimination of three vacant full time positions, fee increases for 17 park activities by about 25%, shifting some positions to funding other than General Fund, reduction of Extra Help salaries by 66%, reduction of Services and Supplies by 20% and reduction in Other Charges by 30%.

 

The Parks and Recreation Division's Operations, Maintenance and Administrative budget for FY 02-03 has a Net County Cost of $5,253,672. If the fee package were not adopted, it would mean that three filled positions would have to be eliminated from the budget to meet the Net Count Cost target.

 

Agriculture/Weights and Measures. The proposed fee increases have been included in the Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer Division budget for FY 2003-04 and are part of the division's Net County Cost reduction plan.

 

The new phytosanitary inspection certification fee schedule will provide $131,000 in annual revenue, which will represent full cost recovery for this service. A total of $21,000 has been added to the division's FY 2003-04 budget based on this revised fee schedule. The proposed agricultural pest control business fee will provide approximately $1,000 in additional annual revenue. The proposed changes in the Agricultural Pest Control Adviser annual registration fee will have no effect on revenue. The new direct marketing fees for certification and inspection of certified farmers' markets and certified producers will provided additional revenue of $12,000 which will represent full cost recovery for these mandated services. There is no Net County Cost associated with this ordinance amendment.

 

If the Board adopts the ordinance and the resolution authorizing a fee for scanner registration, the new fee would be in effect for the 2004 calendar year registrations and would provide full cost recovery for the scanner inspection program. Revenue from scanner registration fees for FY 2003-04 and annually thereafter would total $110,000. The additional revenue would help meet the Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer Division Net County Cost target of $650,245 which is based on a 20% NCC reduction goal for FY 2003-04.

 

If the Board adopts the ordinance amending the fee schedule for device registration, the new charges would be in effect for the 2004 calendar year registrations. Revenue from device registration fees for FY 2003-04 would increase approximately $2,600 to an annual total of $115,000.

 

If the Board approves the resolution amending the stand-by charges fee schedule, the new charges would be in effect in July 2003. Requests for stand-by time during device inspections are very infrequent; therefore, the impact of the increased charges on Division revenue will be insignificant.

 

If the Board adopts the resolution amending the fee schedule for non-commercial device inspection, the new charges would be in effect in July 2003. Estimated annual revenue for the inspection of non-commercial devices would increase from $660 to approximately $1000.

 

Animal Control. In FY 2001-02, Humane Services fees totaled $319,760, and revenue to the Animal Control Program from Animal Licensing totaled $125,972. Based on these figures, and assuming some user drop-off into revenue estimates due to disincentive to use animal control services due to increased fees, the proposed increases are estimated to bring approximately $200,000 of additional revenue to the program. In order to realize the full revenue source, the County and all cities must adopt the proposed fees. The revised ordinance and fee information has been distributed to the contracting cities, which are expected to enact the fee increases subsequent to County approval. The County and cities distribute Animal Control costs based on a percentage share which is determined by city and County use of all Animal Control Services. In FY 2003-04, the County's share of Animal Control costs will be 6.92%. Revenues to the Animal Control Program are totaled and reduce the amount all jurisdictions pay for Animal Control Services. Hence, the amount the County pays for Animal Control Services will be less 6.92% of all revenues.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

A.

Resolution Amending Development Services Fee Schedules.

A-1.

Proposed Planning Service Fee Schedules for FY2003/2004.

A-2.

Proposed Planning Service Fee Schedule for FY2004/2005.

A-3.

Proposed Planning Service Fee Schedule for FY2005/2006.

A-4.

Proposed Planning Service Fee Schedule for FY2006/2007.

A-5.

Proposed Building Inspection Service Fee Schedule for FY2003/2004.

A-6.

Proposed Building Inspection Service Fee Schedule for FY2004/2005.

A-7.

Proposed Building Inspection Service Fee Schedule for FY2005/2006.

A-8.

Proposed Building Inspection Service Fee Schedule for FY2006/2007.

B.

Planning and Building Fee Comparison Table.

C.

Planning and Building Cost Recovery Options.

D.

Resolution Amending Park Fees.

D-1.

Park Usage Fee Schedule and Fee Increases.

D-2.

Coyote Point Marina Fee Schedule and Fee Increases.

D-3.

Coyote Point Marina Berth Rate Survey.

D-4.

Parks and Recreation Division Fees and Charges Survey 2003.

E.

Ordinance Amendment (2.24.080) for Agricultural Fees

E-1.

County Phytosanitary Certification Fee Survey

E-2.

County Agricultural Pest Control Business Registration Fee Survey

E-3.

County Direct Marketing Inspection and Certification Fee Survey

F.

Ordinance (5.144) for Scanner Registration Fee

F-1.

Comparison of Fee Schedules for Annual Scanner Registration.

G.

Resolution establishing an Annual Registration Fee for Inspection of Scanners

H.

Ordinance (5.124.020 and 5.124.030) Amending Device Registration Fee Schedule for Certain Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices

I.

Resolution Amending the Fee Schedule for Weights and Measures Inspection Stand-by Charges

J.

Resolution Amending the Fee Schedule for Non-Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices

J-1.

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Fee Schedules for Non-Commercial Devices

K.

Ordinance Amending Animal Control Fees

L.

Dog Licensing Fee Comparison

M.

Humane Services Fee Comparison

   

COPIES

 

Associated General Contractors of California

Building and Construction Trades Council

Building Industry Association

Peninsula Builders Exchange

TLB:kr Tlbn0519(rev)_wkru.doc