HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-21; City Council; 8471-1; Revision of Engineering FeesOF CARLSBAD - AGENC BILL
MTG. 1/21/86
DEPT.
TITLE:
REVISION OF ENGINEERING FEES
DEPT.
ATTY.
CITY
Iocc
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 8346 authorizing the revision of engineering fees,
ITEM EXPLANATION
At the Council meeting on January 7, 1986, Council received the
staff report on engineering fees and considered approving the
recommended fee increase.
After hearing all comments from both the public and staff, Council
directed staff to bring this item back at th January 21, 1986
meeting. Staff was to include an additional alternative that would
include a revised engineering inspection fee schedule. Staff was
also asked to review the other fees as proposed with any interested
party.
The attached report has been revised to include this additional
alternative for establishing fees. Changes include a revision of fee
alternative 2 providing revised inspection fee, the inclusion of the
duplicate tracing fee and an example of how the proposed fees effect
small, medium and large projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
See attached agenda bill for fiscal impact.
EXHIBITS
1. Memo to City Manager dated January 21, 1986, recommending
engineering fee revisions.
2. Resolution No. 8346 revising engineering fees.
3. Agenda Bill 8471 - Revision of Engineering Fees - 1/7/86.
O
|
O
oo
Oanuary 21, 1986
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Finance Director
REVISION OF ENGINEERING FEES
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. 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.
Alternatives 2A and 2B provide a lower level of service while still attempting
to match the cost of services to the fee charged. These alternatives allow 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 Oune of 198^. 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.
Alternative 2A and 2B are very similar to each other differing only in the area
of improvement inspection fees. Alternative 2A provides a slightly lower
inspection cost to projects over $2 million. Total engineering revenues should
be sufficient under either option to cover typical operating costs under the
current or proposed staffing. The service level provided by Engineering under
these alternatives will be below that provided by alternative 1. Fees would
increase be 33% to 150%.
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
ALTERNATIVES
Current -Alternatives
1985-86 Fees 1 Inc. 2A~ Inc 2B Tjxr 3 ~ Inc
Total
Total
Revenues
over (under)
expanses $( 465,000) $( 460,000) $( 335,000) $(245,000) $(507,000)
Revenues $1,050,000, ?$2,255,000,,J 14% $1,460,000M«% $1,550,000,^ $1,288,000, ,.23%
Expenses 1,515,000V J1,795,000U; 1,795,000UJ 1,795,000UJ 1,795, OPT 7
1985-86 - (Full Year - Assuming fees and staff ing were irr effect beginning 3jly 1, 1985.)
Total Revenues $1,050,000 $4,010,000 232% $2,125,000102% $2,243,000114% $1,640,000 5®>
Total Expenses 1,615,000 2,022,800 2,022,800 2,022,800 2,022,800
Revenues
over (under)
expenses $( 565,000) $1,987,200 $ 102,200 $ 220,200 $( 382,800)
(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.
— 3 —
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 2A would raise Carlsbad's
grading fees from the lowest in the county to second lowest above Coronado.
Improvement inspection fees would be increased from the present 2% to a range of
3 to 5% depending on the site of the project. When compared to other cities,
this generally places Carlsbad in the mid-range of inspection costs.
A summary of the BIA Study is shown in Exhibit B.
EXAMPLES OF MAJOR FEES
The Engineering plan check, grading and inspection activities are the three
major areas where fees are collected. To assist in understanding how these
fees will effect various developments staff has included the following
examples:
SMALL PROJECT - 1,000 cubic yards grading - $50,000 valuation
CUURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
Grading permit $15
Grading plan check 78
Improvement plan check 1,250
Improvement Inspection 1,000
MEDIUM PROJECT - 25,000 cubic yards grading
CUURRENT FEES
Grading permit $35
Grading plan check 173
Improvement plan check 4-,500
Improvement Inspection 6,000
$25
170
2,500
2,500
$300,000 valuation
PROPOSED FEES
$88
328
8,750
13,500
LARGE PROJECT - 500,000 cubic yards grading - $8 million valuation
CUURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
Grading permit $317
Grading plan check 4-35
Improvement plan check 80,000
Improvement Inspection 160,000
$753
500
120,000
240,000
INCREASE
$10
92
1,250
1,500
INCREASE
$53
155
4,250
7,500
INCREASE
$436
65
40,000
80,000
-4-
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends the adoption of the fees presented in Alternative 2A. 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 adaption after a public hearing during January, 1986.
S F. ELLIOTT
-5-
(0 tf) tf)"E•n "E C (/) "3 5,5,-S
3-0-0 §o"§
(0 ^ CO(0 "p tf) C -p"O & ^ fl Q£ 10 iTJ C >» ffl\y "T3 ^» w /-* ^>
8
t-i lj8.8.
t/) COto (0 -p (0 -a-D -p C ^ C tf)It^l^l>» >^ —. >> -.. Jy
(0 -p tf)- --o to C -n nC -o (8 B >.tOIOflCJ.™.-
8.8.(*- y- <4-
tfl CO
>» 5*^ >*^"
to "a toi-sll II
S
^^O ^O O^
4-> I "~
Siti LjJ|ii m
Cin
-i8.8.
CO (0CO CO T3 tf) -FJnl'?ja
(0 to (0
i—ir^'— I^I-H
to -p tto -n "0 S "D•n to K -o m C
E
8
10 C to
>>S >•
to•a </>
tl
toto -p totil!!!
1
?
P'^^sI "H —Ho Q-.-- IO O *l-t— h- *H
tfl -pto 5 f9 <u-cm >. >M >* Oi/> fd oS-E^^ a -gjj B o i g wfe^io § i_Q _^ O O t)m 75 Q o •* >»^ D O ** ^?a o o S S o
, >>§ o S= |
! ^ ^" p S S °' -43 ** jr c
^Ssi-o- 8" £
to
1
sOL >, J3 _•
|85 S>i 8"
-6-
^
•g -g -g -g
I LA Q ii r- O >i 00 LA '
r^oor^iAOiA t— h-> CA ^ IKjtE ••••••• rX PJ r>j r\j r\j
11 -g | -g 1 -g
oJ fctj •* *>.*-••'•*,?> ^ f* oj ^ QD *"> f**—H *"~ f\j
< m
Ujm *s •> *v •.*.*. ^ ^ », *,
^> d <™ M <^ OC ff\ CM *^J **> Q ^^
y£ cSOQOQ^CRO ^f^?S^^?
O O O Q lA Q C
^S 1-.
Ljff OQO^OiAiAd-ro
8
S
0~o
000
8 8. 8 8 8
iA G3 D ^3 ^^rJ CT\ r* n3 LA
•S1
o
LA
-t-888 •g1
o
«$3 S
en
'd co 55 8
8 8888 •tio
888 888 g
cr
"do
S
|
CJ
.
8
8
I
25S22SS-n "-"."-"."-i. c
|||||P Jgg§§fc 1rQiAOLAOoaJ *J ».^> 01i* rj LA S 3 B ._ .. fti » o J
^-I.SSBSSSo
s^sfs'sT^S.»- (M LA t-
[<^^S?W S
j S S S S S ?
o" o" -9
0
S
4->I -c
•33
LjJ
"fe
h|
"C ^
jj =3^k
JS fl ti TJ S
*1-
O£
I
_
a.
m 10 t- i-
-7-
>-
>to ccUJ Z3
•z.
UJ 1— 1
•^r x-j
M tO
-^ ^*CC UJ
1— Q CC1— 1 UJ 1—
CD 1— LQ1— 1 O -5
UJ UJ Mto
U.S
O I-H02: _JO I-H
K- 1 CD
CC
|5
O UJ
CO
—
^
o
•H
Cooto
LU
O1-1
TOO
i-H
UJ
oo ON
00 LA
<- ON
0 OO O
•*~ 0*
<M OO
4-
tj
TOS
i-H(U
o
•P LA
CO </>o
"CM
C'o
oo
T— LA
tNl LA
TO
CO•H
TOi— 13
.C
0 0
LA Ot^ o
CJ
4)
•H
TOCS-l
•p
rH
o o<M ONON LA
c
J_l
3
O
ON LALA <NJ
*- LA
4f}
s-*.
CO-o
toc x^ oO CO -H
+J >> 30 0CO x— x CJ
Q. CO i-l CtO 4-> .O O
C -H 3 -H1— 1 e O i-H
&>i
COu_
• — C to CO i—l
O) CD 4-> O .p -H
C Q- -H O -H E•H -^ C O C
"O 3 •> 3 T-
TO Ot-i O fM O T-
oo
.3-
O<M
O
OLA
.j-
<M
11
O
LA
^
^—
O
0
LA
vo"
LA
^—
r
O
LA
O
^_
s-~*
CO•o
•**
o•HJ3
O
Co•H
CO .— 1
•P i-H•H -H
C E
VO
0 •O -d-
O O
LA Och ON
»t •*.vo -d"
oo r-^oo -d-
ON LA
* o
+
•P 0
to LAo -to
O
^f ^*^^ ^^
2 -Z.
aiH
"O TO
CO S•o
*™H ($o c
C iH
I-H U.
ro o
*- CMro oo
00 LA
IA »-<\J CA
PO O
•s *tON r*^
CO
o
4J
O
8. - -CO (D CO
C 33hH i— 1 i— 1
--. TO TOCT > >
.5 0 0
t-l CO LA CO LA
CD 4J <M -P LA
C *C V(T C T^
iH 3 VO 3 LA
C O </> O <A
UJ T-'—' LA -^
Ooo
LA
VO
o
0o
ON
^-«^lii
2
C
00
3
8o
^-<M
CO
rH
TO>
C
O
1— 1
10 ,-H
4-> -H
•H E
3 <NJ
•
8£
CM ~^
TO
(0
£
CD
(D
C
TO
CyO
ooLA ^,
^
C3 ^5
VO O
ON
COOo
TO
c
TOto
<t- OO CT
<D
4J Qc .
0 TOCJ e/7
LA VA
LA vON ^~^
r—
0 0O 0ON LA
ON r-
o
O iH
Q
4-> C•H TO
CJ C/5
0 0o o
T- C7\
T- <NJ
0 0CO CO
>A VO ONTOJ •> -
oj ^~ '-D-l
COT3•H
CO
CTO
0)
Oo
OD LAoo T-
•\ »l
•d" r^*r—
•pcCOE
-TO
Co•H >-.
•P 4->
TO iH
2 CJ
d- 0)O ^O33 bS CL-— EON I-H
C CO
0 >
E OS b
_J CJ
0 0
0 OON LA
ON r^
TOCO
CD
TO
§O0ON O
V* *»
r- VO
i— 1TO
•H
CD OQ. TO
HH CO
•o^3 *^HCD JQCO coCD TO C
U. CO O
^-*.
CO
"O
CO toc -ooO l-i -H•H TO &
4J >. 30 0
CO *-* OQ. CO -H CCO J-> -Q OC i-l 3 iHt-l E 0 ^0)0.>,1—
COCD
U.
-~, S-i to CO i— 1
0) CO 4J O +J -HC Q- -H O «H E•H ^^ C O C
•C 3 - 3 T-
TO O •J-i O «NJ o T-O T- "-^ LA ^
S
LA
rrT
O
LA
cvj
ocT
ooo
9\
f\J
O0
f\J
ON
O
O^~
VO
o
LA
O
•s.
£
LA
LA
ON
•V
f*^
ON
CO
4J
CO0CJ
o
0
ON"
Ooo
•d-<!-
x^to-a
o
•H
&
S
coiH
•P r— 1
•H -H
§ E
VO
0 •
O d"<\j -**•
oo
VO
<-~
O
fs^,
^
0VOt^*
•X
T—
Ooo
<M
0LA
LA
LA
^CJ
^-^
2
OLA•d-
•s
r—
*—
r^
<NJ
•*
T"
§
0
CNJ
^~
O
VO
^*
CO
4)u.
COco
4*
CJ
Q. ~co CD
I-H i"H
-^ TO0 >
•H Ot-t CO UN
C C vo"•H 3 VO01 <-c o to
UJ <- -^
VO
f^<M
Ooo
T™
0
0o
•s
ON
O
Oo
VOON
8
LA
0
^~
^£
-^-*.~Z-
o
LTir^^
ON
r^
ON
VO
»*
CJ
8
0
vo"ON
0
ON
•o
T3 -HCD -Q
COTO C.
CO O
^
§
i-H
TO
>•
O
CO IA
4J LA
•H •>
C r-3 LA
o -toLA *~-
oo
oo
LA
8o
06"
LA
oOO,dr^
vo
Oo
0
LA
LA
0oON
I-*.
CNJ
^£
^ —2
O
O
O
*\
0o
*—
ooo
•*
ON
o0o
LA"
LA
0
3
VO
CD CO
3 -H
TO TO
> i-H•HC TO
0 ^•H <
i-H
CO i— 1 4->
4J -H O
•H E 2
3 <NJ II
*0 T- <^
<\I *-* 2
f
ou
oo>
ca
"Oo
uCO
UL
O•gr
i
!i
w
I
I
i
8 5
ifj
..
Ill
"
8
a
11
I
1
1•»
J
— Q —
at
•^
b.
O
PMU
kD
CO
inCO01
OL<1 1 1i"o~5 < <-* inP o H co9 ^S ^^* i ^4 -^a- LI_ ^g 3 CM0 d o rU ID Ot IX.
jj U. O O
S o;:ta coBss <s ? <S to ^ i—
81S§H-<ceUJQ.o
LJ-
ecc•Hw
*^ 41» «w eO -H
H eu
CO O OS 0 0
^^ fl ™*
in " -a-
M4 ON '^m CN CM
*
«»•
C **^
W 0•H ^4
^M (0
**^ "wHCO >U -rf
H O
12•ssU T-
C 0'5 >-SB-
O 1 IK i i
CMCMri•»•
1 1 11 1 1
Ue
si4) OW ^t, jj
3 >C_J 0)u „
OS O O5 0 01& (*) *^
rg r? •*<j% OS •-*— CNJ CM
«»•
eo
OC -rfC u
-rt CO
U hi
01 U
01 COC -H•H e00 **'1
i : i
oomp*.
PMCMo
C4
4»
OxOr*»•
CMMM
4%
ii
0>•«o
oor«*
«••
!
tooo
ec•Hu e •(0 O>- -^
S. a-o Ni-tu eo co00
4J hi
IB OOU U
C••* oi<0 hiJJ U
O 3H O
•otlCDOO.£•oCO CD
Vi(U>OCO0 eu o*4
U U
0) CO
01 N>. ^ -H
C "-^ ffl -Hi-l 00 -O3 hi -OU. O <
co
O 01
»rt CM
-10-
00
2 §MOS H
"^ 3 ~
oa ae o as £Sc/j •< OT o ,—J CU W v^c« ujte. a CM< O U ,-u a; no o ct u.&« Z to*. Cb- oO i-l —•
U B•H O
(0 -Hb >Hs
CO COa. u
•H U
U 01•rt -r-|
§ Sr cu
E
£ga) ab Ob I-H3 01u >OIQ
oolB w•H «b b
OI UOI COB 1-1•H B
M3
e oo
IS ca. co o0 co -H—i 01 to0) O i-l> o >01 b i-la cu o
CONOsO
•fsO
intM
r—CMO
oCM
co
O
co
CM
oo -a-oo ooco -»
-a-sO
inO
•asr
CO Oo —
sO 00-* -a-
sO —
00 CM— 00s» so
ON r-*so CMCM **
moooo
oo
ON
oCO
Os00
ONvO
ON
CMO
sOO
Oo
mso
oo
ooON
moo
i
ONo
CO00
OO COCO CO•a- -a-
CM
ON
sO
NO
ONO
CM
CMCO
ON•»vO
CM
ON
u o en
COs
10CO
COOCJ
BotS
a.
OI
oH
o
U-l
O
cooo
TJtO
>O
00c
n eo -a0 <toU M-t BB O O01 THb E ub O u3 i-4 EU u 3CO U.
iH O
tO O 01u -I B
O I—4 -H
H < J
o.o
VO
E 00O E•^ •**
*J COto co
U 01o u
-H O~H b<: cu
O u
§ i•H a.u a<o — <u aio >-4 11-I Q
b Cai eg
4J
U-l C CO•4! O •"•H CAu u ou a u
01 V.
O U CO
O CO 01•H a
r^ C *^tO -rt >u e Mo ^o oiH <: en
u01
O
L4o-
U CO•H 4Ja. uto 01o --ioU4 U
O CU
c --"o to
to a.u too u
NO
O OO
U Imco ooU CTNen —'o cU I O1-*
00 CO Uc 01 a*H 0) Is)
fci &L. -Ho> c01 >s toc .o oo•^ i-t
OOT3 O
C 01ClJ W 4Jn e-I O CJto D. h
4J CU bOSSH U5 O
oin
sO
^_,
sO
«*
1
1
1
1
oinsO_
NO
w-
11
11
sO
CO1incoON
1
CO4J
COoo
-HtoEo
T-4u
f-4•a•o<
•o01COoa.obCu
u
U
01b
T-4a
SMo
K
COr«-
<SJ
•atoOIj=
b
OI
0
f4toBO•HU
•H•a•a<
ooo
oc
11
1
ooc
ac
ti
ii
00oo
m
ONr*.
«*
o>or-»
CM
CO«»•
1
ON
ONCM
CM
I**•a-A
«%•
1
1
1
1
•
>,
1-*Co
CO
OI
COoa.b
3
eo
u
bO
E
bO
sOco §
in co oCO 6 X
ON O CO
» iH
U CO1 to u•rt CO
CO b Ou a. cj
CO OO b 00cj a B
CU <Hao a co6 »•H m 01
b 00 U
01 E — O(U O — b
c ^1 CO CU•H u •--00 to 0 u
E (si — EU i-l 01BEE-1 ™ ° S1
CO 10 00 _ °
4-t *J b *« 'H« ° ° % 2;O E-t U] >o -a to oi•a eu co Q
>s 01 CO -^ '~-
b CO o ""* ^CO -H O. •^ — '
r-4 > OCd 01 ben as cu
ooe•Hb0101Bi-l
00S
B•H
a.3
01J!
U
a.
01b
CO
CO
COoCJ
oo
E
•H
COto01 •CJ sOob OICU B
•H
U -J
E01 Be oa.
O CO
1-4 (U01 CJ> •-(01 >a b
OI
•H COto4J U
O bu Oa.u-i a.O 3COCO• — tor-4 10
-11-
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 21st day of January , 1986 .
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None \^._./f // f[> 0
ATTEST:
MARY H. CALLER, Mayor
LA^ X. V\(lj>-^a^.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerft
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT A
ENGINEERING FEES
FEES
fl_TEFNATIVES
DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE FRGP06ED FEE
Adjustment plat
Appeals - Engineering
To City Council
To Planning Commission
Certificate of Compliance
Duplicate Tracing Fee
Parcel Maps
Tract Maps
Grading Permit
100 cubic yards or less
101 to T,000 cubic yards
1,00? 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
Currently collected as
a refunedable deposit.
$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
$30 per page
$50 per page
$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
$W) first 100,000 yards
plus $15/100,000 yards
-13-
DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Improvement plan check
S 0 to $ 20,000 value
20,000 to 50,000 value
50,000 to 100,000 value
100,000 to 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 valus
250,001 to 750,000 value
750,001 to 2,000,000 valus
2,000,001 to 5,000,000 value
5,000,001 and over
Inspection Overtime (on Request)
Quite lalm of Easement
Research Time (by Written Request to CE)
Septic System Request
Residential
Commercial/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 Right-of-Way
3.00*
2.50%
2.00%
1.756
1.50%
1.25%
1.00%
$ 200 minimum
600 mininun
1 ,250 minimum
2,000 minimum
4,375 mininun
7,500 minimum
$12,500 mininun
6.00%
5.00%
4.00%
3.50%
2.75%
2.25%
1.50%
$ 200 mininun
1,200 mininun
2, 500 minimum
4,000 mininun
8,750 minimum
13,750 minimum
$22,500 minimum
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
$30.00/hour
$40
$15.00/hour
5.0% $ 250 minimum
4.5% 12,500 minimum
4.0% 33,750 minimum
3.5% 80,000 mininun
3.0% 175,000 mininun
$50.00/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
-14- -
OF CARLSBAD - AGENC BILL
w&<u01S
o
a)
aoo
01
H
ooIr-I
o§
o
oo
MTG. 1/7/86
PEPT FIN
TITLE:
REVISION OF ENGINEERING FEES
DEPT. HP.
CITY ATTY^L
CITY
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
engineering fee revisions.
10, 1985, recommending
2. Resolution No.revising engineering fees.
RESOLUTION NO. 8346
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA REVISING. FEES- FOR ENGINEERING RELATED SERVICES.3
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,
10 and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held such public hearings for the
12•*• review of the proposed fee revisions as required by law.
13 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:
20 AYES:
21 NOES:
22 ABSENT:
23 MARY H. CASLER, Mayor
24 ATTEST:
25
26 ALETHA L.^AUTENKRA¥Z, City Clerk
27
28 (SEAL)
-12-
EXHIBIT A
BdhEERDC FEES
DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Adjustment olat
Appeals - Enqineerinp
To City Council
To Planninq Commission
Certificate of Compliance
Gradinp 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
$W) 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 value
100,000 to 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 Time (by Written Request to CE)
Septic System Request
Residential
Ccmrercial/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 Rioht-of-Way
3.00% S 200minimjn
2.50% - 600 minimum
2.00* 1,250minimjm
1.75% " 2,000 minimum
1.50% 4,375 mininum
1.25% 7,500 minimum
1.00% $12,500 minimum
2%
2%
2%
$30.00/hour
$40
S15.00/hour
$20.00
$30.00
$30.00 + 10.00/lot
$moo
$120.00
$300.00
$75.00
$100.00
1/2 original fee
$100.00 + 2.00/lot
$10.00
6.00% $ 200 minimum
5.00% 1,200miniflun
4.00% 2,500 minimum
3.50% 4,000 minimum
2.75% 8,750 mininum
2.25% 13,750 minimum
1.50% $22,500 mininun
5%
4.5%
4.0%
$60.00/hour
$150
$40/hour
$30
$45
$45.00 + 15.00/lot
$225.00
$200.00
$400.00
$100.00
$400.00
1/2 oriqinal 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 Ouly 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 450% 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 enaineering 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 propos'al, 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
ALTE NATIVES
1985-86 Current
Plan Check $ 625,000
Engineering &
Inspect Jon 375,000
Other 50,000
TOTAL REVENUE $1,050,000
Alternative
1
$ 1,250,000
950,000
55,000
$ 2,255,000"
Engineering, 3) (2) {1Dept. Cost l ' $1,515,CtXr ; $ 1,795,000V
Revenue Over
(Under) Cost $ (465,000) $ 460,000
Inc.
100%
154
10
TP&
Alternative
2
%
Inc.
585,000
55,000
$ 1,490,000
,(1)$ 1,795,000
$ (305,000)
56
10
32*
Alternative
3
$ 850,000 36% $
Inc.
775,000 24%
453,000
60,000
$ 1,288,000"
$ 1,795,OOQ(1]
$ (507,000)
21
20
"216
1986-87 Current
Alternative % Alternative % Alternative %
1 Inc. 2 Inc. 3 Inc.
Plan Check $ 625,000 $2,080,000 233% $1,250,000 100% $ 983,000
Engineering &
Inspection 375,000 1,875,000 400 938,000 150
Other 50,000 55,000 10 55,000 10
TOTAL REVENUE $1,050,000 $ 4,010,000 1353& $ 2,243,000 "TO $ 1,640,000
A I / A "» rt-V% *-»/V\V ' /
Engineering^ (2) (1
Dept. Cosr ' $1,615,000V ; $ 2,022,800V
Revenue Over
(Under) Cost $ (565,000) $ 1,987,200
$ 2,022,800V
$ (282,800)
57%
600,000 60
60,000 20
(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.
OA I
VC
x g x g
Q XQ X
^o o o^o o^
tf- (0 <Q <Q3 LA 3 VJD 3
1-8 x§ >"xX 5 _ XQ _
•P *- -P ^ 4->
-co-
<M s
R 8 O 3 JD S Q |r*» T! S ri ^ *d
$
LA LA-
>, W >,
4- (0
T •> 8 cfco&a& e- 88»-" -°o®8^~ ^~ ^™ ^D ^~ ^^ ^~ ^~ ^~*^- J_3 -^ J_i S^ ^v^ 4J ^*. ^J "*^« 4^ ^»^•P*- wvo sovo to-d-
""LA
8
x O x C
Q XQ X
•* C1 *> (D O O i
x§ X5,
X
8S
svi i
^% a*^l ^ m
OL^ .§
:" I
5 >,
>, o
50 O O
P*1 * !8 Q «— Q Q
* O S °« °*
lo 8 8** ^) Q_J t^.
oj wo 5
*S c
35 (LJ c> **g O Q C
£ "P ^ P
885 8
8
<s>
rsTrrTvo'fvI '&
fM (M (M T—
8
S
8888• • • •
o\ r^inin
1•a
8inin
8
in
in
+
8
in in
I Io
1
8888 I
<M
8
in 8
8
3
§8
8 8 8 8 8 & 8
8
oeecse e o o^j • • • « • • ^j
•WSSSS^^in
8
888
8
888
-to
8 888? 8o
•H JJ
s *•H (0to c•H VM > N
SI D
•S fa ^
I I
> <Q
UJ
>-
-s
| f t f t
- i »,
CE O
£
CO
Q. Q.
$ SJ« s
ra ^i^ ^j6 6
•H a
I
#.
-
^LU
CO CC.
UJ =5
UJ toU.^ya o
M (—ac <UJ MUJ O21 C5
M CO
"Zm ^*CO UJ
H- Q CCM LJ 1—CC 1- COM O 3x uj a
UJ UJ MCO
U. 2O M
C
CO 3M 55
Is«£!O QO 1 1 1
CO
CO
O on•a
•H•ac
o
UJ
co
TO'o
^1
UJ
cop^
,_r
os
(M
+fj
TO
i— 1
f— ^
jj
inoc_>
O•cTO
0
0jj
^^
ONrvj
TO
in
TO
3
O
Oin
m
V
^
TOCLi
4->
^^
ma
fVI
O
^•iH
T3
C
OJ
«— 1
^—
0)
^32
•3 iOC 4)< 4->
O M
orvi
rvj
5
4J
C
J^U
3CJ
ONin
•CO
inc —*o m•H T3
0a; ^» oQ. (0 -H
C -H 3ME O
Q.Xt—
U<uU.
-^ LI inCT 4) 4-> OC Q. -H O
-H v^ c O•D 3 «TO OLi O rvjCJ i- *<- •
rr\m
^f
ON"
O8^
otT
om•co-
inrviin
O8^,^»
T—co
0ONin
Occvo
inrviin
,*^in•o
u•1-1o
3
c0
*— H (/)m M 4J
4-> «H -^•se§3 r-
• OO «- Oin •— ' rvi
i•a
o"rvi
Oom•*^«rvi
ii
Oin0^
8in
vcT
vo
vo
^~
LA
^•i
^—
o
*^
omO
^_
^**
in•c
u
•Ht*i
3
co
M
r— 1
•HE
vo
^»-
O Oin o.^ PA
vo" .d-"rvj
oo r^co -d-ON in*« •«
•d- O
T—
^.
4-> Oin ino -co-o
^c ^c^^. ^s.^
2 2
C
CL"O fO9) £•a3 —1M TOU C
C ~HM U.
* COin vo»- vo•^ fcin ON
PA Or- rvi
PA 00•* »too m^~
r» ON00 PArvi vo
CO* r^
in *-rvj PAPA O
•k *kPA r**
mco
•H
tjUJ
Q. *—•» -^*«m o <uC 33M M •— 1
~- TO TOO) > >C
«H O OLI in in in inD 4J rvi 4-> in
4} .H »>»i-l •>
C C VO C r-
•H 3 NO 3 inCT T^ PAc o </> o v>UJ r- «— ' in -^
§
0m
vcT
f^
ooo
VQ
J^- •
^
<£
"••^
2
O
8
<^>P^
oo
Mco
§
o^
viT
ON
o
9*•d-
CVI
^^V3
M
TO
CO
1— 1
« M
4-> -H
3 rvj
O *-rvj </>CVI x^
TO
<n•»™i
>
V0}^j
cTOco
~ T— ONao rviin oo•^
^
O 00 OVO O
p^
in
0ot4
TOS
C
CO
m IA
LA <-
fT\ ^«
•«
r~
it- OO CT0)
X-H
4-> QC3 CO TOO CO
O O0 0r^ LA*» •«OA r*^
o
O!
O •H
^^^>4J C
•H TO
O CO
§csCJ
<- ON•« «^
r- fvi
o oo oXJ VO PA
$ 1 *"" P'Nol <—
0-1
a;•o
•HmcTOD
o
oo moo '-rvj rn
•s «^•3- r^r—
4J
COJEi"HTOCO
•H X
4-> 4JTO **^•z. u
tfp- <y
0 >o
•d- Q.-~. E
PA M
c <u0 >E O01 Li
0 OO Om in
•t «vCA r**-
TO100>z:
TO
-1
^TO
•HLi -C4> OQ. TOe Q;
M CO
0 Oo oPA O•> «k*"* vor~
•o•a -H0) ^2^1) inU TO CU. CC O
*-^(0•a^ X
C -DOO Li -H— H TO -G+J X 30 0V *^ (J
D. « -H C
C -H 3 MME O -H «
0)CL
h-
01
U.
-~». LI «n in M 4->O" 4) 4-> O 4J -H «HC Q. irt O -H E C-H *-* C O C 3T3 3 •> 3 T-TO O • OLI O <M O «- OO T— ^^ in ^-- rvi
§LA
•*m
Oin<v
00
O00rvj•hrvj
OO
•s
ON
Jt
vo"
oin0^
vo"ff\
inmON
r^
in
ino
0o
•*ON
O8
^*
^^»in^3
X
O•Hn
3
co•H
-H*H
•H
E
vo•
•—*
moovo
•"
*"
Oin
*s
•*
Ovof>»
•*
'^~
oo0•t
OJ
^~
oinm•iin
^c.
^
O
LA
^•s.
T^
^
jf^
^t
(\J
•^T~
8oMrvj
T—
Ovo
*t
r-
O43u.
(0co•H
4J
U<L
Q. "•m aiC 3M i-t
-~~ TOCT. >C•rt 0LI in m
0) «H -
C C VO
•H 3 VOcr. T-c o <s>
UJ T- -^
vo ao
r- ao
•K **<\j m
0 0§o0•* •*
r- in
O 0§00-d-»> •*ro vo
0 00 0O O
•t *svo mm in
O 00 0in ON•t •.o r^
^c ^c
2~ 2^
O Oin or^ o
•s •»
ON Om c^
r-. opn O
vo O•i *»rvi ON
§O00 O•* ^vo mrn m
O O
o •*_
m vo
•o S4J ^inTO CCO 0
^^scu
3i— (
,•-. TOOJ >
3M C
TO O
^ *M•—4
O « Mto in 4J "-(4J in «H EM ~ CCr- 3 <M3 in •m o «-o-co o</>IA^- rvi^--
i
T
I
I
<D
06
c
Ou
O
O)0)
Q
cOto
J)
3
CO
O
0)u.
O
"5"
I
si
i
i
s
ill
I
1
Illll
I
I
3
l
I i z
if
I] ill1
Illll
Jit
i
II
in
I
M
<Z
m
5
11ii
sn
inoo
J 01
g B
gH£
O B•H OU-l -rtU-l CO2 •$HS
to coo. u
•H OU 01•H
B O3 l-i
X DM
B4J 01
B ECU O.P OI-l 1-13 01CJ >01
Bo00 1-1B u•H CO
01 4-1
01 COB -H•H B
B°1u -o
B 0001 Be -H Bo. co o0 CO -H^H 01 CO01 CJ i-l> O >01 I-l i-l
Q C« Q
CN-Jt
VOvO
CM
O
-a-
roO
CM
-a-
oo -a-oo oom -a-
vO-a-
CMcn
m oo -H
00-a-
"OO CM
-i 00
moooo
Oo
00
00
oenm
oo oo
OO
moo
m ooo ooo -3
oo
00 0000-a-
ioi
oCNO
vOvO
00mPI
-a-vC
CM
ooB
01• 01>, Ei—4 *HE 00
COS BCO iHOa a.
l-i 33O.T3
01
E •*O CJi-l 1-44J p,
E 011- U
coOcj
tflC/2
O
CJ
10Q.01Q
ofl
COcn
o
&•«
COOCJ
T3CO01j:
ooI
•Oto
CO
BO
1^
OU-l
§oXCO
COoCJ
ooB1-1COCO01
01 to> -uO CO
COoCJ
oo
B
T3
3
O.o
o
H
COu-i BO Oi-l
C 4JO CJ•H Cu 3CO Ci<CJO CUi-l E
E OCO B
4-> CO
CO COU 01O CJ
i-l o
i-l l-i< Cu
o
BO•HUtou01-11-1
^
IB)
01
U-l
CO
COoCJ
1— 1CO
o
EH
E
g
Cu
O
01>CUa
•aECO
EOi-4
U
CO
^4J-)
CO•H
E
E<
CO
COoo
CO
01
CJ•H
>l-i
CUen
4->uCU•fjoi-iCu
i-l
10j_l
T-4
O.
B
O
U-l
O
BO•H
4J
COCJO
<
CO4J
CJ
01
o
Cu
t— 1COJJ•HatoCJ
o
4J
c
vOO 004-1 Imto oo
to —ioo i
OO 1-4
I O
CO »•«
4J CO
Oo <sj
00 CO u
B CU CO•H CU NU ts- -H
01 B01 >i to
E ^ 00
•H H
00 T3 OB 01bl -U 4J
1- Bi-( o 01M a u
4J D* V4O 3 3
H en o
•aTJ
•a01tooa.o
•ato01
o co4_)
i-H CO
CO OE CJ
O
•H 10•a iH•o to< en
1
CO
CO0CJ
00c1-1
L4
0101E
00
BW
CO4-1oH
*^01to
•H>
Eo•H4JtoN
ECO00klo
T301CO
Oao
4JCOi-l
a.0
a.o.to
inoo
f— i
CO
o
EO
TJ
01COto03
-M
^^
CO
COou
00ci-4
COCO
01u0\JCu
4J
E01e0.oi-H
01>
01o
CM
^— '
0
p.
4J
B
Ia,orH
V>4)Q
CO4J
O4J
U-(
O
f1^^••^
r-l
OC•H
«-J
BO
CO01
CJ•H
>
01CO
1-1oa.a3CO
COCO
at
^H 01
<C 01u B
O iHH ateId
oo oo
I- -HH a
CM
CM
OCI
00O\
oo
—* CM
oo
oo
I
fficc
•o01inoG.•H cu e £.CO O Pu
k< -H
o. ™- oO N•H Uwe BO CO O I00 U '4J kl 1n o
C41
O
H
•aa n
<M 01 01O X -H
u oi ig
B > -H0 C O COO O VI•H fHki AJ tg 4Ja eg c u01 M O 01
C U -H~l CO -rl QfH 00 -a
U. 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 Ins/efpection 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 Carlsbad Journal 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
PUBLIC NOTICE °f 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:
The City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad,
California, will hold a public hear-ing to consider the revision of EN-GINEERING FEES on Tuesday.
January 7.1988, 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-9/65
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and cor/ept. Executed ayCarlsbadr County of San Diego,
State n/PJa|tfr*ifo<>rr / XVg ^btTr, S'^day of \l/WVr "" /jfrfecember >^8b
Slkrk of the Printer
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.