Exhibit CC 05-17-2016 Item No. 18 FY 16-17 Proposed Fee Schedule - City Template (2){
FY 2016-17
Fee Schedule Amendment
Jaqui Guzman, Assistant to the City Manager
Aarti Shrivastava , Assistant City Manager
Fee Comparison -Planning
Cities Fee Study Notes
Santa Clara 2015 Council subsidizes some residential
development services
Mountain View 2004
Milpitas 2014 Full cost recovery using deposits and hourly
rates
Sunnyvale Unknown
Campbell 2010 For large projects, fully cost recover with
deposits and hourly rates, including overtime
rates
Palo Alto 2008 New study completed in January 2016 found
Planning is currently at 55% cost recovery.
Increases are proposed at cost recovery for
most fees phased over 2 years. Hourly rates are
recommended to increase by 57%.
Evaluation of Cost Recovery
Most neighboring cities have not conducted comprehensive
CAP and fee studies in the last few years, as shown below.
Service levels can vary dramatically from one
community to the next
Service descriptions are different
Multiple services can be included in one fee
for one community and separated in
another community.
Service Levels
Organization and management analysis of
City’s permit process by Matrix (2009) found:
Cupertino’s permitting process was viewed
as one of the best in Silicon Valley with
respect to staff attitude, helpfulness,
accessibility and reasonableness.
Cupertino was ranked among the top three
cities, along with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara.
Efficiency
Pricing structures vary by city
Flat fees
Deposit with time and materials charges
No comparison data available for full cost-
recovery cities using deposits
Pricing Structures
Some cities incentivize development
Development subsidies
Without full cost recovery, the General
Fund is subsidizing development
Policy and Objectives
Proposed Amendment
Increase 12 fees to full cost recovery
Most are related to large development
activity
Increase fee for R-1 w/ Design Review
From 80% Cost Recovery to 92% Cost
Recovery consistent with R-1 w/ No
Design Review