Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-19-1998 - 10dORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 REFERRED TO MAY 26 , 1998 QUARTERLY PUBLIC BEARING Action Agenda Item No. ~ ®_d ITEM D SUBJECT: User Fee Review DEPARTMENT: Finance/Budget PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Na BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) Na ATTACHMENT(S): Report Spreadsheets -Costs and Fee Schedule Options Fee Comparisons from Other Jurisdictions (under separate cover) INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Chavious Ext. 2453 Donna Dean Ext. 2150 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive the second in a series of two reports from staff on proposed adjustments to the County's schedule of user fees. BACKGROUND: At the request of the County Commissioners, County staff undertook a review of certain user fees charged by Orange County. There were two specific areas of Board interest. A report on the first -fees related to development, such as Planning, Inspections, Environmental Health, and Soil and Erosion - was presented at the Board's meeting on May 6. The second area of Board interest was fees that had not been examined in detail within the past five years. Fees have been reviewed and analyzed during the past two months by MPA interns with guidance provided by the Finance and Budget Directors. Fees that have not been reviewed in recent years are related to Recreation and Orange Public Transportation (OPT). A survey of corresponding fees from surrounding jurisdictions was also conducted. A summary of the findings in these program areas, and changes to recreation fees recommended by staff is included in the attached report from the Finance Director. Unless the Board provides direction to the contrary, staff will prepare the 1998-99 operating budget to include the revenue anticipated from implementing on July 1, 1998 the revised recreation fees recommended by staff. Staff needs direction from the Board concerning the level of recovery that should be incorporated into the 1998-99 fee schedule and budget for certain Transportation services. Followup information requested by the Board regarding certain aspects of development related fees, is provided in the attached Finance Director's report. The Board expressed interest in ensuring that sufficient staff are available to provide timely and effective oversight of all soil and erosion control activities, and to ensure that intense urban development pays an appropriate share of the cost for that oversight. Staff needs direction from the Board as to revised soil and erosion control fees that should be incorporated into the Manager's Recommended Budget for 1998-99 to accomplish this level of oversight. The Manager will also include reasonable adjustments to other fees in the area of Planning and Inspections, and will incorporate the revised environmental health fee schedule approved by the Orange County Board of Health in March, 1998, unless the Board indicates otherwise. Final decisions related to all fee adjustments for 1998-99 can be made during the Board's budget work sessions in June, as needed. As has been the practice the past two years, the Manager will include an updated version of the comprehensive Orange County fee schedule for formal adoption by the Board at the same time it adopts the 1998-99 Budget Ordinance on June 22, 1998. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners receive the report as information and provide direction to staff concerning adjustments to fees that would take effect on July 1, 1998 and be included in the 1998-99 budget. 3 USER FEE REPORT II May 19,1998 This is a continuation of the report given to the County Commissioners during the May 6, 1998 meeting. Report II focuses on fees charged for services or programs in the areas of Recreation and Parks and the Transportation Division of the Department on Aging. In addition, this report provides the requested follow-up information on the Erosion Control Division of the Planning Department. Also provided, under separate cover, is information requested on comparable fees charged by other local jurisdictions. As mentioned in the previous report, fees in program areas that have been recently adjusted, as well as regulated fees, were not included in the scope of the review. Recreation and Parks The services provided within Recreation and Parks include an extensive range of cultural and athletic activities designed to serve the leisure and recreational needs of a broad cross section of County residents. In considering the recovery of costs within this program area, attention must be given to the nature of the activity, target population served, and other related factors which affect both the feasibility and desirability of imposing fees. Since it is a common practice to subsidize recreation and parks programs in most local government jurisdictions, full cost recovery was not considered in reviewing these fees. Fees within this area have been constant since the mid 1980s, except for summer camp fees which were adjusted in 1997-98. Fee increases were recommended by David M. Griffith, Inc. in the user fee study of 1989, however, none were implemented by the County. Since full cost recovery was not the objective in reviewing these fees at this time, increases based on inflation were considered. The resulting fees adjusted for inflation are included on the attached "Schedule I". Aging Transportation In the Transportation area, the current fees charged to users are for vehicles and drivers based on County established mileage charge back rates, and actual drivers costs. These fees include an additional amount to cover administrative overhead. In addition, transportation vehicles provide a shuttle service to and between Towns for which tickets are sold. Certain transportation provided by the public shuttles are medical trips that are funded in part by grants which limit the amount of fees that can be assessed. Transportation fees that can be adjusted currently recover 48% of the full costs. The attached "Schedule II" reflects these fees at various levels of cost recovery. 4 USER FEE REPORT II (CONTINUED) Planning -Erosion Control In follow up to the May 6, 1998 report on user fees, we have further reviewed the fees in this program area. Concerns related to the time and effort spent on intense urban projects, the possible need for additional staff to increase the level of oversight that can be provided in the field for erosion control activities, and changes to the current fee schedule that would be needed to fund this higher level of oversight, have been discussed in detail with the appropriate Planning Department Staff. Categorization of Erosion Control Sites Erosion Control Supervisor Warren Faircloth has provided the following information regarding disturbance classifications used and changes in the nature of development over the years that should be considered in deliberations about changes to the County's current erosion control fee scheduler Rural: outside of municipalities; only a small portion of the site will be disturbed; typically a private, gravel road. Urban: those that do not clearly meet the definition of a rural disturbance; located within a municipality; less than 50% of tract disturbed; and a paved road to NC DOT standards. • Intense Urban: 50% or more of the tract uncovered; typically apartments and commercial sites. Concerning the burden placed on "mom and pop" developers, there are few of these. Most private roads (a rural disturbance) in the past few years have been built by developers who subdivided and then sold the lots. The erosion control plan preparation by a surveyor is probably a more substantial cost ($500 to $1,000) than the fees (currently about $62 + $132 = $194) fora 1,000' long road. The occasional "mom and pop" situations can usually be handled by phasing the road construction so that permits are not required. The rural and urban projects, in general, take less time because there is room for the required erosion and sediment control devices to be put out of the way of construction and are less likely to be damaged. On the Intense Urban sites this is not the case due to the density; therefore, more frequent inspections are needed to ensure devices have not been damaged or removed. Raising only the Intense Urban fee could pose a problem if there is a down turn in the economy and this type of development stops, as it did a few years ago when commercial and multi-family projects disappeared. Such a set of circumstances would substantially reduce County revenue. 5 There have been few complaints about the fees Orange County charges. Most have come from the family type subdivisions. The big developers seem to assume it is the cost of doing business in Chapel Hill and the potential return is worth it. Out of necessity, the County provides a lot of service on these sites that should be provided by the developer, so an increase in fees seems reasonable. Staffing Warren advises that in order to increase oversight, additional staff is needed in the Erosion Control Division. The projects received in the past five years are more intensely developed on more difficult land, requiring more involvement and time on the site. Staff have not been able to keep up with reviewing and responding to proposed development plans and commenting on erosion and sediment control. This is an important function so that problems are caught early in the design process and corrected. County standards have not been able to keep up with the increased level of development and the more difficult sites that cause most problems and take up much staff time. The current level of plan review, supervision, administration, and experiments do not allow adequate time to ensure that the plans presented are not just compliant, but also successful in controlling sediment pollution. A new position soon would help address new, large projects, like additional phases of Southern Village and the proposed Meadowmont that are starting and will require more review and inspections. In addition, more time and effort is needed to address violation and citizens complaints about sites not under County jurisdiction, such as those conducted by the Department of Transportation, school sites, timbering, and claims of agricultural exemption. Warren says that current sediment control measures, particularly sediment basins, perform poorly. The standards used in Orange County are an effort to improve performance but there is still need for improvement. The State's standards are even more out of date than the County's, and the State is slow in moving to improve their standards. So, the County needs to move forward on its own. There are no jurisdictions using more effective controls, that he is aware of and has examined, that Orange County can just copy. During the past four years, the County has been conducting experiments to improve sediment basin performance and has seen great improvement using these devices. In some cases these devices can save developers money. Additional experiments are being performed on measures that can further reduce sediment pollution. However, time and effort are required to write the standards and specifications needed to formally adopt these measures so that the water quality benefits can be provided on all sites. Warren indicates that the person in a new position would perform inspections and review erosion and sediment control plans submitted for permitting. The grade for the position 6 should be higher than a starting inspector position because it is more technical and requires knowledge and experience with the engineering and construction side of erosion and sediment control. The benefits expected are: more and closer inspections, particularly sites with a higher potential for problems and off site damage; replacement of out dated, ineffective erosion and sediment controls with effective, economical controls; and more effective pollution control and protection of local and downstream water resources. Fees In reviewing the related fees, the attached "Schedule III" illustrates two possible scenarios to address the addition of new staff. An across the board increase in all Erosion Control fees at the 60% recovery level would pay for a new position. If more focus is placed upon the intense urban category, the schedule reflects a scenario that would place these fees at the 70% recovery level while increasing all other fees to the 50% recovery level. A number of other combinations are possible. RECREATION AND PARKS FEES SCHEDULE I Activity Current Fee Participaets Current Revenue New Fee (Inflation) Ne~v Fee Revenue Wrestling $25.00 25 5625 S30 $750 Football 530.00 60 51,800 540 $2,400 Basketball 525.00 490 512,250 530 514,700 Girls Softball 525.00 210 55,250 S30 56,300 Soccer 525.00 125 53,125 530 53,750 MusicJPiano 530.00 20 5600 540 5800 Arts/Crafts 515.00 50 5750 S20 S 1,000 Aerobics 525.00 30 5750 530 5900 Summer Camp .550.00 560 528,000 *550 528,000 Carnival Fees 50.25 4000 51,000 50.30 51,200 Senior Games Fees 56.00 160 5960 *S6 5960 Trip Tickets 55.00 200 51,000 56 51,280 Camp Part. Shirts 55.50 250 51,375 57 51,750 Sports Shirts 55.00 525 52,625 S6 53,360 Contracted Fees Tae Kwon Do 530.00 430 512,900 540 517,200 T'ai Chi 535.00 60 52,100 S45 52,700 Youth Self Defense 54.00 2000 58,000 SS 510,000 Jazz Dance 54.00 1000 54,000 55 SS,000 Baton 54.00 1000 54,000 55 55,120 Cheerleading 54.00 1000 54,000 55 55,120 Sports Camps 540.00 100 54,000 550 55,000 Rentals Gyms (groups) 520.00 30 5600 S25 5750 Gyms (individuals) 52.00 300 5600 *52 5600 Centers 520.00 30 5600 530 5900 Ball Fields $100.00 2 5200 S 125 5250 Equipment $200.00 1 5200 5250 5250 Totals 5101,310 $120,041 * Fee was not than ed V Page 1 AGING -OPT FEES SCHEDULE II Aging Driver Lease Fees Current Fees (48%) 50% 70% 90% 100% Business Hours S 11.00/hr S 12.00/hr 516.00/hr 521.00/hr 523.00/hr Non-business Hours 516.50/hr 518.00/hr 525.00/hr S32.00/hr 535.00/hr Vehicle Lease Fees County Internal Charges Cents per mile 35(van)/45(minibus)/ 55(bus) Ticket Sales One Way in Town 50.50 50.50 50.70 50.90 51.00 One Wa Between To 51.00 51.00 51.40 51.80 52.00 ao Page 1 EROSION CONTROL FEES WITH NEW POSITION SCHEDULE III Fees: 60% Recove Current Fees 60% Recove 100% Recove Erosion Control Plan Review per acre Intense Urban 5200 5292 5486 per acre Urban 5155 5226 5377 per acre Rural S88 5128 5214 Grading Permits r acre Intense Urban 5490 5714 S 1,191 per acre Urban 5365 5532 5887 1~ acre Rural S88 5128 5214 flat Private Roads S 109 S 159 5265 flat Stormwater Mngt. Plans S78 5114 S 190 Total Revenue with N ew Fees $142,060 Fees with New Position: Mixed Recove Erosion Control Plan Review New Fees per acre Intense Urban ( 70%) 5340 per acre Urban ( SO%) S 188 per acre Rural ( SO%) 5107 Grading Permits per acre Intense Urban ( 70%) 5833 per acre Urban ( 50%) 5443 per acre Rural ( 50%) 5107 flat Private Roads ( 50%) 5132 flat Stormwater Mngt. Plans (@ 50%) S95 Total Revenue with new fees $142,060 * This current recovery assumes a new position at 536,060 in salary and 59,015 in benefits. Add itional costs to th e county would be 545, 075. Fees would have to be raised on avera e, to the 60% recove level 'ust to make u for the new ition. ~o Page 1