HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-07; City Council; 8471; Revision of Engineering FeesCIT OF CARLSBAD — AGEND BILL
0)
0)
t-ioM-l
(LI
c•H
4-1
fi
O
O
CD
B)
(-1cu
cfle
0)
X!H
OO
I
AR# <fy 7i
MTG 1/7/86
DEPT. FIN
TITLE:
REVISION OF ENGINEERING FEES
DEPT. HD ^rn
CITY ATTVW^
zo
5
o
OO
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.authorizing the revision of engineering fees.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City has not revised engineering fees since July of 1979. Since that
time the City has experienced substantial increases in both the cost and
demand for engineering services.
Although three alternatives have been presented in the attached report
for Council's consideration, the staff is recommending the adoption of
Alternative 2 as the most reasonable level for fees.
Alternative 2 provides a reasonable level of service while maintaining
a relationship between the cost of services to the fee charged. This
alternative allows the Council to provide some increased services above
the present level. Fees would increase as much as 190% in some cases.
Revenues available would fund the majority of the engineering activities
recommended by the City Engineer in the recent report to the City Manager.
Revenue from the recommended fees would total about $1.5 million during
1985-86 and about $2.2 million for 1986-87 at current levels of development,
Engineering Department costs would depend upon the ultimate organization
approved by Council.
Under Alternative 2 Carlsbad's fees would remain comparable to other
cities providing similar services.
FISCAL IMPACT
Revenues from the proposed fee increase would total about $1.5 million
for 1985-86 and $2.2 million in 1986-87. This represents an increase
of $440,000 for 1985-86 and an increase of about $1.2 million for 1986-87
over present estimated revenues. The average increase in fees would
be about 114%. The fee increases shown in Alternative 2 would reduce
the General Fund's contribution to Engineering by about $160,000 for
1985-86 and $780,000 for 1986-87 assuming Council approves the
recommended additions to Department staffing.
EXHIBITS
1. Memo to City Manager dated December 10, 1985, recommending
engineering fee revisions.
2. Resolution No.revising engineering fees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 8346
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA REVISING FEES FOR ENGINEERING RELATED SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has not revised engineering fees since
July of 1979, and
WHEREAS, the staff has completed a review of engineering fees as
they relate to the cost of providing services,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the fees shown in Exhibit A
attached hereto reflect the cost of providing said engineering services,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held such public hearings for the
•
review of the proposed fee revisions as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad that the fee schedule shown in Exhibit A shall be hereby adopted
as the fees to be charged for the referenced engineering services
effective this day.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad held on the day of , 19 ,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MARY H. CASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-12-
EXHIBIT A
ENGINEERING FEES
DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Adjustment plat
Appeals - Engineering
To City Council
To Plarminq Commission
Certificate of Compliance
Grading Permit
100 cubic yards or less
101 to 1,000 cubic yards
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards
200,001 cubic yards and over
Grading Plan Check Fee
100 yards or less
101 to 1,000 yards
1,001 to 10,000 yards
10,001 to 100,000 yards
100,001 yards and over
$100
$175
$105
$70/lot
$10
$15
$20
$20 first 10,000 yards
plus $10/10,000 yards
$110 first 10,000 yards
plus $6/10,000 yards
$170 first 10,000 yards
plus $3/10,000 yards
$10
$15 first 100 yards
plus $7/100 yards
$78 first 1,000 yards
plus $6/1,000 yards
$132 first 10,000 yards
plus $27/10,000 yards
$375 first 100,000 yards
plus $15/100,000 yards
$150
$275
$175
$100/lot
$25
$35
$50
$50 first 10,000 yards
plus $25/10,000 yards
$275 first 10,000 yards
plus $15/10,000 yards
$MO first 10,000 yards
plus $7/10,000 yards
$25
$35 first 100 yards
plus $15/100 yards
$170 first 1,000 yards
plus $15/1,000 yards
$305 first 10,000 yards
plus $15/10,000 yards
$£tfO first 100,000 yards
plus $15/100,000 yards
DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Improvement plan check
0 to 20,000 value
20,000 to 50,000 value
50,000 to
100,000 to
100,000 value
250,000 value
250,000 to 500,000 value
500,000 to 1,000,000 value
1,000,000 value and over
Improvement Inspection Fee
0 to 250,000 value
250,001 to 750,000 value
750,001 value and over
Inspection Overtime (on Request)
Quitclaim of Easement
Research Tine (by Written Request to CE)
Septic System Request
Residential
Ccnmercial/Industrial
Major or Minor Subdivision
Street Vacation (by Citizens Request)
Structure Relocation
Tentative Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision)
Tentative Parcel Map 1 Year Extension
Final Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision)
Tentative Tract Map 1 Year Extension
Final Tract Map (Major Subdivision)
Work in City Ripht-of-Way
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.75%
1.50%
1.25%
$ 200 minimum
600 minimum
1,250 mininum
2,000 minimjm
4,375 mininum
7,500 minimum
6.00%
5.00%
4.00%
3.50%
2.75%
2.25%
$ 200 minimum
1,200 minimum
2,500 minimum
4,000 minimum
8,750 minimum
13,750 minimum
1.00% $12,500 minimum 1.50% $22,500 minimum
2%
2%
2%
$30.00/hour
$40
$15.00/hour
5%
4.5%
4.0%
$60.00/hour
$150
$40/hour
$20.00
$30.00
$30.00 + 10.00/lot
$400.00
$120.00
$300.00
$75.00
$100.00
1/2 original fee
$100.00 + 2.00/lot
$10.00
$30
$45
$45.00 + 15.00/lot
$225.00
$200.00
$400.00
$100.00
$400.00
1/2 original fee
$175.00 + 3.00/lot
$25.00
December 10, 1985
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Finance Director
REVISION OF ENGINEERING FEES
The City has not revised engineering fees since duly of 1979. Since that time
the City has experienced substantial increases in both the cost and demand for
engineering services. The following report recommends an increase in
engineering fees based on the cost of providing services.
Three alternatives are presented for Council's consideration providing a wide
range in service levels. Alternative 1 provides the largest increase in revenue
and would allow the City to fund the highest level of service within the
Engineering Department. Fees would be increased as much as 4-50% in some cases
to allow the City Engineer complete control over inspection and plan checking
services including full time inspectors for the largest projects and minimum
turn around time on plan checking.
Alternative 2 provides a lower level of service while still attempting to match
the cost of services to the fee charged. This alternative allows the Council to
increase services above the present level although not to the extent funded in
Alternative 1. Fees would increase as much as 190% in some cases. Revenues
available would fund the majority of the engineering activities recommended by
the City Engineer in the recent report to City Manager.
Alternative 3 provides fees based on the change in consumer prices between Duly
1979 and the present. The average increase would be 56%. Total revenues
provided by these fees would not fund the City Engineer's recommended service
levels, although they would allow Council to fund the development portion of the
present Engineering Department from fees.
The following section summarizes the recommended fees versus both present and
proposed Engineering Department cost.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The fees recommended under Alternative I are devised, where possible, from the
City's Cost Allocation Plan and fee study prepared in Dune of 1984-. This study
recommended various fees based upon the effort reguired to provide specific
services. Total costs were based upon the total of both direct and indirect
costs. Individual fees will increase by 33% to 650% and total annual revenues
would increase by about 280%. Cost and revenue data is summarized in the table
on the following page.
Fees recommended under Alternative 2 are less than those In Alternative 1 based
on providing a reduced level of service. The Engineering Department would have
to provide less than the optimum level of service allowed under Alternative 1.
Fees would generally increase by 33% to 150%, and total annual revenues would
increase by about 115%. Under this proposal, the City would be unable to fully
fund the Engineering Department as recommended by the City Engineer. On an
annual basis, engineering revenue would be about $220,000 above the cost of
running the development-related portion of the Engineering Department.
Alternative 3 is based on increasing engineering fees by the increase in
consumer prices over the past six years (about 56%). This alternative provides
about $1.6 million in annual revenue, enough to fund the Engineering Department
as it is presently organized. However, this alternative would not fund the
proposed engineering organization without contributions from other general fund
resources.
All cost estimates have been based on the full cost of operating Engineering
including all direct and indirect costs.
ENGINEERING FEES
ALTERATIVES
1985-86
Plan Check
Engineering &
Inspection
Other
Current
$ 625,000
375,000
50,000
TOTAL REVENLE S1, 050,000
Engineering, 3\
Dept. Cost
Revenue Over
(Under) Cost
1986-87
Plan Check
Engineering &
Inspection
Other
TOTAL REVENLE
Engineering-,.
Dept. Cost
Revenue Over
(Under) Cost
$1,515,000(2)
$ (465,000)
Current
$ 625,000
375,000
50,000
51 ,050,000
$1,615,000(2)
$ (565,000)
Alternative
1
$ 1,250,000
950,000
55,000
S 2,255,000
$ 1,795,000(1)
$ 460,000
Alternative
1
$ 2,080,000
1,875,000
55,000
S 4,010,000
$ 2,022,800(1)
$1,987,200
Inc.
100%
10
"TO
Inc.
233%
400
10
"252%
Alternative
2
$ 850,000
585,000
55,000
S 1,490,0o6
$ 1,795,000(1)
$ (305,000)
Alternative
2
$ 1,250,000
938,000
55,000
$ 2,243,000
$2,022,800(1)
$ 220,200
Inc.
36%
56
10
32%
Inc.
100%
150
10
"TO
Alternative
3
$ 775,000
453,000
60,000
S 1,288,000
$ 1,795,000(1)
$ (507,000)
Alternative
3
$ 980,000
600,000
60,000
5 1,640,006
$ 2,022, 800(1)
$ (282,800)
Inc.
24%
21
20
Inc.
57%
60
20
336
(1) Engineering costs are based on the City Engineer's recommended staffing and
service levels.
(2) Engineering costs based on present staffing and service levels.
(3) Engineering Department cost calculations are shown in Exhibit C.
COMPARISON TO OTHER ENTITIES
The December issue of a recent fee survey published in BIA Builder Magazine
compares the development costs of all cities within the county of San Diego
shows that the city of Carlsbad is competitive with all cities in every
category. Carlsbad's fees are substantially lower than many cities in the area
of inspections and grading improvements.
The proposed fee increases shown in alternative 2 would raise Carlsbad's
grading fees from the lowest in the county to second lowest above Coronado.
Under alternative 2 improvement inspection fees would be increased from 2% to
5% of estimated improvement cost, ranking Carlsbad among the mid to upper
cities in the cost catagory for small projects and in the middle range for
large projects.
A summary of the BIA Study is shown in Exhibit B.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends the adoption of the fees presented in Alternative B. This
alternative allows the Council to fund some increase in engineering services
during 1985-86 without placing excessive fees upon the development community.
By spending on engineering services above, total revenue from fees would have to
be supported by the General Fund. The recommended fees could become effective
upon adoption after a public hearingg during January, 1986.
P S 5 .g 5 "2
**• ^^* ^^ CJ ^^ ^^
\" 12 in
^.S JjQ J* IPO T5 O-T O- f\j CL
_
9
o 9
8 0 ~~~& c cO «— •"- O T- O^ s: V ^. ^ c: +J ^4->LTi WLTN BJ ITl Win
te B
in 8
>> w >,
«\ ^J »s t
*= .. o
^1^5,
•> •>8 8 s.? o 8
M M— M—10 10 10
-3 C$ r^ S f3
•CO
in
>,&>«&
Q XQ >>
.. •> o o o oO O T— _•>*- ••r- T— O O~ ' ^ ^
O m Q Q r-1So S
CL ^— CL *"•-co- &-tr>
—
8 o »-Oi
'~r~
»-O«- o~
Svt t
o
f ie oJx o «3
-51 ?o
>,
p
1 ta.§ % *#s I
° °- .2.O 0 <t-
58 83-o 8
v\ «s
8
Q e -<? 85 8. o^ 8
E E E
r\
8
8
LA
I I^ §c rn
88888- • • • •
O\ gj. S LA•5> -0> •*?> 5>
8
(V 8
LA
<M
E IE E E E E
r- f\J -d" OO or\
vo IA
8- s 8-8 LA CD^~ 3•CO -CO
in
8 88888
££i S <\J LA 8r< LAT— rsj</> </>
LA
•cn
y
3
8
IA
8 8
8
888• • •8J s
8
8 888 888
</>-co </>
•eio
•3 8.C <\3
8 "B 8 g
8 o
•CO -CO
(VI
I
DC > ^(3 -H
^
f
§or
^« io 55 o•rj QE O
•H D.
co co i— t-
UJ
co ce
UJ =3UJ CO\L.
oi
CC. <uj wUJ Oz ow to
CC UJ
i— Q ceW LJ I—CC I- COW O IDx uj aX _J ZUJUJ
O
oCO
CJ UJto
ca ^c
CCto_]
CC<o
o
T3•H
•Q
Co0toUJ
co•i-:TOO
UJ
^TO
2
O
TOCO
oo
ao
00r-.•*^ —
oo
•I
<M
+
j_jtoo
^—ONfM
TO•P10•H
>
TO
3
O
CO>
•H
•PTOC
CO.p1— 1
fM
•H
•P
TOCt-i0).p
W
i
4-^
TOC
(-4
CO.p1— 1
.pc
COt-l(-1
3O
fA
LA
^>•t
ON
oOO
GO"
0
•to
a-r
^•.
ofM
0
OIA«t
^fM
,
1
oLA
^-•«
VO
COoo
ON
•H
^*
+
•Pto oLA
O0rn
•s
J-
fM
r^,^
LA
•Ko^
OOO
LA«\
VOr^>
ooo•*
VOrA
O-tO
LAfMLA
OLA0
O
^£"*»^*y
C.^
^£•**»^
Z
^|
-^^Z
a.
oLA
LA
^^fM
O
fMfA
fM
^"
*
ON
LA
^—
•CO
toC "*o to•H -a•P >>o
0) —N OQ. to -H10 -P .QC -H 3WE O
a.>.,
H-
CO
COu.
~~. ti 10 tfl
CT CO .p O -Pc a. -H o »Hi-t ^- C C C•D 3 •> 3TO OJ- O fM OCJ «- <— LA
C
8.d-'
^™^*oo
O
ON
o
00
VO
LAfM
,•—*»
V)
^5>^
o•Hn
8
co
•H— i to1— 1 -p
•H «HE C
^M• O*- O
' ?VJ
OO
LA»,
VO
vo
^—vo
r—
LAr~
T—
•t
T—
Oj^»^~«t
r—
OLAC3•t
^»
*-v toto c•c oX -H-po o
»fH <D
^2 O-
3 tocwc ~-O CT)
•H C
W «-li-l b•H 4)E 0)
VO *HCT•* cN— ' UJ
•a(D•o
wocw
.J-
LA^~K
LA
rr\
T~
fT\
•«
GO
00rvj
•v
ao
LAOiJff\
»tr^
jH-V
CO
3i— 1
TO
0tO LA
4J fM
•H •>C vo3 vo^~o -co
T— ^~'
TO^*
rHTOC•H
U.
to+-I
c3
OLA
00VOVO
ON"
ofMoo
**LA
ON
Cf\\o•«
T™
ff}
r*pr^o_
fNfc
**•**
3•— 1
TO
O 10LA 4->LA -H~ CT- 3LA
</> fM^-^ fM
O
£^pT\
O
^^•s
ao**•
^2o
vo"ON
o
o
•k
^><M
s***.
CO
3i— I
TO
CO•H
— 1W
•H
E
fM
r—
•CO
v.^
4-O
>,
4JC3OCJ
C^.o
X4J
•H
CJ
wTOCo•H
4->TOZ
COE_i
i— iTO
•H(^
0)Q.Ew
TO•Pto
•>H
0)m+jcTOto
T—
" 00LA
OOVO
40O0
TO
CTOCO
O
CO•H
Q
CTO
CO
oCTCO
•HQ
CTOCO
LA
LA
OO
*,
ff*\
Oo
«s
^«
Oo>.,
TOsoa.
£>•o
•H10cTOCOOO
VQ
•s.
^^
ccao<M
•^
.^
X4J
CJ
<t-o
3^^>
— ^r^>
OCO>ofcjo
TOtflCO
TO
J"
CJ
TO
CO
CO
o
p>.
f1^
C5
on
^~
4)0)u.
^™N
10 10
C "C
O h
•H TO
•P Xo<L) ^ OQ. 10 -HtO 4J i^>
C «H 3WE 0
oa
^i—
COU-
•^ t-i 10CT CO -P Oc a. -H o•H ^ C O•0 3 ^TO Of-t O fMCJ T™ ^—^
T3
COto
TO
CC
10
4->
•HC3
0LA
ONfMCO
<-^
O0o
p^
LA
*•"•
**r^
O
OlA•<«
pN,
OO
ON
•>,
OJ
Oo
•^
ff^
T"
LAr—
pr^•«f^
i^
C
COECO>0t-la.E
0O
LA•t
^
c^
o^
ie
•HJ2
CO
^— s.to
X
o
•Ho
3
c0'Hw to
W +J
•H -H
E C3
^8
•~^ fM
ONO
LA
rn"
O
LAfM
OO
o
OOfM
•X
C*J
OOCM
•s
ON
oo
V,vo
o
LA
O
VO
LA
LA
ON•.
f^ff\
to
^too0
0ofM•*
ON
0o0
f
*-*. toto c•a o
X -H
•P
0 CJ•H COxi a.
3 tf)
CJ C.
W
c —O CT•H C
i~H (^
•H COE CO
VO -H
• CT•d- c•~^ UJ
LA
00VO
r^
O
LAr^»i^*
OVO
f-s*
«s
^"
o
8<K
<M
T™"
OLALA•tLA
^^*^x"Z.
0
LA
^9%
r—^™
fx
^fM
•v
^—
OOO•s
fMr"
OVO
'-
•g
co tnCO TOU_ CC
^•^
3r-t
TO
O10 LA t/)
•P fM -P«H ^.Hc vo c3 VO 3
O <S>Or~ -^ LA
VOf^x
I-.
rv?
0o0
•V
|*«s.
T"
Ooo•t
(^\
o
•\
VO
oo
LA
«t
O
^^-•N^•z.
o
LAr>.««o\
fs,.
fT\
VO
fM
OOc
X
o
8
rn
•H^2
co
^^
3i— 1
TO
O <0LA -P
LA -H
^ CT- 3
LA
00ft"*!
00
LA"
o
•NooIA
O00
•s
vo
O0o
•s
tA(A
ON
•SJx,
<M
<^
"*^«.z
ooo
*vOo^~
ooo
ON"
Ooo^
LALA
O
00
vo"
*"•••.
CO
3
TO
>
CO
1— Iw
•HE
fM*m o <-•CO O V>•-* fM ^-'
O
'5>
Q
Ou
O
O)0)
O
c
to
tfi
0)
u
00
O
O
o
§
S
O
3i
II
IS ill
n"3s
II
i
I ii
I
I
III
ill
ii
SIS
i
ii
I*
ijiji
!«lcr
to<m
"S *
oc
S1
82
•351
l.i
•> s
!l.
01B•HVj,J 01< 01g.s
H 60C
U B•H oU-l -H
M-J CO
tO
l-l >HS
CO COEX u
•H O
O 01•Hc o
:§
VO
00Iinoo
CTs 85
—i Oh-1
< H
H W N85 (H l-l
< H < CJ(O OS O OSCO < CO OiJ 0-. l-l^g1" S
O OS COCJ O O
OH OOS co oS>• W 2 a,
H W OM 8S l-l Q
CM K
O Wfa gO S3oH
COoCJ
E eCU £X
l-i OIJ H3 01CJ >
01
Bo60 -H
B 4-*•H CO
01 4-1
01 CO
B -H
•H B60 i-lB eW T3
C 6001 B
B -H CO. CO O
0 CO i-li—I Ol CO01 O -H
> O >01 l-l i-lO CL, D
CN-a--3-
-a-m
r-i
OCN
ocj
COCO
0000
m
-3-
o
CO
>—i ro
xD O
tOcn
OU
CO
OCJ
•o
CO
CX3
OO
OO
oCO
OO
00
CMcsi \oo
oo oo
m
V45in
ooOv
oCO
oo
CM-3-
00
00
00
00
00
00
IoI
oCNo
•oto
CU.E
01 CO
O «
•a3
CO
4-1oH
•a<!CO
14-1 Co o•H
C uO CJ
CO faoo 01
cCUE
(Xo
01o
C 60o c
•H 'H
4J COto coCJ IIO CJ
•H O
O 4J
B
B Oo e•H <X
4-1 O10 i-lU 01o >^H, 01
•o
l-i B01 CO
4-1
M-l C CO
<C O 4-1
COotO CJCO VJ
O 4J CO
CJ CO CU•H O
i-H B i-lCO -H >
4-1 E Ho -o 01H <! CO
CO
oCJ
o
01
ol-lCM
4J CO
iH 4-1a. uto 01CJ 1-1o
O CM
E t-HO to
TO O.O CO
O CJ
00in
Oxo
O Om ovD C
moo
o oou i
co -*o Bcj i oiH
60 CO 4-1
C CU tO•H CU N
l-l fa -H
0) C0) >, 10
B XI 60i-l l-l60 13 OB 01
W 4J 4-1
H Ci-l O 01
4J CX LH
033
H CO CJ
UD
00
I
COo
CJ
•o
T3
T)
01COOO.
O
60
C
01
• 01^ Ci—I -HB 60O B
COCU BCO i-l
O
G. 0.
l-i 33
4-1 CL,
COg 01l-i l-io toU-l6 CO•H 4J
COt, Q
O U
60
§5
O CO
X COCO 01
•o
CO
01
iH CO
CO OB CJo•H >,
•H CO•a in•a to
CO4J
COoCJ
60e
^40101B
60B
iHto4-1
0
H
•O01CO-H
>
01OS
BO•H4J
CON•H
C
CO
60l-lO
T3
01
CO
0O.0
Lj
CM
•H
L.CX0l-l
0.o-CO
moo^
m
0
B0
1301
COto
P3
— ^
COoCJ
60
B•HCO
CO
01OOl-l
CM
4J
B
CUeex
0
!— 101
^0)
Q
CM
O-i
C
ga.oi-H
QJ
<U
03u
Ou
u^o
CO
^^
r-l
BiH
BO
CO01u1-1>
V-i
0)CO
0a.ex
3CO
CO
CO
ecc
•H 01CC- 4)u CO -HHOC
W
00in oo O
O
CMO
o
u-i mU-l «Ha >(-1 T-lH O
IN
CMC-1
CMCMcn
ccIvO00
3E
oo
~* CM
oo -a- .o
oo
«-i Co to00
•aaiKoo.c
10O Co o
a aai 01.C -H>-> h01 Q
cn
tO O t-t 4J tO 4Jo to to c oCJ U UN O 01
C >- -H -H M^H 01 C *J -H18 >J tH 18 -HO4J IJ i-H 00 T3OS 9 h •O «-lE-* O Cb O <« O
-^ CM
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008
P.O. BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987
January 7, 1986
City Council Members
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: PROPOSED REVISION TO ENGINEERING FEES
Dear Council Members:
I have reviewed the fees and find them to be reasonable increases
with the exception of the Improvement Inspection Fee. The fee
for projects over $750,000 is increasing from two to four percent
of the value of the project.
We recently completed a project called the Airport Business
Center, adjacent to Palomar Airport. The total value of the
bonded improvements for that project for the three units was 8.4
million dollars. Four percent of that figure would generate a
$336,000 Improvement Inspection Fee. Assume this project would
take two years to build and you use the City engineer to inspect
the project. The low rate for the City engineer is $35,330 per
year. According to your personnel department, to cover all
costs, you should add another 30% which comes to $45,925 for one
year, or $91,850 for two years. Divide the two-year figure into
the $336,000 and you could have 3.6 City engineers working full
time for two years inspection of this project.
I think we would all agree that this is not a reasonable fee to
ask for and would like you to approve the fee structure as
suggested, with the exception of the Improvement-Inspection Fee.
I would suggest that that fee be left at the two percent, which
should more than adequately cover the actual costs incurred.
$35,330 X 130% = $45,925 X 2 = $91,850 for two years
$8,400,000
$91,850 ~ 3.6 City Engineers
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:kd-l
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
31 38 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the CdMsbad Joumdl a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad,
California, will hold a public hear-ing to consider the revision of EN-GINEERING FEES on Tuesday.
January 7,1986, at 6 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers. 1200 Elm Ave-
nue. For further information, con-
tact the Finance Department. 438-
5628.CJ 3610: December 26, 1985
.December. .26 1985.
19
19
19
19
#202-2M-9-85
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executad at/Carlsbad^ County of San Diego,
'CaUjfoNi,-'--' ' ™S ^brfT /'
DECEMBER 18, 1985
TO: KAREN KUNDTZ
FROM: MaryAnn Theis
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Please submit the following notice to the "Carlsbad Journal" for
immediate release:
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California,
will hold a public hearing to consider the
revision of ENGINEERING FEES on Tuesday,
January 7, 1986, at 6 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue. For
further information, contact the Finance
Department, 438-5628.