|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Regular 8.
|
| LAFCO |
|
|
|
| Information |
| SUBJECT |
| Provide staff direction regarding the Yolo LAFCo fee/deposit schedule update and whether reorganization proposal applications should be a flat fee instead of the current deposit system |
| RECOMMENDED ACTION |
| Direct staff to adjust the schedule with flat fees for standard requests instead of deposits that require increased staff time to track and collect actual costs. |
| FISCAL IMPACT |
| None. Flat fees would be based upon averages from actual application cost data from 2012 until current so that revenue would average out over time. In addition, LAFCo does not assume proposal revenue to balance its budget since it is not a significant source of revenue and is variable. |
| REASONS FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION |
| Yolo LAFCo has not updated its application fee/deposit schedule since 2009 and it is in need of an update. |
| BACKGROUND |
Staff listed the actual cost of applications processed going back to December 2011, when the Executive Officer was hired in case any processing practices differed from the previous one. Excluding a few applications where LAFCo either waived fees or initiated dissolution of inactive districts ourselves, there is a sample size of 16 proposals listed in the attached spreadsheet (a few separate applications ended up getting combined for processing purposes). Please note the attached spreadsheet is the raw data and is not a proposed fee. Staff will work with this data more, possibly removing outliers, before developing a fee proposal to bring back for Commission consideration.
Staff costs and State Board of Equalization (BOE) boundary change fees have outgrown our outdated deposit amounts. LAFCo has billed actual costs at the end of the process, so regardless staff time has been ultimately recouped. But this requires a significant amount of staff time to do some forensic time accounting and puts staff in the role of bill collector before LAFCo can file the final Certificate of Completion for an application. Application invoices have increased over the years which is sometimes an unexpected surprise to applicants. And as an example, with the Lower Elkhorn and West Sacramento Basin reorganizations, staff was under a time crunch to get agency invoices paid and the boundary changes filed with the State BOE by December 1st.
Staff time would be better spent if the schedule turned more of the standard jurisdictional changes and out of agency service approvals into a flat fee instead of a deposit. This would represent a philosophical shift away from collecting actual costs. However as noted previously, LAFCo does not use application revenue to balance its budget because this revenue is uncertain (with anywhere between 0 - 6 applications submitted per year since 2011), therefore, capturing actual costs may not be as important. Staff is seeking direction before coming back with a specific schedule for approval.
In querying other LAFCos, there is a mix between taking in applications with deposits versus flat fees. Staff recommends that Yolo LAFCo should still require deposits for proposals with highly variable processing costs, such as a city incorporation/disincorporation (however unlikely that might be) or district formation.
Staff requests Commission direction whether shifting more proposal applications to a flat fee or whether continuing with deposits and collecting actual costs is preferable. Staff then would return with a proposed schedule at the May or June meeting intending to go into effect on July 1, 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|