Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSan Luis Obispo Status Report UF Fee Study 07.31.23 MGTCONSULTING.COM City of San Luis Obispo, CA User Fee Study Weekly Status Report July 31, 2023 Key Items  Logistics meeting held 5/22/23  Kickoff meeting with departments for user fee and impact fee held on 6/7/23  Data request for UF sent 5/23. Received initial data (budget and salary and benefits) 5/31/23  Scope Adjustments:  None noted at this time. Status Milestone Due Dates ☒ Logistics Meeting UF/Impact Fee Study May 22nd completed ☒ Kickoff Meeting UF/Impact Fee Study June 7th completed ☒ Data Request for UF sent May 23rd sent / May 31st received ☒ UF design review initial meetings scheduled June – in progress ☒ Complete UF Design Review for each department June / July ☐ UF analysis (time) meetings scheduled July ☐ UF 1st draft review meetings July ☐ UF City comments 1st draft review July / August ☐ UF 2nd draft review meeting August (dev.)/ September (all other) ☐ UF Peer comparison results presented August ☐ UF City comments 2nd draft review August (dev.)/ September (all other) ☐ UF Final full cost review – development fees August (dev.) / October (all other) ☐ UF Discuss recommendations development departments August / September ☐ UF draft development fees report of findings or slide deck presentation September ☐ UF finalize development fees report of findings or slide deck presentation September / Early October ☐ Submit UF development fee documents to City Clerk September / October ☐ UF Presentation of development fees to City Council Late October ☐ UF Discuss recommendations all other departments October / November ☐ UF draft all other fees report of findings or slide deck presentation October / November ☐ UF finalize all other fees report of findings or slide deck presentation October / November ☐ Submit UF all other fee documents to City Clerk November ☐ UF Presentation of all other fees to City Council November / December ☐ UF Project closeout January Accomplishments/Issues/Questions  General o Logistics meeting held jointly for UF and Impact Fee Study 5/22/23 o Logistics meeting held jointly for UF and Impact Fee Study 6/7/23 o UF initial data request sent for budget and personnel 5/23/23. Received 5/31/23.  Volume and revenue will be requested during department meetings o List of contacts received 6/7/23 o Weekly status report check-in meeting set for every Monday from 3:00 – 3:30 pm beginning June 26th. o CDD Financials – MGT requested clarification on how to split up division 4001, 4002, & 4008 – Email sent to Erin Keller on 6.7.  Erin Responded on 6.14 – Division 4001 Splits (40% Building, 30% Planning, 20% Engineering). 4002 is all planning.  4008 to be excluded from ♦  Stormwater UF Question/Issue - email sent by Rebecca on 7.3 o From Rebecca: Story time- Recently, we added a new position for a Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer to support reductions in NOVs. It has been a contract position, but we are looking to have it permanent. There is an urgency in the position establishment as the current contract incumbent is almost set to expire. Our City Manager wants to make sure this cost recoverable position is covered by the stormwater fee that’s currently in place and has mentioned the idea of pulling the fee out and taking it separately from the citywide fee study to ensure cost recovery is possible now, instead of in another year when the fee updates are established and adopted.  o 7/24 Rebecca mentioned during the check in meeting that they would leave the stormwater fees as part of the development fee piece of the study and no need to expedite. We will incorporate the additional positions and new annual fee into the analysis.  Fee Placement Issue o There are still fees pending placement on the schedules. These are under the Fees Pending Tab of the file Fees Pending Placement 7.26.23 User Fee Department Status  Development User Fees o Building – MGT Lead Ruben Rivas  1st design meeting on 6/12 with changes due 6/27 and a follow up meeting set for 6/28.  2nd design meeting took place on 6/28. • The department provided restructuring comments on 6/27. MGT to vet those comments and get clarification from staff. • Final clarification on fixed fee restructuring and building construction categories for plan review/inspections to be provided by 7/7 o MGT followed up with Building on 7/10 o Due date was missed, have not heard back from department since I followed up with them on 7/10. o Rebecca followed up with Building internally on 7/17. o On 7/18 Erin Keller (CD analyst) reached out to ask me If I was still waiting on data from building. I responded and said yes, they still owe me the same data I requested on 6/28 and again on 7/10  7/20 – Building restructuring edits finalized by MGT. Email sent by MGT on 7/20 to propose time estimate meeting for week of 7/24 • Time estimate meeting scheduled for 8/1 • Time estimates due 8/18 o Engineering – MGT Lead Jamie Radcliff  1st design meeting on 6/16; Engineering team reviewed the spreadsheet internally and shared additional notes with MGT 6/26. Follow up meeting to review notes scheduled 7/5 at 10:30 PST.  Follow up meeting conducted; awaiting further notes changes from an internal team meeting held 7/6. Still waiting to hear back from Engineering on their internal meeting, however the design otherwise has been determined.  7/21- Engineering verified there are no additional changes and the design/structure is now established.  Still need answer regarding fees from other departments  Ready to schedule time estimate meetings o Fire / Fire Development Fees – MGT Lead Ruben Rivas  1st design meeting set for 6/26 @ 2 pm  Edits due back by 7/11 • MGT to followed up on 7/10 o Fire sent over some data but was not complete. On 7/11 I asked Fire to send me everything at once. I asked if they had met with building to discuss building construction categories/methodology  Rodger’s response on 7/11 - I met with Building safety this morning. As all the plan review and permit fees are being restructured, I will need time to compare what a per square foot fee would look like in regards to our current structure. They are sending the documents over for my review.  7/11: I asked them to let me know when it was all ready and if they needed a combined call between Fire/Building to discuss this matter. • Have not heard back since 7/11. Will follow up again on 7/18 and cc Rebecca. In this email I will also cc building to make sure internal communication is happening with fire/building. • Rebecca followed up with Fire internally on 7/17 • 7/20 - MGT reviewed the “edits to date” Rodger sent on 7/10. There wasn’t much and what was put in there did not make too much sense. MGT followed up with Fire on 7/20 to request a restructuring follow-up meeting for the week of 7/24. o Fire confirmed that more edits were coming and that they want to follow the building methodology on building construction categories. MGT asked for a follow-up design meeting. There seems to be a disconnect and I want to make sure we’re on the same page. Starting to fall behind on the design phase. o 7/25 Rebecca followed up. Fire Chief responded asking for the latest file to get it finalized. Rodger sent it via sharepoint (MGT not able to access). MGT responded to Chief to give him status on what’s been done/where we are and to suggest a follow up meeting o Restructure recommendations provided on 7/25. Design follow up Meeting scheduled for 7/31 o 7.31 - MGT processed changes that came out of restructuring meeting. Build model and send out time estimates proposed meeting times.  Need to build in financials o 7.31 - MGT to added planning/engineering fees to fire model in their own data collection tabs to make sure we grab their cross support. • Time estimate meeting proposed for week of 8/9 - Email sent to fire on 8/3 o Planning – MGT Lead Jamie Radcliff  1st design meeting on 6/26 @ 10 am and another with more participants on 6/29 @ 10 am. A clean fee design was returned to Planning for final review. They have 2-3 questions/issues that need to be determined internally. Comments due back from Planning the week of 7/10.  Meeting scheduled with Tyler to discuss fee placement and Homebase on 7/20/23 at 9:30 am.  7/21- Met with Planning team and Erin to determine fee placement on the Planning schedule. Planning fees design/structure is complete.  Ready to schedule time estimate meetings  Still have fees pending schedule placement  All Other User Fees o Cannabis – MGT Lead Jamie Radcliff  1st design meeting on 7/6. Spreadsheet shared with client for further review and/or edits. Client is good with the design of fees. Provided consultant contract and program operations.  Ready to proceed to time estimates. o General Government – MGT Lead Jamie Radcliff  1st design meeting on 6/27 at 10 am. 2nd meeting held on 7/11/23 finalized design of fees.  Most fees on their schedule belong to other departments. Sent an email discussion to our Engineering and Planning contacts regarding these fees.  7/21- Met on 7/20 to discuss the placement of fees from General Government.  Questions regarding fee placement.  Move on to schedule time estimate meeting. o Parks & Recreation – MGT Lead Cindy Sconce  1st design meeting held on 6/21 @ 3:30 pm. 6/22 sent over the categories we discussed to perform the analysis. Comments due 6/30. 7/10 followed up to see if they had any changes or questions so we can move forward. Brendan said he would get us an answer by this afternoon.  7/12 received feedback on the categories to be reviewed. 7/13 MGT sent revised list to Brendan for review and additional feedback. 7/19 Brendan emailed that the categories are good.  7/19 emailed Brendan dates to begin data collection for time estimates.  7/20 MGT emailed the shell for the data collection workbook that will be reviewed during the meeting.  7/25 met with Brendan and Devin on how to fill out data collection workbook. Another meeting is scheduled with Meghan on 8/1 so that we can get on the same page. Follow up with Brendan on 8/11 to see how things are going. o Police – MGT Lead Cindy Sconce  1st design meeting on 6/15 and time estimates have already been provided. Police is pulling volume and MGT will send out an email to set up a draft review meeting. 7/7 followed up with Melissa and requested a meeting to discuss hourly rates.  Meeting to discuss hourly rates set for 7/13 @ 2 pm. Melissa provided MGT with the hourly rates that were approved by Council in May 2023. MGT emailed Rebecca on 7/13 to see if these were the rates that should be used for the fee study or if she would like us to develop new rates. Provided Rebecca the pros and cons of using the rates on 7/14. 7/18 Rebecca recommended to keep the methodology consistent with the other departments and develop new rates.  7/19 emailed Melissa requesting a breakdown of additional training and admin time spent per sworn and non sworn personnel.  7/17 received volume.  7/31 1st draft review. Comments due back no later than August 14th. Contract now does alarm permit and renewals so Melissa will pull that information so we can adjust those fees. o Public Works – MGT Lead Cindy Sconce  1st design meeting is set for 6/23 @10 am. Only Nicole showed up to this meeting. She will send a follow up to Anthony, Manny and Brian regarding their fee structure and let me know if there are any changes. She said that she should get some answers by Tuesday, 6/27.  Follow up meeting with Nicole set for 7/11 @ 11:30 with Erin from CDD to discuss who might be working on these fees. • It was still unclear after the meeting as to whether we needed to adjust the site disturbance fees. Cindy, Jamie and Ruben from MGT met to discuss what Building, Engineering and Public Works have said regarding these fees. No structural changes required. Set meeting with Manny on 7/19 @ 11am to discuss time estimates. • Nicole to work with Manny and Chase on gathering information from the blue cards to assist in time estimates for the site disturbance fees. She is hoping to meet with me by 7/27 or 7/28. Waiting to see. She will be on 7/31 meeting. 8/10 meeting set up with Engineering to discuss. • We will need to discuss the hourly rate calculations since Chase is not on the budgeted salary report for 5009. He is split up between several other cost centers. Trae looks like he is in cost center 5009. Both positions are paid by CDD but fall under PW. • Confirmed that the tree permits should now go to the Planning fee schedule. o Utilities – MGT Lead Jamie Radcliff  1st design meeting on 7/11 at 11 am; sent email 7/11 with model design for review and requested availability for a follow up meeting the week of July 24-28th.  Meeting scheduled for July 24th at 2 pm Pacific time.  The department is finalizing their design. Waiting for draft back from them. Have asked for their availability for the week of August 7th-11th. o IT Surcharge  7/24 met with Rebecca Cox to receive back history of this fee. This is utilized as a technology fee. 7/25 follow up meeting schedule to discuss costs. May need to add in digitizing the records. Due 8/4 Next Steps Status Step Dates ☐ Finalize each departments design (structural changes) July ☐ Determine peer comparison agencies and which fees to compare July ☐ Begin time estimate, volume and revenue collection for analysis July Comparison Agencies: • On 7/3 Rebecca selected the following agencies: San Luis Obispo County, City of Santa Barbara, City of Ventura, City of Monterey. • City will need to choose 10 fees for MGT to compare. Project Close-Out Summary Will complete at project end. Goal for implementation of fees is effective January 1, 2024.