Napa County User Fee Study Board of Supervisors: Final Report Presentation May 12, 2009

Presentation Contents Study Scope and Approach Cost Recovery Findings Proposed Fee Adjustments Fee Comparisons Fee Impacts 2

Study Scope Study Includes User Fees in Napa County Policy Manual, Part III: Agricultural Commissioner Weights and Measures Building Planning, Conservation Fire Marshal County Counsel Environmental Management Animal Shelter Public Works 3

Study Background Background Last User Fee Study in 2003 Current Study Commenced October 2008 Met with Stakeholders December, January, February, and March Informational Presentation to Board February 24, 2009 Draft Report April 10, 2009 Objectives Simplify Fee Schedule for Staff and for Applicants Assess the Cost of Services & Cost Recovery Improve Consistency of Fee Collection Update Fees to Match Adopted Cost Recovery Targets 4

Study Approach Direct + Support + Overhead = Cost of Service Timekeeping Records and Permit Data to Allocate Costs Fee Amounts Calibrated for Average Year of Permit Activity Future Cost Recovery: Some Years Under, Some Year Over 5

Trend-Level Fee Calibration 6

Permitting Cost Recovery 7 All Departments Except the Building Division Also Provide Non-Permitting Services

Planning & Conservation 8

Cost Recovery Findings 9 Current Rates Close to Average Cost Reasons for Cost Recovery Below Target: Some Flat Fees Set Below Target Cost Recovery Amount Some Hourly Fees Not Applied Some Fees Capped/Set by State Statute Reduced Permitting Likely to Keep Cost Recovery Low

Building Fee Recommendations Charge Flat Fees for Planning and Public Works Approval Rather than Hourly Fees Charge Fire Marshal Fees as % of Building Inspection Fee Eliminate Building Subtrade Fees Based on Device or Fixture  Predictable, Easy to Administer 10

Planning Fee Recommendations Make All Fees Flat, Except: Use Permits Outside Airport Industrial Area Erosion Control Plans Tentative Map Approvals Plan Amendments and Zoning Changes Development Agreements, Use Determinations & Miscellaneous Services Eliminate Separate CEQA Review Fees Add Fees for Initial Use Permit Monitoring  Predictable, Easy to Administer, Recovers Cost 11

Other Fee Recommendations Fire: Charge Fire Fees as % of Contract Price Public Works: Add Stormwater Re-Inspection Fee Animal Shelter: Increase Licensing Fee Create New Fee for Processing Appeals (two options) Charge Hourly Fees for Permit Compliance Adjust Other Existing Fees to Target Recovery Levels Annually Adjust Fees and Standard Construction Value for Inflation  Recovers Costs Consistent with Policy Objectives 12

Fee Comparison Hourly Billing Rates – Planning 13

Fee Comparison Solar Energy System – Roof Installation 14

Fee Comparison Lot Line Adjustment – 2 Lots 15

Fee Comparison Building Permit: New Single Family Home 16

Fee Comparison Use Permit (incl. 35 Planner Hours) 17

Fee Impact – Building Permit Current Fee Example Assumes Some Hourly Fees Are Not Billed 18

Summary Most User Fees Not Recovering Full Cost Some Services Not Supported by Fees Some Fees Set Below Cost by Policy Some Fees Capped or Set by Statute Hourly Fees Not Always Billed Slowing Development Reducing Revenue 19

Summary Fee Simplification = More Flat Fees More Predictable More Equitable Easier to Administer Modest Fee Adjustments Where Needed Implementation Improvements Increasing Staff Use of Accela, Time/Material Tracking Reducing Reliance on Deposits Inter-departmental Billing Coordination 20

Revenue Impact of Changes 21