Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-01 Finance Com - Cost StudyDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, October 22, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Attending: Mr. McCash, Chair Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher Mr. Reiner Melody Kennedy, Finance Michele Hoyle, Finance Don Colby, Courts Bob Price, Building Standards Mr. McCash stated that the purpose of this meeting is the review of the Cost Study. The first area of review is the Division of Courts. COURTS: Mr. Colby stated he has no issue with the three proposed increases in fees in his division. He explained the new fee, the Court -Ordered Education Program. The City Probation Officer and Diversion Officer have received the required training to facilitate the classes. He distributed a list of the general curriculum that could be offered. He suggested that a subsidy could be provided for cases tried in the City's court. He stated that it could be offered to other courts; they would be charged the full fee for any referrals. The reason he suggests offering the program to other courts is to enable a sufficient flow to be able to hold the classes without a waiting period for enough participants for a course. The courses are six to eight hours for groups of ten to twenty members and would be held after business hours at the Justice Center. The proposed cost is $50.00 resident and $60.00 non-resident, and is the responsibility of the person being referred. These courses are offered in conjunction with the Diversion Program. The education program would not start until 2002. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the cost per unit/class is listed at $1,200.00 and the $50/ $60 fee is based upon a projected attendance of 20 persons. However, in the first year, the participants will be significantly less than that. She suggested that the costs should be based upon those numbers. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the incidences of "no pays," or "uncollectables". Mr. Colby responded that as each case is received, the costs are recorded. However, in later court hearings, those costs may be dismissed by the Mayor or magistrate, or if the individual does not appear for the hearing, it may go to a summons or warrant, and the case remains pending. Other times, if they are picked up on a warrant, the costs are dismissed in recognition of time served. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is difficult to understand the revenue cost comparison, if the figures are based upon potential. This states that at the end of January 2000, the total accounts receivable was $54,794 of which $36,301 is most likely uncollectible. However, the cost recovery is projected at 49.7%. FINANCE COMMITTEE page 2 Cost Study Review 10-22-01 Ms. Kennedy stated that the $54,794 is not included in the actual revenue, and only the actual revenue is included in the combined revenue for court fees and fines, which is $197,415. If there were full recovery, the number would be $397,536. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the expectation is to have full recovery of costs for the new Education Program. Ms. Kennedy stated that is the intent, based on 20 participants at $50.00/$60.00 each. Mr. Colby stated that the cost of the program may be overestimated. For instance, the time for the Diversion Officer for one class unit is estimated at 8 hours, 4 hours class time and 4 hours prep time. The prep time may be less. Mr. Reiner inquired how the costs could be recovered if there are only 3-4 students per class. It would not be an effective punishment/deterrent if the class did not occur until six months after the hearing. Mr. Colby agreed, stating that cases referred from other courts should create traffic, and after a few months, the reputation of the program will generate a sufficient number of clients. However, if the program does not appear to succeed in the first year, it would probably be eliminated. Committee consensus was to recommend the new program and fee. BUILDING STANDARDS: Mr. Price stated that he has no objection to any of the fees proposed. There are a couple of increases proposed, in line with the cost formula. The only fee increase he would suggest modifying, is that for the filing fee for appeal to the Building Construction Appeals Board. The proposed increase is from the current fee of $200 to $540. This is based upon the hours involved, which are accurately reflected. However, he would suggest not increasing the fee. The Building Construction Appeals Board offers a good negotiating tool to resolve difficult issues. Although some waiver requests are unavoidably referred to Council, some are in a "grayer" area, and it simplifies the process if staff can work out the issue with the applicant. Increasing the fee to $540.00 would likely eliminate that option for the homeowner and for staff. He has not been with the City that long, but in reviewing past Council actions, he noted that Council has previously made the decision in the area of small residential fees not to set the fees so high as to discourage homeowner participation. That philosophy was used in increasing the fee only slightly for deck and small accessory building permit fees and for the new category for remodels and basement finishes to a fee of $60.00. He stated that he would like to request that same philosophy be applied to the appeals fee. S-044 Building Inspection, Commercial - Mr. McCash requested clarification of time designated for engineering inspection. His understanding is that everything from five feet FINANCE COMMITTEE Cost Study Review 10-22-01 page 3 outside the building to the inside falls within the domain of Building Codes. Outside that space would be Engineering's responsibility. Mr. Price stated that the inspection processes are tied together somewhat. On a final commercial building occupancy permit, an Engineering person is sent out to check certain things on a site. There is no separate line item in the Engineering Division for Commercial Building Standards inspections, so they charge that time to this line item. Ms. Kennedy stated her understanding that Engineering does have a line item for public inspection plan review, but that is for the entire development. Mr. McCash noted that a certain percent of Code Enforcement Review is also included. Ms. Kennedy stated that there is a Code Enforcement line item, but part of the Code Enforcement Officer's time is charged to this service, as is a portion of Engineering's time. If that time were moved, it would have to be reallocated into Plan Review in Engineering and Code Enforcement. Mr. Price stated that this last part of the final occupancy review is primarily the responsibility of the developer. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there is interest in adjusting the formula for the filing fee for Building Construction Appeals. Mr. Price stated that he would like to see the fee remain as it is. A $200.00 fee is not taken lightly. Mr. McCash agreed. When a homeowner looks at remodeling, and he knows there will be a building permit fee of $200.00 and another variance fee of $200.00, he would probably be likely to finish his basement without a permit. $200.00 is a little high; if anything, he would be in favor of reducing the fee. Committee consensus was to keep the fee at $200.00. ENGINEERING: Ms. Kennedy noted that Mr. Kindra has reviewed the worksheets and indicated that he has no issue with any of the fee changes proposed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the increase in Encroachment Plan Review & Inspection. While there has been one unit of service this year, the fee has doubled. Ms. Kennedy stated the increase is based entirely upon the increases in salary and operating expenses over the past year and the fact that one unit of service has actually occurred whereby it is now possible to more accurately cost the service. FINANCE COMMITTEE page 4 Cost Study Review 10-22-01 GROUNDS & FACILITIES: Ms. Kennedy stated that the Cemetery Maintenance fee has increased from $575 to $600. There has not been a change since the original cost study was done. The Cemetery Lot Sale fee has increased from $125 to $140 and per plot price is based on the increase in appraisal of an acre of land in Dublin. The per acre land appraisal is $37,500. PLANNING: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the $20.00 charge for a Zoning Code Book. Ms. Kennedy stated that this fee is charged for bound copies of the City's Zoning Code. The Zoning Code is available for public inspection at the City's offices. However, for $20.00 they can have their own copy. This fee is based on the actual cost of reproduction. Ms. Kennedy pointed out that Ms. Clarke and Mr. Gundermann in their review have noted that due to some changes that could be made in the Zoning Code during its present review, it may be necessary to reevaluate those fees neat year. Ms. Kennedy stated that the Code Enforcement Officer has reevaluated the original ordinance, Ordinance 112-95, regulating amusement device operation. Mr. Jones has indicated the only fee that is applicable is the facility license, which has never been collected. The ordinance provides for machine inspection in facilities with three or more machines, and since that criteria is not present, no machine inspection fees are being collected. Ms. Kennedy is amending the fee schedule to show that only a facility fee of $1,000 is charged, in addition to the initial filing fee. However, in essence, no inspections or fees are being charged. She checked with the Police Department and was advised that they do not check the amusement devices for the required warning labels, either. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the ordinance could have been amended in such a way as to allow the inspections to be done. As the ordinance currently reads, are they illegal? Ms. Kennedy responded that she does not believe they are illegal, just not mandated. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there is a need to learn the Law Director's view of this issue. Ms. Hoyle stated that the "Weed Abatement" fee has been substantially increased. This is a fee intended to totally recoup the cost of the contracted mowing. The landowner is given the opportunity to pay the fee; in time, if he has not complied, the fee is assessed to his taxes. The fee is $390.00 plus the cost of the contracted mowing. Mr. McCash stated that he has observed that many of these fees include Code Enforcement Officer time for inspections. Then he hears from the residents and Planning Commissioners regarding signs posted for zoning violations. It seems that too much of Mr. Jones' time is being spent on in-house reviews rather than on field enforcement. He appears to be performing duties more appropriate for a Planner or Planning Intern. He suggested that the Code Enforcement office be placed in the Building Division. That is where the other field FINANCE COMMITTEE page 5 Cost Study Review 10-22-01 inspectors for commercial and residential reviews are located. This Division operates around the practice of daily inspections. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the Committee make a formal recommendation during the upcoming 2002 budget review that this position be moved to the Building Division. This recommendation would be based on the Committee's review of the inspections and fees, which reveals that the Code Enforcement Officer position has become more internal rather external, although the position was originally designed to be external and that remains Council's intent for this position. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this issue has come up frequently for Council and for the Public Service Committee, which she chairs. Mr. Jones admits to not making certain visits in the field due to his workload. He has indicated that he now works off the premise of responding to formal complaints, rather than making proactive Code enforcement visits. Mr. Hoyle noted that the compliance issue is as much a part of Code enforcement as the external inspections. It is important that the communication and follow-up occur after the inspections. It works better for Mr. Jones to do both. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it should be possible to do both. Mr. McCash stated that as an example, this weekend, Infiniti on Tuller Road had 8 or 9 cars parked along the curb, hoods up, balloons and signs —all prohibited by Code. The joke among the auto dealers is to wait until 5:00 p.m. Friday to put signs out; the Code Enforcement Officer isn't present on the weekends. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the concern Ms. Hoyle expressed. Ms. Hoyle stated that Mr. Jones does the initial review, and, consequently, has an advantage when conducting the follow-up review. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if her concern was that someone else in Planning would have to take on the responsibility of the initial review, if Mr. Jones' position were to move to a different division. Mr. McCash stated there would be no change because the initial review for zoning compliance is presently done by Ms. Newcomb or one of the planners. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what Mr. Jones' role is in the review process. Mr. McCash stated that he is conducting reviews and other in-house tasks that are not the normal job responsibilities of Code Enforcement. If he were located in Building Standards, when a set of approved plans is forwarded from Planning and the building inspectors check tc make sure the building is being built per plan, Mr. Jones could also inspect the landscaping to FINANCE COMMITTEE page 6 Cost Study Review 10-22-01 ensure it is installed per plan. At the same time he is out in the field for those inspections, he can also check for zoning violations. Those violations cannot be observed from the office. Committee consensus was that this suggestion be made during Council budget reviews. RECREATION SERVICES: Ms. Hoyle noted that a new rental category is being recommended, Theater Rental, to encourage more usage. The DCRC staff has identified certain blocks of rental time that are seldom used, and recommend a non -prime time rate be charged for those hours. This idea grew from several complaints received from Dublin resident piano and dance teachers who indicated it would be a desirable venue for their annual recitals if the fees were more affordable. The non -prime rate would be $150.00/hour; presently, the resident is charged $145/hour, with atwo-hour minimum. The corporate resident rate is proposed at $110.00; presently it is $125/hour. The Not For Profit rate is proposed at $80.00; presently it is $120.00. Ms Chinnici-Zuercher stated that while the non -prime corporate rate is $15.00/hour lower, the resident rate is $5.00/hour higher. Where is the benefit to the resident? [Explanation added: The $150.00 is a flat fee. The resident has the choice of three blocks of time: Friday from 12-5:00 p.m., Sunday from 12-2: 00 p.m., or Sunday from 5-8:00p.m.] Mr. McCash inquired why the City charges the resident more than a corporate user. As it is set up, the Dublin resident would have to pay more to rent the space than the corporate or non-profit. He suggested lowering the resident rate to the corporate rate. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this study indicates only ten hours of the week that are non- prime time. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she also supports lowering the resident rate to the corporate rate. Mr. McCash stated that an additional charge could be added for technical equipment. Ms. Hoyle stated that provision is made in the schedule. She added that staff would evaluate the program during its first year, and, if desired, this could be revisited during next year's cost review. Ms. Kennedy stated that Ms. Grigsby wants the Committee to be aware that the Emerald City Players are not paying any fees other than for technical support. Next year, the Players will have four performances, and they reserve the theater space for two to three weeks for each performance -- approximately twelve weeks/year. They have also expressed an interest in more theater time. They sell approximately 50 tickets/per performances. The revenue is solely theirs, unless the City participates in ticket sales and receives a portion of the sales. Mr. McCash clarified that the City does not currently receive any portion of the ticket sales. Also, although they are not paying the City any rental fees, the City may be losing out on opportunities to rent the space to other citizens or groups. FINANCE COMMITTEE Cost Study Review 10-22-01 page 7 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if the City wants to help the Players become established, the City must provide them with these opportunities. Mr. McCash suggested adding a $2.00 subsidy per ticket, which would be designated for rental of the theater. Even with that, the Emerald City Players would still have a good subsidy. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed, but stated that it is necessary to define the goal. That goal, for instance, could be that in year three, recoup 20% of the City's costs, year four, 25%, etc. The City intended, initially, that there would be a large subsidy for this group. Has Council changed its philosophy? It is important to state the philosophy, then set the formula to achieve it. Previously, the goal has been to establish a community theater, recognizing that the City would be subsidizing it close to 100 percent by providing use of the theater facility. Pool Passes: Ms. Kennedy noted that staff recommends an increase in pass fees due to the operating losses sustained. Those fees have not been increased since 1992. Last year, staff had recommended aten percent increase. Instead, the daily pass was increased by $1.00. This year, no particular recommendation is made. Following discussion, committee consensus was to support a ten- percent increase in season pool passes. DCRC Passes: Ms. Kennedy noted that direct costs associated with the operation of the DCRC are increasing annually. The last increase to season pass fees was in July 1999. Mr. McCash inquired as to the number of non-resident passes sold. [According to the DCRC, there were approximately 400 non-resident passes] Following discussion, the Committee consensus was to recommend a ten percent increase to the annual pass fees, as well as a $1 increase to the adult daily pass. This increase in fees would become effective on July 1, 2002. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the 90 -day pass for college students to use the Rec Center. A consecutive 90 -day pass limited to the summer months does not work for their family, nor does it work for many students who have commitments away from home during the summer. Discussion ensued regarding week -only passes to be purchased when a student is home for the holidays; or a 90 -day pass to be used throughout the year; or a college student pass which the student can use up to one year from the date of purchase, upon showing a college I. D. FINANCE COMMITTEE Cost Study Review 10-22-01 page 8 Committee consensus was for staff to develop a 90 -visit annual pass for students and service people. SERVICE: Following discussion, Committee recommended a change in the City's current policy of providing a recycling bin to owners of new homes only to provision of bins to new residents, if they are requested. It was noted that, frequently, the original owner takes the bin with them when they move, and the new owner must purchase a new bin. The Committee also recommended approval of the proposed increase in cost of the paper cycling bins (bin with lid) from $5.50 to $10.00. The Finance Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Assistant Clerk of Council