Travis County Commissioners Court
February 10, 2009, 2009
Item 19
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
we have two t.n.r.
items.
that -- that we need to turn to.
the first of which is number 19.
19.
consider and take appropriate action on alternative short form plat subdivision review fees.
>> good afternoon, anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r.
back in the end of January the Commissioners court directed t.n.r.
staff to -- to examine the short form review process and determine if a graduated fee schedule would be appropriate.
this was in response raised to -- to a constituent named mike mcminn regarding a potential short form plat application.
just as a reminder, the current short form plat fee has two components, $150 flat fee plus an will $852 per lot fee.
so -- so t.n.r.
did in fact reexamine the cost drivers for short form plat.
in order to -- to develop an alternative fee schedule.
and in looking, in doing this exercise we realized that the number of lots is no longer really a valid driver for our fee and so we looked at well, what types of things cause the -- cause the cost to go up during the review process?
so -- so we realized that there's a standard amount of reviews that typically go on no matter what, how many lots there are.
and we also realized that basically there are four factors that if those are present in a short form plat, it tends to increase the -- the complexity and the number of reviews that the staff time to do the reviews.
and those four factors were whether or not there was floodplain on site or immediately adjacent on the boundary street to the lot.
if the density of the proposed project was greater than the density in the surrounding areas.
if the proposed land use was different than the land use in the surrounding areas and whether or not a variance was required.
so -- so we took all of that into account.
and we are proposing a separate fee that has a basic flat fee, if you would, and add on cost for each of those four factors if they are present.
i should point out when we did this analysis we used the same cost amounts as we used in the 2004, in 2004 when we last looked at these fees.
we did that so that we could be consistent, be comparing apples to apples.
but I would propose that if we do adopt this new fee, that we do come back with an assessment of all of our subdivision review fees, bringing them up to our current costs.
and I would also add that -- that this does have a revenue impact.
given the average -- we are averaging 40 short form plats a year with three lots and when we compare that to what we would be charging under the new proposed fee, there would be like a $201 loss of revenue per plat.
short form plat on the average.
the other thing that I would want to point out is this proposed fee would be only in the -- in the outside of the city of Austin's e.t.j.
we have a different set of processes that we have to add into our -- doing our review that -- that -- so the costs are different inside that single office as -- as they are everywhere else in the county.
so --
>> so what fee would apply to the -- to the e.t.j.
area?
>> well, the e.t.j., in the city of Austin e.t.j., in that area it would still be our same fees that we have and we have those fees broken out by whether or not it's in the area that we're the case managers of.
we're the case managers in the -- in the Austin e.t.j.
that's in the desired development zone as opposed to -- to the city of Austin staff who are the case managers in the area that's known as the drinking water protection zone.
the city of Austin e.t.j.
fees also have a differentiation for whether or not the applicant is going to use the regional storm water -- program, sorry, I -- I was struggling to get the p in rsmp, whether or not they're going to utilize that.
if they are, then our fees are less in that area because city of Austin staff is performing that review function.
so right for you what we're -- right now what we're talking about are fees strictly outside of Austin's e.t.j.
>> so it wouldn't reduce the complexity in regard to whether you are inside the e.t.j.
or outside of the e.t.j., it would just be a change to our schedule for outside the e.t.j.?
>> yes, sir.
this is just purely a change for outside of Austin's e.t.j.
>> is there -- is there a -- I guess we are looking at a multiplying effect, I guess, for -- for those short form applications that are not in this city e.t.j., in other words, just strictly to us, on the average, about how many of those do we have filed a year?
>> we have approximately 40 filed a year and that's -- that's going back, you know, from -- from this -- from last fiscal year or last calendar year to -- to I want to say 2000.
that number seems pretty consistent.
and the number of lots, the average number of lots per short form, it used to be for -- you know, for -- now it's -- it's 3 point something.
so the average number is -- say, stays pretty consistent.
>> okay.
go ahead, Commissioner.
>> so if we're looking at an estimate on -- on revenue loss on this new program, we are really only looking at it through the balance of this fiscal year?
is that true?
and have we seen any -- any slow down in applications on these plats, based on the economy?
>> well, we have seep a slow down in -- seen a slow down in permits.
the -- the average of 40 per year is still holding true.
on short form plats.
and it's short form plats, those are the only plats that we are -- you know, proposing this fee change on right now.
>> this fee change, though, is really only proposed through the balance of this year because we will be reviewing and upgrading for the next cycle.
>> right.
we would be coming back to you, you know, after we analyze all of our fees.
because as I said, we haven't done a fee analysis since 2004, so right there that -- that tells me that -- that I need to be sure that the processes we're doing are the same and what cost factors, what things that cause the review to be more complicated, I need to see if those are still the same and I know that I need to adjust, we need to adjust staffing costs.
>> okay.
i guess this all -- well, the short form plats are referring strictly to ones outside of the city's e.t.j., is there just a basic nomenclature template, a shoe fit all, brought on a case-by-case basis?
in other words I'm trying to not lose revenue to begin with.
and when we set a standard it appears that we may lose revenue, I'm kind of concerned about that, especially with the -- with the -- with the possible growth potential and maybe some short -- short form slots that may be -- maybe involved under that scenario, I'm kind of concerned about that.
you know, it's -- I'm kind of concerned about that.
>> I understand, I would tell you that -- that the basic plat review fee is going up from $150 to 2,350 and -- and where we were charging the most would be 852 per lot fee.
on the average, like I said, on the average there's -- there's three lots per short form.
now, some are just one lot and some are I think the most that we have seen were 24 lots.
but the average has remained, you know, constant.
>> well, the question is then what kind of impact would the loss of revenue pose for the department, especially with the staff and folks that got to deal with this stuff?
in other words, feel how revenue is generated from certain things, it will cost -- I'm trying to determine that.
what kind of impact would it be
>> [indiscernible] this type of loss?
>> well, what I would suggest is that -- is that we know that -- that this proposed fee would be a temporary fee until the end of fiscal year 2009 and we know that we need to review all of our fees and because -- because it has been the decision that the courts in the past to -- to try to recover the cost of doing the reviews in the -- in this -- during the -- during the fees.
>> all right.
>> so I -- so I would suggest that -- I know that we're going to be evaluating this -- this more carefully and coming back to you with -- you know, with the information that we gleaned with the proposed fee changes or adjustments as warranted.
>> and do you believe that, based on your analysis, I'm assuming that the -- that the structure that you are proposing does cover the costs for the short form plats.
>> so in regard to the $840 loss in revenue, if I were -- 8,040 loss in revenue, if I were a developer, I would say that's because short form plats were subsidizing other activities to the tune of roughly $8,000.
>> one thing that I -- that -- in analyzing this, in looking at this, one thing that we look at is we look at what goes, what activities go into doing the review in -- we try to recover those.
just -- you know, one thing that I personally struggled with was okay a one lot short form plat should be a piece of cake, should be very easy.
and for the most part some of them are.
but what it turned out to be was just it was not the number of lots that was the thing that indicated -- had the -- had the highest connection to the amount of review time.
so that's -- that's why we proposed this.
>> what would be your response to -- since it is a 200 -- approximate $201 loss in revenue per plat, what about just redistributing that $201 along your schedule?
say make the basic plat review fee $2,500.
what would be the impact policy wise of doing that?
>> leaving that to the shortfall -- you could do that to recover the costs.
a couple of things to take into -- into consideration is one that since we did the reviews, survey back in 2004, we have seen a shift from the more difficult short form towards easier short form.
that's one of the reasons why the cost has actually gone down because you actually have more that are not as complicated.
they are still those that are the outliers.
the other thing is that since we are using old staff
>> [indiscernible] you are going to see that we are not recovering, we have not been recovering since 2005 fully.
but as of 2004 we were, that's how the fees were structured.
so you are having a revenue loss because of these things.
if you would like to make up these $8,000, then, yes, I would suggest that you go back to the basic fee because that's really where most of the work lies.
i think when we looked at the number of hours, we had three or four different staff positions that were involved in the basic review process, that was somewhere between 65 and 70 hours per short form plat application.
then the other pieces that came in, the month of difficult pieces, added staff time but not as significantly.
so, yes, it would make sense to bring it back to the basic fee because this is still really kind of an average, weighted average, if you will, based on the difficulty that we have been experiencing for the past few years.
so it has gone to a little bit of an easier short form review process.
shortened the time a little, averaged that out, then again we are not recouping at the rate that we should be anyway.
so --
>> so in recognition that we are using 2004 staffing costs, I recognize that if we were to put it back on the basic plat review fee and say make the basic plat review fee 25-506789 that puts the -- 25-50.
that puts the burden equally on all small plats.
the other alternative, less certain, would be to bump up the ala carte menu by 50 bucks per -- per -- what would you think of that?
it's certainly less certain that we would recover, but then you are putting the burden of making up the difference on those who do have cost driver elements to their short form.
>> yeah, I think if you look at what anna has -- her data has showed us is that really the more difficult ones are really about 14% of the overall.
so you're not going to -- chances of recouping that, you know, based on these four particular items is probably not as high.
and if you are really just trying to cover it, I would put it back into the base fee.
at least recover some of it, you know, the current costs.
again the 23.50 is we know understated.
>> just to preserve the status quo until you all have had a time to reserve the fee schedules in total.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> okay.
>> what do we do about the present request, though?
>> uh-huh.
>> could we apply it to the present request.
>> mr.
mcminn has not submitted his short form plat yet.
i think he's probably waiting to see the outcome of this before he submits.
>> then I would move acceptance of the suggested fee schedule with the basic plat review increased by $200.
>> figure out what the increase needs to be.
is $200 what the basic -- basic plat review needs to be increased by?
>> 201 is what it really is.
the shortfall basically.
so 200 will -- you know --
>> so the 201 was approximate.
i figured adding the one would make it look funny.
>> second.
>> second.
>> two seconds there.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all.
so -- so now the fiscal impact is not 8,000, it's what?
>> $40.
>> down to about 40 bucks.
>> yeah.
i mean with the one dollar shortfall.
>> that's why we smile.
>> good work.
>> good work.
>> good job.
>>
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:00 PM