Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-08 Finance Com MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Finance Committee Monday, December 1, 2008 Minutes of Meeting Mr. Keenan, Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Council members present: Mr. Keenan, Vice Mayor Boring and Mr. Gerber Staff members present: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Thurman, Ms. Kennedy Mr. Keenan stated that the purpose of the meeting is to review the proposed cost of service changes for 2009. Ms. Grigsby stated that the City has been performing cost of services studies for several years to ensure that the cost of services rendered to individual beneficiaries are paid by the beneficiaries. This preserves general tax dollars for general tax services. A thorough annual review has been conducted since 1994, the year a consultant conducted an initial review. There have been minimal changes over the past several years, and therefore, staff would like to recommend that in the future the Customer Price Index rate be used to recommend adjustments to the per unit cost. For 2008, that rate was 3.7%. Staff has prepared a spreadsheet reflecting that level of fee increase for next year. The staff memo highlights certain items for Council's attention. Mr. Keenan stated that at the first reading of Ordinance 82-08, Council was satisfied with the 3.7% cost of services increase in accordance with the CPI cost of living rate increase. However, there were a couple of minor questions Vice Mayor Boring had, and others may also be raised tonight. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the entire fee schedule would be revised according to the CPI rate of increase. Ms. Kennedy confirmed that the entire fee schedule has been revised accordingly. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if that action could skew the numbers in certain areas, such as for Building Permits. When there are fewer permits, the cost per permit would appear to be higher. Ms. Grigsby responded that this year, application of the CPI rate made the changes fairer across the board. However, next year that could be an issue for some services, such as Building Permits. In some cases, the cost would double because the activity has diminished to that proportion. Vice Mayor Boring stated that would indicate a need to address that area specifically in the next update. Vice Mayor Boring inquired how the homeowner association fee structure was determined. Ms. Crandall had advised her that these proposed fees would be forwarded first to Council for review/approval before they were incorporated into the 2009 fee schedule. Therefore, tonight she would like to review the homeowner association fee waivers and the anticipated effects of those waivers. Finance Committee December 1, 2008 Page 2 Ms. Kennedy stated that the exhibit of service costs included with the proposed legislation was provided to CSAC. They have approved the recommendations and forwarded them to Council. Staff has incorporated those changes in the cost study. The only fee waivers CSAC recommended were for a Minor Plan Revision ($980.00). Mr. Keenan noted this would be for modification of the entryway features. Ms. Kennedy indicated that is the item for which refunds were made of fees previously paid. There is also a fee waiver for sign inspections. Mr. Langworthy has indicated that this should be restricted to signage within the public realm, which would be entryway signage. These are the only waivers proposed. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if it could be in the entryway, yet private to the community. Mr. Keenan noted that the intent is to require that the purpose of the sign modifications be to address what the public views, although it is on homeowner association property. Ms. Kennedy added that the intent was that it helps the entire community by providing identification. Reinspection Fees: Ms. Kennedy noted that the reinspection fees are for those instances when the inspector has arrived, but the contractor is not ready. The $100 fee is slightly prohibitive, a little higher than the actual cost for the inspector's visit. Mr. Keenan stated that would eliminate some missed appointments. Easement Encroachment Review: Mr. Kennedy noted that this would be for instances in which a property owner would place a feature in the City's right-of-way, such as a patio or deck. This involves a process, completed by the Engineering division, in which they inspect the easement, the property owner signs an encroachment agreement, and it is recorded with the County Recorder's office. The $300 fee covers that process. Vice Mayor Boring stated that at one time Muirfield Greene had to submit an Encroachment Review Request due to the placement of their signage. Would this apply to that type of situation? Ms. Kennedy responded that would be an encroachment into the site triangle. That type of sign installation is different than a homeowner who wants to install a patio, deck or landscape stone into a public easement running along their property. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if in all cases this would be individual and not group encroachment. Ms. Kennedy responded affirmatively. Ms. Grigsby noted that under "public realm," the current fee is $300 for permanent sign inspection plus $70 if an easement encroachment is required. That would be included in an approved waiver. Mr. Keenan inquired if that is required on a new build, or is it part of the normal process? Ms. Kennedy responded that it would be part of the normal process. Finance Committee December 1, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Keenan asked if there a process by which a homeowner could extend a deck by a couple of feet, if it would be within the public right-of-way. Would that be considered an encroachment? Mr. Gerber stated that scenario would probably be addressed by the no build/no disturb zone, which is part of the text. It would be necessary to file an amended final development plan. Mr. Keenan responded that there is therefore a process for doing so. Mr. Keenan stated that would not then be an easement encroachment. Would it refer to the utilities easement area? Staff confirmed that would be the case. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there have been any other type of homeowner requests for fee waivers. Mr. Gerber stated that that there a couple of Amended Final Development Plan fee waiver requests related to patios that were installed at a later date, after the development was completed. Ms. Grigsby responded that is part of what prompted this discussion. It might have been regarding the Ballantrae subdivision. Mr. Gerber stated that it may have been across the street from Ballantrae on the east side of Avery Road. Ms. Kennedy noted that the Minor Plan Revision is considered interior to the development, and it is not an approved waiver. Mr. Keenan inquired if the HOA is financially responsible for signs that are displaced or damaged. Ms. Grigsby responded that they are responsible only for the wooden street signs. The City is responsible for all other street signs. DCRC Fees: Vice Mayor Boring inquired why the high schools request to have certain programs housed within the DCRC. Why can't they be run by the schools? Ms. Kennedy responded that the Power Plus Program is for young adults with varying levels of disabilities, who are having difficulty transitioning from the school environment to the work environment. The individuals will not be transitioning to a college environment, but will remain within the Dublin community. This program will take the individual from their place of employment to the DCRC to participate in a workout or wellness routine. Vice Mayor Boring inquired the reason the schools could not provide that program. Ms. Kennedy responded that the participants are age 18 or older and are no longer high school students. They are transitioning out of that environment. Finance Committee December 1, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Earman stated that they are included in one of two special needs groups. The younger group has physical or mental special needs. The older group, the West Bridge Academy group, is 18-22 years of age who have not yet graduated from high school and are at high risk of not graduating. This will integrate both the programs as a partnering program. The older group would mentor the younger group to establish inter -social types of relationships. The rationale in using the Rec Center is to enable them to benefit from a social atmosphere that they have not had within the school environment. Once they do graduate from school, an established familiarity with the Rec Center will heighten their sense of public awareness. Mr. Keenan inquired if these individuals are also in the school work-study program. Ms. Kennedy responded that it is the same group. Vice Mayor Boring inquired about the available time frame for this program. The noon time is also a popular time for working people to include a fitness program, so would there be a problem with that time frame for this program? Mr. Earman responded that the use would be restricted according to the availability of the Rec Center so as not to cause a negative impact on other existing programs or high use times. The lunch time would not be a good time for the Work Plus Program. The authorized activities would be included in a formal agreement that would stipulate the expectations. Either the approved hours would be addressed in writing or the participants would be required to obtain approval from the fitness program supervisor. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if Council approves the program, would staff develop an agreement that would address the hours, areas of approved use and the maximum number of people that would be accommodated? Mr. Earman responded that those parameters would be included, and also a provision that the Schools would be using some of their own staff to assist with the program. The agreement will also include any identified ancillary costs to the City, such as the cost of any City staff who will be working with the program. Care will be taken to ensure that this program is in balance with the needs of existing Recreation Center programs. Mr. Keenan noted that there are not that many of these types of programs available, and the families are very grateful for them. Some of these young people are also being transitioned into group homes where the socialization process is very important. This is a valuable program provided for a certain segment of the Dublin community. He appreciates staffs effort to do so. Mr. Earman responded that this is the type of effort that is the Rec Center's responsibility to pursue. The purpose of the Recreation Center is to provide opportunities to maximize active lifestyles for the Dublin community. However, this is one of the programs that would cost the City a substantial amount of money to offer outside of a partnership. Special needs programs are often cost prohibitive to provide. Finance Committee December 1, 2008 Page 5 COIC Fees: Mr. Keenan inquired about the COIC fees. Will requiring a fee hinder or discourage new applications? Ms. Grigsby responded that the fee is minimal in comparison to the size of the projects. If an applicant was to demonstrate a hardship situation and requested a fee waiver, staff does have the opportunity to make a recommendation to Council to waive the fee. It is not likely this will be a deterrent, however. Mr. Keenan noted that the Recreation Center membership numbers are flat or decreased from last year, so there is no intent to proceed with altering the fee structure this year. Is there still an expectation to change the school district resident fee in the future? Mr. Earman responded that when there is evidence of a need to change the fees, staff will pursue that. Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the intent of the Birthday Party fee increase is to recover 100% of the City's costs. Mr. Earman responded that it is the intent in regard to non residents. The resident fee for this activity increased only $10. Mr. Keenan requested that staff summarize this information in a memo and recommendation for the December 8 Council meeting. He would like the opportunity to review the memo before it is included in Council's packet. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Deputy Clerk of Council