Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.3 Admin Charges for Engineering Services . F30--/7d CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 11 , 1987 SUBJECT Administrative Charges for Engineering Services EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 ) Copy of Letter from Kaufman & Broad 2) Copy of Memorandum from City Attorney 3) Resolution No 9-84 and Exhibit 3 RECOMMEND ATIONa1 To accept the City Attorney ' s statement and take no . action . FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The financial impact is $14, 914 . 18 for this specific case , but could have greater impact based upon the effect on all chargable costs of the City. DESCRIPTION On May 1st , the City Manager received a letter from Kaufman & Broad of Northern California Inc . (K&B) concerning the City ' s administrative/overhead charges (a copy of that letter is attached) . Mr . Galigher , the Forward Planner for K&B, stated in the letter his objection to paying the portion of the City ' s charges-for-services equal to the administrative charges. Administrative or overhead charges are a normal and usual portion of the cost of services . Such costs include but are not limited to rental expense, utilities , insurance ; supervision , payroll processing , legal services , etc . It has been determined that the proper and reasonable administrative fee for engineering inspection services is 25% of the direct costs . The League of California Cities attorney was previously asked about the procedure necessary to collect an administrative fee. His response was that the City Council should be on record as requiring Staff to recover 100% of the cost of services . The Dublin City Council has already taken that position when it approved Resolution #96-84. Exhibit 3 of that Resolution enumerates the mechanism for collecting a_ deposit which is applied against the engineering subdivision fees. That exhibit states in part : "The Construction Inspection Fee shall be the actual cost of inspection and the deposit is paid prior to the filing of the final map . " The actual cost of inspection includes both direct and administrative costs . The City Attorney has reviewed some of the material and recommends that no additional action is required of the City Council . By taking no action , the City Council is reaffirming their position that the Staff should continue to recover 100% of total actual costs of rendering services so long as the fees do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the associated services . Staff concurs with the above . recommendation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. • �n�i'`@�^^'i�n+�'{irf �i �+A ^u}7r. r y F c S�;.;. i., `n "*'�!„'ur 'r'roc �"N�t..,rn,�+.ur,�t+gecxap�azr^�m*Cevyf l^t. ..slt.''�*`�'fa. ,iTh r7�''7 e.'..l T�s.,'.w�.�,cxt b. s •;,�._TLS' ^, t. .. . . _ J'.�• ..{ Cir_ a.,it,.. ....n, w],...._._1':f....2rJ +e_�..a,...a {ti;A_..Jf_..._ r.S.•4 :�::+..;.,..._.�.. ..,+f.�,.....,. _ _ .aaum�uommo,00uvvmp�»emouo�m|u.ox ' ^ 6379 Clark Avenue Mailing.P.O. Box 2755 .Dubl;n, California 94568 /w� 829 *500 ' R E C 2 U Y 117 _ KX^y 1 l`37 Kaufman �� ��r������ wa. _ ' April 29, 1987 Dick Ambrose City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Silvergate Highlands SF Tracts 4859, 4947), 4991 and 5003 Dear Dick: Pursuant to our conversation and meeting several weeks ago, l am requesting to be scheduled- on the Dublin City Council Agenda on May iL , 1987 to request a refund of $14,914. 18 which ` by our records, is the amount of money we have been overcharged for inspection fees. We feel that there is no basis for these charges and that the 25% administration fee levied in addition to charges for plan check and inspections, performed and billed by Santina/Thompson, is unwarranted. Attached is a Kaufman & 8ruad interoffice memorandum, dated February 17` 1987, with attachments which itemizes charges by the city via Santina/Thompson including the overcharges as evidenced by invoices received by Kaufman & Broad from the City of Dublin Finance Department. We feel that administrative fees must be approved by the City Council by resolution or ordinance before any such fees are charged to developers or property owners. I will call to confirm the date for the ageoda schedule within Lhp next few days. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincere!y, K N on he Calif Inc ' Edward A. Galigher Forward Planner �^ EAG: ss Attachments cc: Lee Thompson x; Kaufman and Broad of Northern California.Inc. _.aufman s, Broad INTEROFFICE NENORANDUN TO: Ed Galigher DATE: February 17, 1987 FROM: Mike Heim j SUBJECT: FEES OVERCHARGED BY CITY OF DUBLIN The following summarizes the fees we were charged by the City of Dublin in excess of the invoice amounts presented to the City by their engineers. Tract # Fees in Excess of-Invoice 4859 7,226.64 4991 4,301 .41 5003 1 ,153.23 4943 2,232.90 14,914.18 Attached you will find schedules det iling • a speci 'c invoices. Additionally, allow me to point out c tain c es appearing on the worksheets prepared by the City that are appar y without attached details: Tract City's Description Fee Charged 4859 Map Extension 83-73 $2,116.33 4859 Planning Work 11/83 and 1/84 1 ,146.7 1 4859 and Work 11/84 58.12 4991 Planning Work 8/1-8/15 52.79 3,625.20 I took this opportunity'.to scan fees paid to the City of Dublin, Alameda County, and DSRSD over the past three years, looking for other fees we may have-overpaid. We have two checks written to the City of Dublin for refundable cash deposits for finish grading that should be addressed: Ck # Ck Date Amount 26539 1145-85 $ 5,000 26629 12-09-85 5,000 10,000 I 've already submitted to you copies of these two checks. Page 2 Memo to Ed Galigher 2/17/87 Let me know if I can provide you with additional assistance on these subjects. Also, I need to hear what you think regarding collectibility of these amounts after you've presented our case to the City. MH:kd a f. Kaufman ind Broad of Northern Callfornla,Ins _.aufman Broad SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TRACT 4859 INVOICE INVOICE INVOICE FEES CHARGED DATE NO. AMOUNT AND PAID 8/10/84 2566 1260.00 1260.00 1/8/85 3183 240.00 240.00 2/12/85 1105 1295.20 1295.20 3/7/85 1161 960.00 960.00 4/9/85 1231 .1060.00 1060.06 5/6/85 1243 800.00 800.00 .� 6/14/85 1345 860.00 860.00 7/10/85 1405 620.00 20.00_ 8/8/85 1450 2020.00 2525.00 9/12/85 1554 2480.00 3100.00 10/9/85 1586 3520.00 4400.00 11/15/85 1709 4116.00 5145.00 12/19/85 1792 135.00 168.75 12/17/85 1788 5042.00 6302.50 1/14/86 3233 5265.00 6581.25 2/12/86 3752 4136.50 5170.63 q� 4/10/86 3368 933.50 1166.88 i.J-Q 1/8/85 3183 540.00 540.00 �. $ 5/13/86 3413 12.50 15.63 .7/9/86 .3549 737.00 921.25 © / 8/14/86 3623 252.00 315.00 9/8/86 3668 56.0 1-00 9/17/84 2630 11.50 11. 11/7/84 2912 120.00 120. V 12/13/84 3067 240.00 240.00 ** ** 20 .00 2 -----------_----------- • 36913.20 44139.84 EXCESS OF FEES PAID OVER INVOICE AMOUNTS 7226.64 **INVOICE COPY NOT PROVIDED BY CITY. AMOUNTS OBTAINED FROM HAND WRITTEN NOTES ON CITY OF DUBLIN TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES PROJECT LIST. K3ufman and Broad of Northern California.Inc. PO 9c. 2'_5 329._ , ._aufman e► Broad SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TRACT 4991 INVOICE INVOICE INVOICE FEES CHARGED DATE NO. AMOUNT AND PAID xis 5/16/83 1849 1981.00 1981.00 6/15/83 1891 1391.50 1391.50 7/12/83 1929 80.00 80.00 8/5/83 1964 885.50 885.50 2/17/84 2069 342.00 342.00 3/15/84 2107 320.00 320.00 �3/g� 8/21/84 2575 201.60 201.60 9/17/84 2630 694.80 694.80 11/7/84 2912 414.60 414.60 1/8/85 3182 300.00 300.00 5/6/85 1246 268.80 268.80 6/14/85 1346 04 604.80 8/8/85 1451 629. 10 786.3 �. 9/12/85 1553 470.40 588.00 10/9/85 1588 537.60 672.00 12/19/85 1792 1170.00 1462.50 12/17/85 1788 450.00 562.50 9/8/86 3664 56.00 70.00 1/14/86 3233 147.00 183.75 n 2/12/86 3752 104.50 130.63 �v b 3/12/86 3328 3668.00 4585.00 4/10/86 3368 2544.00 3180.00 ° 5/13/86 1- 12 3004.00 3755.00 3.49.7_._.`2460.00 _ 3.075.00 y 7/9/86 E3551 ____.�643 00`- ~ A033 7 8/14/86 t`i6� 1322.00 1652.50 ----------- ----------- 24690.20 28991.61 EXCESS OF FEES PAID OVER INVOICED AMOUNTS 4301.41 t Kaufman and Broad of Northern California,It, 8cx 2-_� .'aaufman d► Broad SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TRACT 5003 INVOICE INVOICE INVOICE FEES CHARGED DATE NO. . AMOUNT AND PAID 8/10/84 2564 L60.00 00 300.00 9/12/85 1554 20 67.20 9/17/84 2620 00 90.00 11/7/84 2912 00 90.00 12/13/84 3067 00 30.00 1/8/85 3183 60.00 11/15/85 1709 450.00 562. 0 12/17/85 1788 .450.00 562.50 1/14/86 3233 729.00 911.25 2/12/86 3752 540.00 675.00 3/12/86 3328 112.00 140.00 5/13/86 3413 315.00 393.75 6/12/86 98 90.00 112.50 7/9/86 t-,- X3549 33.00 41.25 U\ 8/14/86 3618 224.00 280.00 9/8/86 b36681 619.30 774. 13 v 10/10/86 3703 247.20 309.00 11/14/86 3785 803.40 1004.25 ----------- ----------- 5250. 10 6403.33 EXCESS OF FEES PAID OVER INVOICED AMOUNTS 1153.23 Kaufman and Broad of Northem California,I a - .aufman Broad SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TRACT 4943 INVOICE INVOICE INVOICE FEES CHARGED DATE NO. AMOUNT AND PAID 8/10/84 2565 LP5 0 540.00 9/17/84 2630 0 90.00 12/13/84 3067 90.00 11/7/84 2912 0 210.00 1/8/85 3183 160.80 3/7/85 1161 0 2349.00 4/9/85 1231 1250.98 5/6/85 1243 0 1986.80 6/14/85 1345 2099.05 7/10/85 1405 1486.64 8/10/85 1450 1554.3 9/12/85 1554 403.20 504.00 Sly 10/9/85 1586 67.20 84.00 11/15/85 1709 810-00 1012.50 12/17/85 1788 1158.50 1448. 13' 1/14/86 3233 948.00 1185.00 2/12/86 3752 495.00 618.75 4/10/86 3371 213.50 266.88 5/13/86 3413 405.00 506.25 7/9/86 i"p 313.00 391.25 , 8/14/86 A 4 934.00 . 1167.50 9/8/86 dv 668 56.00 70.00 Q 10/10/86 d,p 822.38 1027.98 �GG 11/14/86 d , 3785 49.68 62. 10 12/9/86 X16 012.54� 1265.68 ?� 16 26.50 _ ----------- ----------- 19421.27 21654. 17 EXCESS OF FEES PAID OVER INVOICED AMOUNTS 2232.90 ?? FEE CHARGED NOT SUPPORTED BY COPY OF INVOICE. INVOICE IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THIS FEE EXCEEDS THE INVOICED AMOUNT. Kaufm!fn and Broad of Northern Callfornla,ins. 529­5-310 _.aufman Broad SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TRACT 4859.4943,5003 INVOICE INVOICE INVOICE FEES CHARGED DATE NO. AMOUNT AND PAID 1/17/84 ?? 352.00 352.00 2/16/84 2068 192.00 192.00 3/16/84 2114 1290.00 1290.00 3/16/84 2115 1861.00 1861.00 6/7/84 2343 210.00 210.00 4/11/84 2148 400.00 2400.00 6/6/84 2341 294.00 294.00 7/5/84 2374 603.00 603.00 3/16/84 2116 720.00 720.00 4/11/84 2149 1_6 480.00 480.00 6/7/84 2342 l 0-.00 60.00 ----------- ----------- 8462.00 8462.00 EXCESS OF FEES PAID OVER INVOICE AMOUNTS: 0.00 r MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & WEST MICHAEL R.NAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW PENINSULA OFFICE STEVEN R.MEYERS ' NATALIE E.WEST CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX 1220 HOWARD AVE..SUITE 250 ELIZABETH H.SILVER 835 EAST 14TH STREET BURLINGAME.CA 94010 MICHAEL S.RIBACK SAN LEANDRO,CALIFORNIA 94577 (415)348.7130 OF COUNSEL (415)577-3333 MARIN OFFICE 1202 GRANT AVE.,SUITE E THOMAS F.BERTRAND NOVATO.CA 94947 (415)892-8878 REPLY TO: May 5 , 1987 To : Richard Ambrose City Manager R C E y E From: Elizabeth H. Silver 7 158 Assistant City Attorney Re: Engineering Inspection Fees A question has been raised by a developer (Kaufman and Broad letter of April . 29, 1987) regarding the . propriety of the City charging an administrative fee of 25 percent for engineering inspection fees . Resolution 96-84 authorizes engineering inspection fees in general,and in particular, in Exhibit Three, specifies that construction inspection fees shall be the "actual costs" of inspection. Since the City contracts with Santina and Thompson to provide engineering services, the City charges developers both the direct costs , as billed by Santina and Thompson, as well as an administrative fee (of 25 percent ) for overhead for such items as office space, clerical staff, heat, lighting, etc. In my opinion this is proper since the City's "actual costs " include not only the costs billed directly by Santini and Thompson but a reasonable percentage to cover administra- tive and overhead costs incurred by the City in providing office space and clerical staff for Santini and Thompson personnel in Dublin ' s City offices . Elizabeth H. Silver EHS/mis RESOLUTION NO. 96-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING FEES, CHARGES, AND BOND AMENDMENTS FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SERVICES n WHEREAS, prior to July 1, 1982 the County of Alameda had collected specified fees and charges for the performance of government services within the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, since July 1 , 1982 the City of Dublin has been providing these services either directly or through a contracting agency/firm; and WHEREAS, fees and charges collected during the course of City business have been the same as -those in effect in the County of Alameda on July 1, 1982; and WHEREAS, the fee schedules do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the associated services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that .the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt schedules for; Police Services Fees, Grading Fees, Engineering Subdivision Fees, Encroachment Fees, Bonds for Faithful Performance of Encroachment, Planning. Department Fees, General Fees for Services ( Exhibits 1 ,2,3 ,4,5 ,6 ,and 7, respectively) . Said exhibits are attached hereto and shall be considered as a part of this Resolution Passed Approved & adopted this 27th day of August, 1984 Ayes: Cvcuzu.lmemGeir4 fe4Ae , Mo44att, Vvnheedet and Ma�toz Sn.c�de� Noes: None Absent . Cvun.ci membe2 Heg.a✓cti4 - May City Clerk ' r J City of Dublin Exhibit 3 : Engineering Subdivision Fees Checki (_improvement plan, final map, etc. ) actual cost (deposit required) . �•_� Public Works Construction Inspection Fees Actual cost the inspection fee is estimated as a percentage of the construction cost of the improvements. The percentage depends on the cost as shown in the following table: Table Construction Cost Deposit Fee Percentage (% ) Under 50 ,000 7% 50,000 to 100,000 6% 100,00 to 200,000 50 200,000 to 350,000 4.5% 350 ,000 to 600,000 4% 600,000 to 1,000 ,000 3 .5% - Over $1 ,000,000 3 .0% The Construction Inspection Fees shall be the actual cost of inspection and the deposit is paid prior to the filing of the Final map, A deposit of $500 . 00 . per street monument, as well as the fee in lieu of park land dedication shall also be paid prior to the filing -of the Final map. ,r