Loading...
Resolution No. 99-08 CITY OF TIG RD,OREC30N RESOLUTION NO.99-O�? A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES AND CHARGES TO BE COLLECTED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RELATED TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERIVATS AND ADDRESSING WHEREAS, The Engineering Depa mient provides certain services related to work within public ghts- of-way and assignment of addresses,and rrnnREAS, The Engineering Departments current fee siruta a dues riot e= ^Rs*s are fi,it_v covered,and WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Section 3.32 allows the City Council to establish fees and charges by resolution in order to recover the costs of providing related services,and WHERFAS, The City Council hereby determines Creat such fees and charges are not established to make up for lost property tax revenues and therefore are not subject to the vote requirement provisions of Article 11,Section I I(g)ofthe Oregon Constitution related to such fees and charges. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION l: Engineering fees,charges and deposits are hereby established as set forth in the attached engineering fee schedule titled"Exhibit A'. SECTION 2: The City Council detemrines that the fees and charges imposed by this resolution are not taxes subject to the property tax hmitauons of Article 11,Section l 1(b) of the Oregon Constitution. PASSED: This 67'6�1 day of F-�YG("l 1999. ayor-City ofTigdd i ATTEST: i i City Recorder-City of Tigard db �wy�awsneep�sk�g�o�;amvevw�.�en�ees-resa�eo".ax -.� RESOLUTION NO.99QI Page 1 INMI Exhibit A CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERMIT FEES(Administration Deposit) AND OTHER RELATED SERVICE FEES 1. Street Opening Permit(SOP)Fee: FEE: $150.00(non-refundable)+deposit to cover processing and inspection. Final fee is based upon actual time:.,_nt by Staff on the project. BOND: $250.00+$2.50/lineal foot of right-of-way(for work outside traveled way) $250.00+$50.00/square foot of mad area(for work inside traveled way). 2. Compliance Agreement Permit(CAP)Fee: Estimated Cost of Public Improvement Deposit $O to $10,000 $1,200 $10,001 to $20,000 $1,200+10.0%OVER $10,000 $20,007_to $50,000 $2,200+ 8.0%OVER $20,000 $50,001 to $80,000 $4,600+ 6.0%OVER $50,000 $80,001 to$100,000 $6,400+ 4.0%OVER $80,000 $100,001 to$300,000 $7,200+ 2.0%OVER$100,000 $300,001 to$500,000 $11,200+1.0%OVER$300,000 $500,001 to AND GP $13,200+0.5%OVER$500,000 Deposit to be paid as follows: 1. Upon submittal ofplans One-third(1/3)ofdeposit due 2. Upon issuance of Approved Plans Remaining balance of deposit due 3. Upon Project Completion Refund or final payment of any deficit, based upon actual City Staff costs. i (1VO E: In addition to the administration deposit,assurance for the public improvement is required in the amount of I00%of estimated public improvement cost) 3. Addressing Fee: The fee for this service shall be: $30.00 per address. �- ATTACHMENT 1 A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES 1 IN THE ENGINEERING DEPAR17MENT February 9,1999 Bf1CKGR01JIJD The Private Development Division ofthe Engineering Duparttiiein is resporsibla cr a variety:;f i services related to private development projects. The funding for this work is provided by the General Fund. Examples ofthe department's services are as follows: • Pre-application meetings with developers. • Review of land use applications for private developments. • Assistance to citizens,developers and engineers in researching City as-built drawings and other relevant information. ® • Assignment ofaddresses. • Review,approval of public improvement construction pians related to private development. • Issuance of construction permits for public improvements to be performed in public right-of- way or public easements. • Inspection and monitoring of public improvement work. • Review,approval and indexing of final plats for subdivisions and partitions. • Processing and filing of as-built construction plans for future reference by City staff and the WW public. • Updates of various City maps,including streets,subdivisions and utilities. The costs for some of the services listed above are partially covered by fees collected by other departments. For instance,costs related to pre-application meetings,land use application reviews, and final plat reviews are covered by fees collected by the Community Development Department. However,some of the services above are either not covered,or not fully covered by fees collected. One service not fully covered is that associated with public improvement permits. Tasks included with this service include the review of public improvement construction plans,preparation and issuance of the permits and construction inspection. One service not cover-d by any fee is the assignment of addresses. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERMITS The Engineering Department issues two types of permits that allow work to be conducted within the public right-of-way(ROW)or public easements. The first is a Street Opc cling Permit(SOP), which generally covers relatively minor work such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, service connections to main sewer lines,or fairly simple street improvement work. The second permit is a Compliance Agreement Permit(CAP),which is for more complex work,such as half- street improvements,main utility line extensions and general subdivision improvements. A env rPR,,;r„5 thg n»nlicant to submit an application with information about the site location, estimated cost of the work and a drawing of work area that will be affected. The applicant is not required to have a professional engineer prepare the drawing,nor are they required to pay a fee at -,-application submitted. taffonusr usually visit the site to determine if there are t2le tl�lle the a Cati Vaa•o Y.,.... S.-..__ PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES PAGE I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT other issues to consider,such as utility pole locations,mailbox locations,or other issues that would affect the proposed work or compliance with the City's codes. There are many times when Staff trust contact the applicant to inform them of an issue as described above and have the applicant revise their plan to resolve the issue. Once the plan has been corrected to address the issue or code provision,Staff must then put together a permit package,which often includes additional standard details from the City's Public Improvement Design Standards manual to ensure the applicant installs the improvements per City standards. Once the SOP permit package is assembled,Staff then informs the applicant that the permit is _ re�tl"and that a Lee must he nnid find 2 100..er...-,.,r..e.£,+.. ,, ,' P';.,r _ to release of the permit. The performance assurance can be in the form of a corporate surety bond, letter of credit from a lending institution or cash deposit. The fee for the SOP is 4%of the estimated cost of the work in the ROW. Once the SOP is issued,the applicant then performs the work and Staff must inspect the area prior to release of the performance assurance. During the inspection phase,Staff often must visit the site at least twice. Once the work is completed and approved by the City,Staff must then compile a letter to the applicant that releases the performance assurance,make data entries in the City's computer network permit program,then send the file to the Records Department. The amount of Staff time that is put into SOP's is not fully covered by the 4%fee. This will be specifically discussed later in this report. A CAP project requires an applicant to hire a professional civil engineer to prepare construction drawings that meet the specifications of the Public Improvement Design Manual. The City must also review calculations for proposed storm drainage and sanitary sewer improvements. If the site is on steep terrain,where significant cuts and fills are expected,the applicant is also required to submit a geotechnical engineer's report that will contain recommendations for how the site should be graded. The applicant is not required to pay a fee at the time of plan submittal. Staff then takes approximately 5 weeks to review the materials. This time allows for other agencies,such as Unified Sewerage Agency(USA),franchise utility companies and other City departments,to review the plans and submit written comments to Staff. Once comments are received,Staff prepares a"redline"that is returned to the design engineer for correction. The plan review process will continue until the plans have been adequately revised by the design engineer. Once the plans have been deemed sufficient for permitting,permit documents are prepared including a Compliance Agreement,Developer-Engineer Agreement and three types of performance assurances. A 4%permit fee is calculated based upon a detailed estimate prepared by the design engineer. Staff sends the prepared documents to the applicant for signature and once the documents are returned along with the permit fee,Staff will conduct a preconstruction meeting with the applicant,contractor and design engineer. The purpose of the meeting is for Staff to inform the parties of specific construction regulations and policies. Once the meeting is completed,Staff issues the approved plans to the applicant and construction may begin. Staff spends a significant amount of time during the inspection phase performing inspections,answering questions,coordinating between the applicant,contractor,design engineer,utility agencies and the general public,making data entries into the City's computer network permit system and solving problems encountered in the field. Once the work is completed,a notable amount of time is spent by Staff in collecting the necessary final reports from the design engineer and geotechnical cngi neer,as--built drawings from the design engineer,television inspection reports of sewer lines and any other pertinent information necessary to allow the project to be placed onto a one-year maintenance period. Staff will monitor the project through the one-vear maintenance period and ensure that any warranty repairs are completed by the applicant before the maintenance assurance PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES PAGE 2 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT is released. Staff has found that in most cases the actual City costs of monitoring these CAP permits exceed the revenues generated by the 4%permit fee. This will be specifically discussed later in this report. It should also be noted that in both SOP and CAP reviews,thore are times when an applicant will follow the process to near completion and then drop the project. In cases like this,the City can not recover any of their costs because a permit fee is not collected until a permit is issued. ADDRE&, AS,YICLNMF.NTS The Staff time involved with this task is also very substantial. Staff is responsible for assigning addresses to new projects or tc parcels that previously did not have an address,preparing address maps,mailing notices to 7:'ili, •.ompanies and emergency service providers and updating the main City address maps. Staff must follow strict criteria set by Washington County,and adopted as City policy,when creating addresses for a project. Staff esti,nates that they apend approximately 8 hours in creating the addresses,associated maps and notices for an average single-family residential subdivision of 25'lots. For larger subdivisions of 50 or more lots,that time is increased to approximately 16 hours. There have been man; limes,specifically in multi-family projects, when an applicant will change their marketing scheme and request a change in how the project is ® addressed. These requests come after the initial addressing has been CGinpletiu. Staff most t_Pn reassign each and every address,revise the address maps and send another notice to the utility companies and emergency service providers. Another aspect of this service is that members of the public sometimes request a change in their address for various reasons. Staff has been reluctant to provide this service,as there are usually not public safety issues affecting the change,but simply resident preference of a house number. With the addition of a fee,Staff could then provide this service and get reimbursed for the costs associated with the address change. BUDGET IMPACT OF CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE In Fiscal Year 1998/1999,the Engineering Department will collect approximately$200,000 in revenues related to public improvement permits. This figure is based upon research of the past four fiscal years. The Private Development Division of the Engineering Department consists of six full-time employees and shares an administrative assistant position with the rest of the department. This division makes up approximately 35%of the department. With that in mind,the Private Development Division will spend approximately$295,000 in personal services(wages and benefits),$34,000 in materials and services and$17,000 in capital outlay for a total of approximately$346,000. Under the current public improvement permit fee structure,the costs exceed revenues by 73%. i Clearly,the current fee structure does not adequately cover Staff costs in providing the services that the City finds desirable and necessary. COMPARISON OF PERMIT FEES WITH OTHER JURISDICTION Staff researched other iurisdictions in the area,including Beaverton,Tualatin,Lake Oswego, 7 , Hillsboro,West Linn,Oregon City,Milwaukie and Gresham. Table I(attached)provides a suinmary of the ir,brmation collected. Note that all but three jurisdictions have a fee structure that ® is based upon actual staff time spent on the project. PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES PAGE 3 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT o.e� It should also be noted that the City currently uses a"cost recovery"fee structure for public improvement permits issues within the Urban Services Boundary(USB),as per the ® intrgovernrirental agreement with Washington County. The fee structure used in this area is as follows: USB Street Opening Permits(SOP) FEE: $150.00(non-refundable)+deposit to cover processing and inspection. Final fee is based upon actual time spent by Staff on the project. BOND: $250.00+$2.50/lineal foot of right-of-way(for work outside traveled way) $250.00+$50.00/square foot of road area(for work inside traveled way). USB Compliance Agreement Proiects(CAP) Estimated Cost of Public Improvement Deposit $0 to $10,000 $1,200 $10,001 to $20,000 $1,200+10.0%OVER $10,000 $20,001 to $50,000 $2,200+ 8.0%OVER $20,000 $50,001 to $80,000 $4,600+ 6.0%OVER $50,000 $80,001 to$100,000 $6,400+ 4.0%OVER $80,000 $100,001 to$300,000 $7,200-1 2.0%OVER$100,000 $300,001 to$500,000 $11,200+1.0%OVER$300,000 $500,001 to AND UP $13,200+0.5%OVER$500,000 Deposit to be paid as follows: 1. Upon submittal of pians One-third(1/3)of deposit due 2. Upon issuance of Approved Plans Remaining balance of deposit due 3. Upon Project Completion Refund or final payment of any deficit, based upon actual City Staff costs. (NOTE. In addition to the administration deposit,assurance for the public improvement is required in the amount of 100%of estimated public improvement cost) PERMIT FEE OPTIONS Staff finds that there are basically three options for the Council to consider: 1. Do nothing. 2. Increase the flat fee from 4%to a higher percentage of estimated costs. 3. Develop a"cost recovery"fee structure. a With regard to the"do nothing"option,Staff would recommend against it based upon the current a deficiency in permit fee revenues. 1 With regard to an increase in the flat fee percentage,Staff finds that in some cases the City would come out ahead,while in other cases the Staff costs would exceed the revenues. Time spent by Staff on any particular project is not easily predicted. In fact a disproportionate amount of time is a often spent on smaller projects where the flat fee does not come close to covering the Staff costs. In talking with the City of Beaverton,they find that their 5%flat fee is not currently covering their PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW"EES PAGE 4 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT . I 1 Staff recommends the Council authorize the initiation of a"cost recovery"fee structure. Five out ' of the eight jurisdictions questioned by Staff currently use this type of fee structure and are experiencing success. With this type of a system,the City can ensure that their costs will be covered and the applicant's can be assured that they will not be paying fees over and above City costs,as can be the case with a flat fee system. The eight jurisdictions polled have different ® structures between them,but because they are all cost recovery systems,the bottom line is always limited to actual City costs. Since the City is currently using a similar`:e s*rr_ct•.Ye--''hi .c USts,Staff recommends that the City continue with the same fee structure for all City of Tigard projects to provide consistency for the public and for Staff. In preparing this report,Staff discussed the fact that there are times when citizens are required to obtain permits and pay permit fees for relatively minor work within the ROW,many times for repairs of sidewalks that were damaged by forces outside of the property owner's control. An example of this is when a tree has caused an adjacent sidewalk to heave and create a tripping hazard. Section 15.12 of the Tigard Municipal Code(TMC)states that property owners who abut a public sidewalk are responsible for the maintenance and repair of public sidewalks. To avoid potential liability,a property owner must pay to have the sidewalk repaired. Staff is concerned with a fairness issue here. Many property owners are not generally happy to hear that they are responsible for repair work for a"public"sidewalk,and can become less happy when they are also told that they need to pay a pear;,fee to fix the public sidewalk. Staff realizes that the City should somehow ensure that the work will be completed in a timely manner once it is started,and ensure that the work is completed in accordance with City standards. But in instances when a property owner is required to fix a portion of the sidewalk that was damaged by the roots of an adjacent tree, Staff recommends the Engineering Department work toward adopting a policy that would waive a permit fee and bond in those special cases. The property owner would simply need to contact the Engineering Department and inform them of the pending repairs. Staff could then provide the property owner with the necessary information needed to complete the work properly,such as copies of the standard details. Staff could provide a ccu:tesy inspection of the form work prior to the property owner pouring the concrete. If a situation arises where a property owner has not completed the work in accordance with City standards,and if they refuse to comply even after Staff has attempted to work with them,then the City could impose fees to cover subsequent inspections or utilize the Code Enforcement process to obtain compliance. COMPARISON OF ADDRESS FEES WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS Staff contacted the following jurisdictions with regard to addressing: Washington County, Beaverton,Gresham,Hillsboro,Lake Oswego,Milwaukie,Oregon City,Portland,West Linn and Tualatin. In talking with these jurisdictions,Staff found that very few had established a fee for this 1 service. However,an overwhelming majority agreed tlzt a fee should be established and i expressed interest in working toward that end. The two jurisdictions that currently have a fee for this serv;c 1clude Washington County,at$30.00 per address,and Portland,at$15.00 per address. It should be noted that the City of Portland indicated that their current address fee is not sufficiently covering their costs and they are working toward increasing the fee. a i a It should be noted that the City currently charges an addressing fee of$30.00 per address for a properties within the USB,as per the intergovernmental agreement with Washington County. By adding a similar::ee within the City of Tigard city limits,the City's fee structure will be consistent. PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES PAGE 5 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Based upon the estimate of Staff time involved with providing this service,and the fact that the City is currently charging a fee for this service in the USB,Staff recommends Council approve the initiation of an addressing fee within the City of Tigard city limits of$30.00 per address. vivitiiARY RECOMMENDATION In summary,Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Engineering Department to modify current permit fees and initiate of the following,affective January 1, 1999- I. Street Opening Permit(SOP)Fee: FEE: $150.00(non-refundable)+deposit to cover processing and inspection. Final fee is based upon actual time spent by Staff on the project. A BOND: $250.00+$2.50/lineal foot of right-of-way(for work outside traveled way) .$250.00+$50.00/square foot of road area(for work inside traveled way). 2. Compliance Agreement Permit(CAP)Fee: Estimated Cast of Public Improvement Deposit $Oto $10,000 $1,200 $10,001 to $20,000 $1,200+10.0%OVER $10,000 $20,001 to $50,000 S2,200+ 8.0%OVER $20,000 $50,001 to $80,000 $4,600+ 6.0%OVER $50,000 $80,001 to$100,000 $6,400+ 4.0%OVER $80,000 $100,001 to 1.300,000 $7,200+ 2.0%OVER$100,000 $300,001 to$500,000 $11,200+1.0%OVER$300,000 $500,001 to AND UP $13,200+0.5%OVER$500,000 Deposit to be paid as follows: 1. Upon submittal ofplans One-third(1/3)of deposit due 2. Upon issuance of Approved Plans Remaining balance of deposit due 3. Upon Project Completion Refund or final payment of any deficit, based upon actual City Staff costs. (NOTE: In addition to the administration deposit,assurance for the public improvement is required in the amount of 100%of estimated public improvement cost) 3. Addressing Fee: 3 The fee for this service shall be: $30.00 per address. i Respectfully submitted, a� P�--- Brian D.Rager,'PE 3 Development Review Engineer Attachment: Table- i PROPOSAL'rO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES PAGE 6 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TABLE 1: PERMIT FEE COMPARIhUN CITY PLAN CHECK FEE INSPECTION/PERMIT FEE SOPIROW PERMIT ..^y�W 4°/of construction cost Tied in with plan check fee. 4%of estimated aid when permit is issued. __ construction cost. LAKE GSWEGO 5%of estimated costs or Tied in with plan check fee. $300,whichever is greater. This amount is a deposit; final fee based upon total time spent on project by staff. BEAVERTON 1%of estimated costs,or 5%of first$500,000,and 2.5% $53.00 ® $250.00,whichever is of amount over$500,000. greater. Audit can be done at end of project at developer's request (developers often do not choose this because costs often exceed the fee and the City would then bill for the difference). TUALATIN 4%of estimated costs or Tied in with plan check fee. Same as plan I $300.00,whichever is check/inspection fee. greater. Final fee is based upon total time spent on project by staff. E RO Less than 10,000 7.5% Tied in with plan check fee. Same as plan LSBO 10,001-50,000 5.0% check/inspection fee. 150,001-250,000 4.0% I over 250,000 3.5% Final fee based upon total time spent on project by staff WEST LINN Ranges: Tied in with plan check fee. $20.00 permit fee,w/ Less than 1,000 5% $300.00 deposit. up to Over 500,000 1.75% Final fee based upon total time spent on project by Staff OREGON CITY 5%of estimated costs. Tied in with plan check fee. $25.00 y MII WAUI� 5%of estimated costs Tied in with plan check fee. $75.00 GRESgAlyj 0-25,000 $500 ....4% $50.00 I H -100,000 $1,000 4% f -500,000 $1,500 4% -1,000,000 $1,500 3.5% >1,000,000 $1,500 3% Final fee based upon total time _- sent on project by Staff. 11enqbnanr4ngfees.tloc PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEET PAGE 7 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT