Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-04 Finance Com Minutes - Cost StudyDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Finance Committee Wednesday, December 1, 2004 Council Conference Room Minutes Attending: Mr. Keenan. Chair Mrs. Boring Mr. Lecklider (arrived at 6 p.m.) Ms. Grigsby Ms. Kennedy Ms. Hoyle Ms. Heal Mr. Keenan called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m., noting that tonight's meeting has been scheduled to discuss the cost of services update for fees to be charged in 2005. Ms. Grigsby provided background on the process. This update is done annually and has been done since 1994. The intent of the study is to look at those City services that benefit specific individuals or businesses and set fees to be charged to offset the actual charge of providing those services. The philosophy is that general tax dollars are then available for general tax services, and those receiving a specific benefit pay for the benefits they receive. A consultant was retained when the process first began, and this software application is still used to generate the information. It calculates the actual costs of services, based upon data input. Staff then proposes a fee schedule to Council and the Finance Committee based upon actual expenditures for the prior year. The ordinance distributed to Council in November was recapped in the Friday packet. Spreadsheets detailed the individual services, the 2003 and 2004 fees, and the proposed fees for 2005. Staff has highlighted in yellow where fees are proposed for change -the Committee may want to focus on these areas. The memo highlights some other areas where changes have been proposed, including the additional fee for building based on the architectural guidelines adopted, the issue of warrant blocks for Court, fees for certain Planning services which were eliminated, utility capacity charges discussed previously with Council at the time of extending sewer lines, and an adjustment in the outdoor pool fees for recreation. She noted that the philosophy on percentage of recovery has been consistent over the years, and there is no change in percentage of recovery recommended. For Recreation, the recovery rate is 50 percent in the aggregate. The goal with Phase 1 of the DCRC was to substantially recover the operating costs for the facility. For Phase 2, it was recognized that a subsidy would be needed based upon the type of uses and the intensity of labor involved. Council did not want to charge rates to offset these charges, as they viewed these as a community service and wanted to provide them at a more reasonable fee. Each year, individuals involved with providing the service review the allocation of time they have experienced in the past year to provide the service. Their input is sought regarding needed changes. Mr. Keenan suggested that the Committee review the highlighted areas where changes are recommended for 2005. Mrs. Boring commented that it appears there are more changes this year than in the last year. Ms. Grigsby responded that there were fewer changes last year. The process provides for increases in certain increments - $10. If last year the fee was $40 based upon an actual cost of $42, it would have remained at $45. If this year the cost were $47, the fee would be recommended to be raised to $50. Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 2 Mrs. Boring suggested focusing on the Community Department portion. She commented that for some services, the total number of services rendered is very limited. For example, the Concept Plan Review, S-016. Ms. Kennedy stated that she reviewed these with Mr. Gunderman. The calculation included the number of hours a planner spends on a particular application, the number that an inspector spends, etc. Mrs. Boring stated that because of the turnover in Planning division, is it feasible that there is a learning curve involved for Planners? Perhaps the process is taking longer than it did previously. Has this been factored in? Ms. Kennedy responded that an average amount of time is used to compute the service time. Mr. Keenan asked if there have been significant changes in the past 3 years in view of the less experienced staff? Ms. Kennedy stated that there has not been, but she and Mr. Gunderman have discussed reviewing the services closely next year. Mr. Keenan asked if Dublin's fees are comparable to those charged by other cities. Ms. Grigsby stated that most communities in Ohio base fees on surveys. Dublin's fees don't compare with others, as the fees reflect the actual cost of rendering the service. She is not aware of other communities in Ohio who use the cost system. The system is more prevalent in California because of their tax structure. Mrs. Boring stated that for a concept plan review, does the fee take into account the size of the plan? Perhaps it is 400 acres of single family or it could be 400 acres of mixed use. Ms. Grigsby responded that the final and preliminary plat fees are based upon number of acres, but for a concept plan, the process is much the same -large or small. Mrs. Boring stated that a Council Member contacted her regarding the fee for Conditional Use application - S-026. To come to the point of seeking a conditional use, an applicant has already incurred extensive fees for zoning. She cannot understand why the conditional use fee is so high. Many times, a conditional use involves something added at a later time - adrive-through, for example. Why would the concept plan approval fee be less than that of conditional use? Ms. Grigsby responded that much of it relates to the P&Z reports from staff, the staff time at the meetings, etc. Mr. Keenan stated that an example is an existing restaurant, such as Tucci's, wants to add an outdoor patio -they have to pay $2,700 application fee for a conditional use. They mayor may not have the application approved. Kroger's on Sawmill wanted to add adrive-through after the project was approved. Had they done this at the outset, would the fee have been required? Mrs. Boring responded that it would have been required at the outset as well - a conditional use requires a separate fee. Ms. Grigsby stated that the one difference is the fact that the concept plan is something that staff would like to encourage, and so recommends recovery at 50 percent. The conditional use is recovered at 100 percent. Mr. Keenan responded that Council could therefore choose to reduce the recovery for a conditional use to 50 percent as well. That would be more consistent. Mrs. Boring asked about the recovery for a preliminary plat review. Ms. Kennedy responded that it is 100 percent. Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Grigsby added that the theory is that whatever it costs to process the application should be paid for in full by the applicant. Mrs. Boring added that any auto-oriented use and outdoor patio use constitute conditional uses. They may know at the outset that they need the conditional use, but the approval process is separate from the rezoning. Mrs. Boring stated that there is a "boilerplate" staff report for conditional uses, which basically repeats the information provided for the rezoning. Mrs. Boring proposed that Council consider reducing the amount of recovery to 50 percent for conditional uses, in order to be consistent and so as not to charge excessive fees for an applicant who requires a rezoning plus a conditional use. Mr. Keenan concurred. (At this point, Mr. Lecklider arrived) After briefing him on this item, Mr. Lecklider agreed with bringing this proposal to Council. Mrs. Boring noted that Mr. McCash had contacted her with this concern. Mrs. Boring asked about S-175, PLR Minor Revision, which has been recommended by staff to be eliminated from the fee schedule. Ms. Kennedy stated that this is no longer necessary, due to the PUD Minor Revision in the new ordinance. There were five services deleted due to the new PUD ordinance. Building Services Ms. Grigsby stated that the majority of highlighted items are based on inflation-related changes. One exception is the Residential Appearance Code, and relates to the additional cost of inspections required as a result of this. This is S-043. Mrs. Boring noted that several years ago, there was a discussion at this Committee about homeowners who wanted to construct their own decks. Ms. Grigsby stated that the major discussion focused on basement renovation. It is now a flat fee of $50, established by Council, for the homeowner who wants to remodel his/her basement. The goal was to encourage homeowners to pull permits for this work. Mrs. Boring noted that at a recent Civic Association President meeting, hosted by the City, Ms. Brautigam outlined some City regulations about permits required -including those for new appliances. Ms. Grigsby stated that these would apply for major appliance changes -furnaces, water heaters, etc. -and are designed to address safety issues. Following discussion, Ms. Grigsby stated that staff would provide information on the permits needed for specific appliance changouts. Ms. Grigsby noted that the conditional occupancy permit fee, S-043 and S-044 has been recommended for change from $200 to $300. The goal is to encourage the completion of unfinished items. There is also a lot of follow-up in terms of staff time to monitor conditional occupancies. Mr. Keenan asked if there are any fees which have generated a lot of complaints to staff. Ms. Grigsby stated that when Finance staff reviews the fees with the divisions, this is discussed. She is not aware of any complaints regarding building fees. Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 4 Mrs. Boring stated that for S-043, was the six-month period added? Ms. Kennedy responded that this was already in place. Engineering Fees Ms. Grigsby stated that there are no changes highlighted; some minor changes have been made, based on costs experienced. Some are rarely used. Mrs. Boring asked why S-058 decreased by such an amount. Ms. Kennedy responded that the inspector asked for this reduction in the fee, as he believes that homeowners would replace aprons or sidewalks more often if the fee were not prohibitive. This was based on feedback from residents. Mrs. Boring suggested that 5-058 be treated in the same way as the basement renovation, and that the fee be reduced to $50 for residential. The Committee concurred with this suggestion. Utility Fees Ms. Grigsby noted that there are no proposed changes in user fees for water and sewer. Under capacity charges, staff is recommending the fee for a'/a inch water tap increase from $1,500 to $1,600 and for sewer tap, from $1,600 to $1,800. This increase is due to the extension of water and sewer lines in areas currently unserved. The goal is to maintain the percentage of fund balance compared to the total of the fixed assets. Mr. Keenan stated that the City of Columbus is also proposing increases in water and sewer rates beginning in 2005. Ms. Grigsby stated that Dublin users would feel this impact as well. The Dublin surcharge rate has not changed since 1996 and is reviewed each year in the budget process and in the cost study. The goal is to maintain a 25 percent fund balance compared to the total value of the system's assets. It is important to have adequate funds for maintenance and replacement. Mr. Keenan asked if this was put into place for the debt service. Ms. Grigsby stated that on the sewer side, it relates to the West Bank interceptor debt service. On the water side, it relates to water towers and booster stations. The water has had a surcharge back to the 1970's. The sewer surcharge was implemented in 1992. Mrs. Boring pointed out that it is amazing that Dublin pays the surcharge to Columbus, yet Dublin must maintain the lines and water towers. Mr. Keenan stated that under their contracts with Columbus, suburbs pay higher water and sewer rates. Ms. Grigsby stated that prior to 1992, the City had been paying for water towers and booster stations from income tax revenues instead of from capacity charges. Mrs. Boring stated that as a consumer, she is aware that Dublin is paying higher rates, but she was shocked to learn that Columbus is not doing the maintenance. Ms. Grigsby stated that for the water side, Columbus does have some responsibility for repair to the main lines. It is their system and they want to maintain the integrity of the system. For the sewer side, it is Dublin's responsibility to do the maintenance. Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Keenan noted that Columbus is undertaking major capital repairs related to the system overflows downtown and aging infrastructure. They will need a lot of funding to accomplish these repairs. Ms. Grigsby noted that the Dublin increases for water and sewer taps are proposed to take effect on July 1, 2005 to allow sufficient notice to developers, builders, and home buyers. In January, staff anticipates bringing to Council separate ordinances for water and sewer regarding these fees. These are required for the OWDA loan. Mr. Keenan asked what the residents of Indian Run were told in terms of capacity fees. Ms. Grigsby responded that they were told that they would pay the capacity fees in place at the time of tap-in. The fees are actually to increase on July 1, instead of January 1 as contemplated previously. The Engineering staff will be sending out information on this matter. Mr. Keenan asked what is the commercial tap rate? Ms. Grigsby stated that they pay a tap fee plus a fire suppression rate of 20 percent. These fees are not proposed for increase. In part, the reason the fund balance is healthy is due to the commercial development which occurred in the late 90's. Mrs. Boring stated that it is strange that many fees have not changed, such as gasoline surcharge, in view of the fact that salaries and utility costs have increased. Ms. Kennedy responded that the gasoline surcharge was revised in 2003. For other areas, such as Spilled Load clean up, the salaries are averaged, and seasonal employees have been used which brings down the per hour costs for labor. Public Safety Fees Mrs. Boring asked how the false alarm fees have worked out. Council had a lot of discussion about this previously. Ms. Grigsby responded that the majority of these are commercial, and fast food restaurants. It may be due to the turnover of employees who are not familiar with the systems. Court Services Ms. Grigsby stated that these fees, in general, are not based on the costs per hour to deliver the services. Some are regulated by the state, and other fees have been set, based upon the desire to offer the service, such as adult diversion, to certain individuals. With court fees, they strive to have a balance between the fees versus the cost of the services. No increases are proposed. There is anew fee, warrant blocks, which has been added. Ms. Kennedy stated that this is a mechanism that the state has provided that triggers warrants at the time of automobile registration. It is a useful tool. Recreation Services Ms. Grigsby stated that staff is recommending an increase for the babysitting rates for the first hour. Changes are proposed for the outdoor pool daily rate, and a modification of the discount for those holding a DCRC membership and an outdoor pool membership is proposed. Mr. Lecklider noted that he has some concern with the amount of the daily outdoor pool fee proposed -from $5 up to $7. He read, however, that the City has had to subsidize the outdoor pools in the past years. So it is not an easy answer. He does not support subsidizing the outdoor pools to this extent. He could envision an adult and two children spending $20 to attend the pool for a day, and believes that may be excessive. Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 6 Mrs. Boring noted that a related suggestion is that with all of the other communities now having rec centers, perhaps Council should consider raising non-resident rates for the Rec Center. She heard that the fitness area is again becoming crowded. Ms. Heal stated that Phase 2 tripled the capability of the fitness area. At first, there was a leveling off when the facility was crowded, but with the larger capability, it has again become very crowded. Mr. Keenan asked if staff has statistics regarding who uses the fitness area -residents, corporate residents, school district residents and non-residents. Ms. Heal stated that her sense is that the percentage of the category "non-residents" using the facility is very small. Mr. Keenan stated that he discussed this with Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher. She, too, is interested in viewing statistics on actual usage, not membership. Are the statistics available per quarter to show this usage by category? That would give Council a better sense of who is using the facility. He would like information month by month, with percentages of categories of users. He asked if there is delineation between school district resident and non-resident. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is a different fee charged for these two groups. There is a schedule which outlines these fees in the ordinance appendix. Mr. Keenan stated he would prefer to focus on residents versus non-residents - he does not want to focus on the school district category. Mrs. Boring stated that she has reviewed fees for other facilities throughout the area and found that Dublin's fees for non-residents and school district residents are extremely low -there is a need to look at raising the fees for these categories. Mr. Keenan stated that what he has heard from Council is that if there is a capacity issue, the City's first and foremost responsibility is to the residents -the people who live in Dublin. Council may have different ideas about how to prioritize from that point. To him, the corporate residents would be a consideration in terms of economic development, and because of the fact that they pay income tax revenue to the City. Mrs. Boring noted that in reviewing the current fees, the City could be more than fair, and still consider raising the fees for the two categories mentioned. Mr. Keenan suggested that staff plug the numbers into the chart of users as categorized in the current fee schedule. Mrs. Boring stated that the goal is not to increase revenue; it is to increase capacity for residents. She is comparing Dublin's fees with private facilities and has found that for the non-resident, Dublin's fees should be increased. Ms. Grigsby stated that the non-resident fee is a bit closer to the fee for aSawmill-type facility. But staff can bring additional information to Council on this. She recalls that the non-resident percentage of users or members was only about 4 percent. Mr. Keenan stated that the Mayor has also questions about the pass for college students. As currently configured, it does address those who come home for the summer. Some students, however, do not come home in the summer due to work-study programs, etc. She would prefer an Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 7 option for a weekly pass for those who come home over the holiday periods. The daily rate of $8 can add up quickly. Mrs. Boring stated that this similar to the issue Mr. Lecklider brought up with the outdoor pool. If a weekly rate were to be offered, it would be important to ensure consistency and fairness to everyone. Ms. Grigsby stated that the reason it was set at 70 visits per year was due to the fact that some students come home for three months in the summer, yet come home at other holidays. The 70 visits were intended to cover the entire year and it was thought to be a reasonable number of visits throughout the year. This was already a compromise offered and agreed to by Council. Ms. Heal offered that the system has worked well -they have not had complaints. Mrs. Boring suggested that they revisit the daily rate for outdoor pools. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is the issue of encouraging people to purchase annual passes, which brings revenue in early in the season and eliminates the dependency upon weather. With the opening of the Community Pool South, there were quite a few non-resident, high school daily pass users coming in with Dublin students. She emphasized that there is a desire to encourage purchase of an annual pass. Mrs. Boring asked how staff determines that someone is accompanied by a Dublin resident. What do they check? Ms. Grigsby stated that the Dublin computer system has an address checker for Dublin. The front desk has access to this system. Mr. Lecklider wondered if the City is penalizing the residents by raising the daily pass fee if the desire is to charge more to non-residents. Ms. Grigsby stated that there is not anon-resident rate, as they are eligible to attend the pool only if accompanied by a resident. The daily pass rate, based upon a survey, is very reasonable in comparison with other facilities. Mrs. Boring asked about the fees for admission to Wyandot Lake after 6 p.m. Perhaps a Dublin adult resident wants to attend the pool after work. But if the issue is with capacity, that is a separate issue. Mr. Lecklider commented that he would note his concern with the daily rate increase at the Council meeting discussion and see if there is interest in reducing this rate. In response to Mr. Lecklider's comment about subsidies, Ms. Grigsby stated that prior to 2000, the outdoor pool was basically self-supporting. In 2000 and 2001 at the north pool, there were some upgrades needed for filters. In this year, a subsidy was needed due to the addition of the new pool. Mrs. Boring stated that Ms. Salay attends the pool regularly, and her input would be important on this issue. Ms. Grigsby stated that another area of concern related to the outdoor pool is that when the rec center opened, a significant discount was given to those who would hold both a rec center and Finance Committee December 1, 2004 Page 8 outdoor pool pass. Staff is now recommending that discount be reduced to 10 percent. This may have impacts and less subsidy may be needed. Ms. Grigsby stated that if the Committee believes that a daily pass fee of $6 is more reasonable, this could be recommended, and it could be increased to $7 next year. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would be more comfortable with this, but would like input from other Council members. Mrs. Boring agreed with recommending a $6 daily outdoor pool pass rate to the entire Council. Mr. Keenan asked if any of the rental rates need to be reviewed. Mrs. Boring asked if staff is aware of any issues that should be reviewed. Ms. Heal stated that there are no problem areas that she has been made aware of. Cemetery Fees Ms. Grigsby stated that the only change is to the interment fee from $230 to $250. Mr. Keenan asked about the fees listed under S-115. Ms. Grigsby responded that this service is for maintenance fees and is proposed for a minor increase. A maintenance fee was established several years ago and provides for the funds to be put into a perpetual maintenance fund. Eventually, the interest income will cover the annual maintenance costs. The lot cost is $150. Non-residents can purchase lots, but their maintenance fees are significantly higher than that for Dublin residents. Mr. Lecklider confirmed that at the time a cemetery lot is purchased, the maintenance fee is paid. Ms. Grigsby stated that is correct. Miscellaneous Ms. Kennedy stated that these fees relate to copies of videos and CD's. They are based on recovering the costs of the videotape and CD and have been verified by the IT Division. Mr. Keenan stated that the Committee has now completed their review. Staff will provide a summary of the issues for the packet. Ms. Kennedy stated that she would update the document with changes recommended by the Committee. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Government Finance Officers Association has recommended budget practices and they do recommend a process such as this be done on a regular basis. If fees are questioned, the documentation is available on which the fee was computed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Clerk of Council