SR-211-010
e
-
.2//~c/o
stp\~~
GS:SS:CP:ME
Council meeting: September 27, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO:
city council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT:
Recommendation to Approve New Utility Excavation
Permit Fees.
Introduction
This report recommends that the City council adopt the attached
resolution revising the utility excavation permit fees so that
the city's actual administrative and inspection costs can be
recovered. This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive
General Fund user fee study which was previously approved by
Council. Consideration of utility excavation permit fees was not
included in the recommendations at that time to allow for further
analysis by the General Services Department.
BACKGROUND
Utility excavations are cuts made in city streets, alleys, or
other pUblic rights-of-way for the purpose of installing,
repairing,
or
replacing utility
services
such
as gas,
electricity,
cable
TV,
water,
and
wastewater.
Utility
excavations are one of the primary factors,
along with heavy
truck and bus traffic, in ?ausing more rapid deterioration of
public streets. The purpose of issuing permits for utility work
on public property, therefore,
is to insure the safety of the
publ ic and to monitor the qual i ty of patching and repair work
that is performed on the City's streets.
I J;; 7~
e
--
Under section 7113 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the city
Council can set utility excavation permit fees by resolution.
Current fees are $10 per permit for all public utilities and $20
per permit for private contractors. Presently, the City issues
approximately 780 excavation permits per year and realizes an
annual revenue of $8,939 in General Fund account number
01-902-062-000-000.
The largest user of these permits is
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), which performed 642
excavations last year, representing over 82% of the permits
issued.
Discussion
Cost of Service
Exhibit A outlines the various city cests involved in the permit
issuance and inspection processes for each type of utility cut.
The table contains three major sections:
(1) Cost Component - This section develops the hourly charge
for each person involved in the utility cut permit
issuance and inspection process. Cost components are
based on salary cost per hour, overhead costs (includes
retirement, health and dental, other fringe benefits,
cost of office space and equipment, etc.), and estimated
vehicle costs per hour.
(2) Hours per activity - this section lists the average time
each staff member spends on each processing activity.
(3) Actual cost to City - this section calculates the cost
component for each activity based on its estimated
duration and the staff costs associated with the
activity.
e -
The time spent on each activity is dependent on the type of
excavation being processed, i. e,
service cuts, class A major
cuts, or class B major cuts:
(1) Service cuts - These are cuts made for purposes of new
service connections, and repair or replacement of
existing service connections to residential or
commercial establishments. They are small in nature
and require less staff time to process.
(2) Class A maj or cuts - These are cuts usually made for
purposes of main line replacements and are between 25
and 1,000 linear feet in length.
(3) Class B major cuts - These are main line replacement
cuts that exceed 1,000 linear feet in length. Even
though these cuts are infrequent in Santa Monica, when
they do occur they require a significant amount of City
staff time.
A closer analysis of the various cost components indicates that
at present I
the city is significantly undercharging for
administrative and inspection services (current receipts total
$8,939 a year). under the cost recovery methodology proposed in
this report, the city should generate $64,122 in annual revenue.
This represents a net increase of $55,183 a year and translates
into permit fees of $60 for regular service cuts, $480 for class
A major cuts, and a minimum of $900 for class B major cuts. In
addition, for class B major cuts, staff recommends internal work
orders be implemented and the permittee be billed directly for
any costs incurred by the City which exceed $900. The double fee
penalty currently imposed on excavators operating without a valid
e
e
permit ($20 per permit) should continue to be assessed at the new
fee levels (either $120, $960, or $1,800 per permit depending on
the type of excavation) for unauthorized work.
Administrative Procedures
In combination with the fee increases proposed above, City staff
will also be enforcing various administrative provisions to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of utility excavation
processing and monitoring.
These administrative provisions
include:
(1) Advance notification of excavation schedules will be
required to facilitate timely street inspection.
(Emergency situations are exempted)
(2) Each completed project or repair shall be identified with
a marker no less than one inch in diameter which will be
embedded into the pavement. The marker shall be
permanently imprinted with the initial of the excavating
utility, (e.g. tiE" for the electric company, "G" for the
gas company, etc.). For trenches that run a full block
or more, markers shall be placed at intervals of no less
than 200 feet.
(3) In streets resurfaced or reconstructed wi thin the last
three years, or slurry sealed within the last year,
utility excavations will not be allowed unless
authorized by the Director of the General Services
Department. (Work associated with new City approved
building projects, Public utilities commission mandates,
city required changes and emergencies are excluded from
this restriction)
e
e
The procedures outlined above are intended to ensure compliance
with City standards, facilitate monitoring of utility excavations
for traffic and public safety purposes, and establish a mechanism
for ensuring timely inspections. Closer monitoring of utility
excavation and patching operations will help prevent pavement
failures and, as a result, save the City additional street repair
expenditures.
Over the past few months, General Services Department staff have
met on various occasions with representatives of Southern
California Edison, Southern California Gas and General Telephone
Enterprises. The proposed new fees have been discussed with
these affected utilities, and City staff has revised various
elements of this proposal based on their questions and comments.
It should be noted that the fees proposed in this report
represent a significant reduction from the initial staff
recommendation. This reduction was prompted by thoughtful input
from utility company representatives regarding actual staff hours
spent for each activity as well as other suggested refinements to
the Ci ty I s cost calculations. The final recommendations
presented in this report equitably balance the concerns expressed
by the utility companies with the city's desire to recover the
actual administrative and inspection costs associated with
utility excavations.
BUdget/Financial Impact
Approval of these new fees is expected to generate $41,387 in net
additional revenue in FY 1988-89 for revenue account number
e
e
01-902-062-000-000 (assumes implementation by October 1, 1988).
The net additional revenue in this account for succeeding fiscal
years is anticipated to be $55,183. There is no projected impact
on city expenditures associated with these new fees.
Recommendations
It is respectfully recommended that the city council adopt the
attached resolution revising the utility excavation permit fees
and increase revenue account 01-906-062-000-000 in the amount of
$41,387.
Prepared by: stan scholl, Director of General Services
craig Perkins, Administrative Services Manager
Marsha Eubanks, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Atossa Soltani, Acting Conservation Coordinator
Attachment: Resolution for Adoption
Exhibit A
(atosuts)
<
u
z
o
:E
<
....
z
<
<II
....
o
>-
....
u
<II
W
w
....
....
:E
'"
W
0..
....
CI)
....
<II
o
u
:z>
o
....
~
:5
)(
w
>-
....
-
-'
-
....
:;)
>-
....
>
0Xl
VI
VI
<
.....
. U
VJ
....
::>
u
co:
o
"">00;
<
:E '"
VI
<
-oJ
U
....
u
<
....
::>.
U
....
W
W
O!:
....
<I>
co:
w
0..
....
on
o
U
-oJ
<
::>
....
u
<
>-
....
:;
-
....
U
<
co:
uJ
0..
on
O!:
6
::J::
ca
w
0..
<I> >-
.... ....
:::I
u
co:
o
-.<
<
:Ew
0..
>-
....
w
uon
-....
>:::1
o!:u
w
<IJ
U
::J::~
W
>
....
z
w
Z'
o
0-
~
U
~
W
::J::
<:.::a-t
w
~
~
""
.... ....::J::
lS'~
U
... uJ
... -'
00;....
....-
II) ....
.....
>-
....>
UQ
e
~::~~~~~~~
Lf"\II'\Oroco-cOo..---
NN-NN",l'\J~obfI.
tfItf1....r--....tfI...
tfI
J::!;el?ia~O:~:::l~
..o..oLl"'l.J";~"';~';
......-ofA"'ON-4'-~.....
........ f"'ItfI.......
tit
VJ
....
a
:;;~Ie!8~~g:::l:::l
a5"';Oo-...oN~_~
tltof;llJ4/:I._4A_1AobIt~
.... ....
w
U
~
""
w
CI)
~~~~~~g~:;;
. .. . . .. .. .. .. .
000100_..-00-
-
OOU'\LnOOO........'"
U'\1J"1.-N\t'lI....U"OO-
oooO:'~~ooo
It'1 Nl\JO.,., 00 r--r--
Nr;~~~~~~~
000000000
0- 0.
11'1 '^
.
o (;)
- -
NNa-tNa-tNa-tN~
:e:e:e~~r2:e:e~
~ot-T'""or--........_'ft"-_
o f"'I 1/\-0-..0<4: 00
a)o:IO-rt1-iLt\flI""II~
aia:iN..o";N..o~N
T""-N-N-.....-..-
C O!: ::J::
"" e @j:~
8. c.JI ,...~.....
U1- Il1.I < 1k~
t-~~3i ~~~~
-.cC:::)Z '-.J .1.1)......
::IE: en-...... u en
0:: Q......
wuJ. I~_I>-I
I:L .(iJ:cn'CnP-(.Jacw
.Ot-..... ~-:tu
:z uJLI.I~ LL..Ch%
_~WWWI""'C<
:E-cloc:::OI::.....~<w:z
~ffi~t;;:i!;~~=
II
" 0-
Il 0
"
,,0,
"....
.1 0-
Il ....
If
II
II
"
11-4"
Itr--
"
ilei!
I: ;;l
"
'I
11
"
II 0.
11-
'I
11-
II ..0
11 ....
II
II
II
II
II
n
II ~
110-
II
II,..,
II N
II
"
Ito:!
Ilr--
It
n-
Il
I.
II
It
II
ei!
N
-
>-
....
u
o
....
...
:g
~
:z
::IE:
~
.....
VJ
'"
a
::J::
-'
<
....
o
....
co:
w
o
:zw
=>....
cS.
ww
>:t:
-<.,1
ll<UI
w
CW
w
w ....
<=
<::l
Ow
....",
~~
:z <:.::
wJ:l.
:>
w
0<
....
:z>
w
co:
'"
a
O!:
ww
co.....
Z:;)
::>c
w
Q:l:
WI..>
>on
-
<:.::w
uJ w
c...
w
;:)
Z
w
>
w
a:
U)
~~
=>U
t-
o
G.t...
oIJ'J
<<1<<1
> L
- ...
L c:
0..0
U
.....
<
....
o
....
...
::l
u
a:l
r/I
r/I
'"
~
U
...
::l
U
<
r/I
'"
..
~
u
...
...
::l
U
Ql
o
;>
L
QJ
(I)
.....
00:
...
o
....
.....<
<D :z
f'.
-4"0
o
~
00
N~
<4:
~
1'-0
LI"l.o
1'-""
-oe:
~2:
f'.
0-0
-<1-
r-- ...
NO
M .....
....
if
if
..
..
QJ
>-
~t
.... ...
e...
L _
G.t E
~ ..
CIl
-0..
o
J
:z
eXHIBIT A
ON
~~
~~.. ~
10'1 10'1
00
0....
"J
M
10'1
co
0'.0
..00-
....
~
ON
'" -4"
<4: LI"l
U"I -4"
-4"....
10'1
oM
M-
po- o:!
.....
~
00-
0.....
-3....
.....
r--
....
0-4"
l~
.
..
if
CIJ
CIJ
'" ...
~41
1:-
!~
<:'::Q
N
N
....
"
R: II
II
. "
II' II
II' "
.... "
II
"
"
II
o
o
..0
f"'I
....
(;)
-0
11\ .
o
....
.....
Q
::l
I:
'"
>
<Il
'"
...
QJ
Z
N
..0
0- .
0:-:
~
10'1
f"'I
-<I
0> .
co'" :
10'1
0.
M
N
~:
,
-4"
o
r--
....
i
'"
""
III
....
o
...
QJ
'"
to
QJ
L
o
c:
o
o
0.
10'1
...
o
(I)
(I)
w
u
x
w
z
....
z
w
0-
r/>
W
::E
-
....
....
...
<
....
m
-'
<
:z
o
....
-
0-
~
...
c
......
<II
o
U
....
<
::>
...
u
<
VJ
=>
....
0-
o
o
~
::E
!
:z
;:
<
w
CCI
o
...
U'l
...
a
,..
....
-'
-
....
:;)
@j:
...,
i
ca
In
In
00::
-'
U
..
U)
...
E~
... ....
8..?::
o
.......
0'-
E
<II ..
~8.
L
~g
1IIr--
>-
~><
.cO
... L
1:8:
~~
.. .
r/I
I:J::
0'"
'2S
r/I
1l~
",oIJ
-'"
lO
1Il~
...
- CIl
E"5
8...
G.t
->
00
L1
i~
z-
.
..
...
l:
III
~
o
<l!
a.
QJ
..
'"
I:
l:
~
...
l:
~
~
'"
:5
Oil
...
'"
<II
'+-
o
clJ
r/I
8.
L
~
'"
CI
CI
....
.:.<
<>
CIl
.c.
u
'-
o
....
c:
ltl
~
C-
D)
c:
L
III
QJ
t:
D)
c:
w
"'C
~
...
o
....
'-
CIl
C-
d>
L
..
~
<II
o
'-
QJ
~
o
<>
..
...
o
..c
+"
CI
l:
ll>
-
-
o
tJI
'"
r/I
Il:I
U
"G.t
- .c.
--
III
>-
o
...
::lK
00
I_
...
i.<
o
18:
<-<l!
o
.....c:
L'_
8.",
L
"'::l
"'0
i:lM
~-g
III
lL-
~~
._ l!!
CIl
)o.Ol
~I
lOt
c
llI"-
(/l-g
.-;('
G.t1U
G.t...,
....
<II
CIlolJ
1~
a8.
if
<<
.
L
o
QJ
u
l:
clJ
"
l:
i
...
<II
d> r/I
...QJ
ell...
. '-..
....... .-
<0 ....... ~ &:: u
'U ...,00
e~;~;:~
OCllCLIO<
c...... c""""" !.
:: Di::: c U) "2
~ -.c:m
~1!0 .-Cl
~ o...~z:
....1'0..00
~- >Cl
u... "" Q,I
3::0"'<11"<:
lit 4-141 ..,
u... I:C:
- '- - - 0 C
>EIf\- -
LL"'" "i
:ll8. 0",11
o><-~g.3~
= 8. ~ po' 'II '"
...... .... It..ftI
~~.8~taG.l
>C ::I r/I <-
Q1u 0......,:J
"''''::lel
,""OG.1G.lU-
Q 3:.J:: U ......
.f-/ioIXIl'
~_Q;II>~i!
co C > lli
CI--'-Of
"4-QJL Cl)
OOtIOCIl",<II
<II L
"""-'-cntU'-
U)Q.t.... 041'
- > ~ UlI..... m
~"<J'" III
::I"'....
o5~c.Jti~
_~o-u
CIIi:20Uc..
a~ i'ii8.
CIlCllC",;:~
o I.. 0 QJ
>2::::;8.~
(1)1.. <lI<l1r/1CIJ
......,g,o__c>
.....UJZ'LJU_O
0..... ,,""""-"'"
z.... N""4lt'\
'"
<II
L
Agenda Item :#
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION ~RCK CONTENT OF
DISTRIBuTION OF RESO~TION # 7c;cJI'J
W 1 /c'~
//--- c-
;YD
(: (- /
~~
ALL FOR CI"'CLERK'S ACTION
-
ORDINANCE #
Councll ~eetlng Date
Introduced:
Was It amended?
Adopted:
ALWAYS PUBLISH ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Cross out Attorney's approval
VOTE: Afflrmatlve:
Negatlve:
Abstaln:
Absent: A ;::-'1 T--;{
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to he slgned, sealed and flIed In Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date:
Department orlglnatlng staff report ( Laurle Lleberman)
Ordlnances only for Attorney ( Claudla Thompson)
Management Services Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY
Agency mentloned In document or staff report
(certifled?)
-z-
-r-
SubJect flle (agenda packet)
1
Counter flle
1
Others: (Review
Alrport
Audltorlum
for departments who need to know).
Parklng Auth.
Personnel
BUJ_ldlng Dept. Plannlng
CIED Pol1ce
Flnance Purchaslng
General Servo I Recr/parks
Llbrary Transportatlon
Manager Treasurer
Flre
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
CODED SYSTEMS
120 Maln Street
Avoni New Jersey 07717
4
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO: 4
Debra Hyrlck
Santa Monlea Munlclpal Court
1725 Maln Street, Room 118
Santa Monica, CA 90401 Total Coples
3
,
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 7697(CCS}
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA REVISING FEES CHARGED FOR UTILITY
EXCAVATION PERMIT FEES
WHEREAS, study has indicated that the present utility
excavation permit fees do not represent the reasonable costs to
the city; and
WHEREAS, Sections 7112 and 7113 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code allow future fees for permits and inspection of utility
excavation work to be set by resolution;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following terms and phrases shall have the
meaning set forth below:
A. service cuts - Utility cuts made for purposes of new
service connections, and repair or replacement of
existing service connections to residential or commercial
establishments.
B. Class A major cuts - Utility cuts made for purposes of
main line replacements and between 25 and 1,000 linear
feet in length.
C. Class B major cuts - Main line replacement cuts that
exceed 1,000 linear feet in length.
,"
e
e
SECTION 2.
The fees for utility excavation permits where
work is not done by city forces shall be revised as follows:
Type of Cut permit Fee
Service cut $ 60
Class A Major Cut $480
Class B Major Cut $900 plus actual costs in excess of
$900.
Excavators found operating without a valid permit at the site
shall be assessed at twice the applicable rate.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ "'^'
~
ROBERT MYERS
City Attorney
,-
i
e
e
Adopted and approved
I hereby certify th
was duly adopted by the
Resolution No. 7697(CCS)
council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on September 271 1988 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: councilmembers: Finkel, Jennings, H. Katz, Zane ,-
Mayor Conn
Noes: Councilmembers: Reed
Abstain: councilmembers: None-
Absent: Councilmembers: A. Katz
ATTEST:
fLv"---
. y Clerk
~
e
e
SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
HEARING ON INCREASED EXCAVATION PERMIT FEES
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Southern Cal1fornla Gas Company operates and maIntains a vast
underground dIstr1but1on system 1n the CIty of Santa Mon1ca to
serve lts customers. Due to the nature of our system, excavat1ng
in streets 1S an unavo1dable element of providing safe service to
all.
Over the past several months, we have been workIng closely w1th
General Serv1ces Staff to establIsh a permIt fee and procedure for
serV1ce cuts that would be equitable to all part1es. As stated by
General Servlces Staff, serV1ce cuts Involve commonly recurr1ng
events, such as:
o The installat10n and replacement of serVIce lines two
(2) inches or less In dIameter.
o MaIntenance, Inspectlon and repaIr of existIng under-
ground facll1tles.
o Pothollng for utility actIvities or CIty proJects.
Our proposal Incorporates a procedure which SoCal Gas has been
able to establIsh WIth several citIes throughout our serving
terrItory. The procedure has slgniflcantly reduced the cost of
proceSSIng excavatIon permIts and subsequent Inspections. Cost
saVIngs are realized by placing the responsibIlIty of InspectIng
~
e
e
Hearlng on Increased Permlt Fees
Page 2
all restored excavations on the Southern Californla Gas Company,
whIle the CIty conducts random InspectIons to verIfy that the
Clty'S requlrements are belng met. In addItIon, we are requIred
to warranty our pavement restoratlon agaInst faIlure for the lIfe
of the street.
General ServIces Staff's proposal Incorporates the elements of
thIS procedure to some extent. soeal Gas belIeves that the City's
admInIstratIve costs can be reduced from the proposed $60.00 to
$45.00 per permIt. This can best be Illustrated by referr1ng to
the summar y sheet before you. The col umn below "Proposed CI ty
Costs" provIdes a breakdown by actlv1ty for Staff's proposed
$60.00 fee. The column under "Potentlal Reduced Costs" provIdes a
breakdown of costs based on our proposal. The proposed $45.00 fee
1S based on reducIng the involvement of the Street Inspector,
Water SuperIntendent and Water utility Locator. By requlrIng
SoCal to Inspect and guarantee all Its cuts, the C1ty could reduce
Its InspectIon frequency from 60% to 30%. SaCal Gas has
demonstrated a strong track record relatIve to qualIty pavement
restoratIon ln the CIty of Santa Monlca. In addItIon, we have 1n
the past and WIll contInue to guarantee our repaIrs for life. On
those few occaSIons when we have receIved a complaInt,
.
e
e
Hearing on Inreased PermIt Fees
Page 3
SoCal Gas has responded ImmedIately to the satisfactIon of the
CIty and the publIC. should the CIty have some reservatIons
regardlng the self-audItIng concept, we would propose the
implementatIon of admInIstratIve procedures to Insure a
satisfactory SoCal InspectIon program.
We also belIeve that the Involvement of the Water SuperIntendent
and Water UtILIty Locator to locate and mark water lInes In areas
where the Gas Company wIll be workIng, wIll be sIgnifIcantly less
than antIcIpated. Our records IndIcate that only 20% of our cuts
In the Clty of Santa MonIca have required notIfIcatIon under
AB3020 to Underground ServIce Alert, and the subsequent locatIng
and markIng of CIty underground faCILItIes by Santa Monica
employees. We propose that the permIt costs be reVIsed to refleCt
an actIVIty level of 30% for these two IndIVIduals rather than 50%
as Indicated by Staff. ThIS would prOVIde a 10% contIngency above
our actual experience for locatIng and markIng CIty underground
facilItIes. Our record of safety relatIve to damagIng other
substructures has been excellent. In the last two years In over
1,000 cuts, we have experIenced only six InCIdents where our
Company crews or contractors workIng for SoCal have struck other
faCIlitIes Our safety record does not appear to warrant an
increased level of actIVIty on the part of the CIty to protect
e
e
Hear1ng on Increased PermIt Fees
Page 4
Its faCllltles.
Our proposed fee of $45.00 sIgnIfIcantly exceeds the average
permIt fee throughout cur servIng terrItory and IS comparable to
some of the highest fees we are currently paYIng. Under the
proposed procedure I have descrIbed, the CIty of Santa MonIca
would recover all Its costs and together we would be able to
minImIze the Impact on natural gas conSQ~ers and the taxpayers of
Santa MonIca. At the same tIme, the qualIty of pavement
restoratIon would be maIntaIned at a hIgh level, InsurIng that the
needs of the CIty will be met.
We would lIke to go on record in support of the proposed fees for
Class A & B maJor cuts. We think they are faIr and reasonable.
However, the Southern Californla Gas Company respectfully
recommends that the CIty CouncIl approve a serVIce cut fee of
$45.00, which we believe 15 equItable to all partIes. Regardless
of the CouncIl's deciSIon, we would lIke to offer our aSSIstance
In developlng the necessary admInistrative procedures to Implement
the new fees. In partIcular, we would like to work WIth the CIty
to establIsh a moratorIum street pol~cy that IS workable and
effective.
e
e
SANTA MONICA UTILITY SERVICE CUT FEES
POTENTIAL POTENTIAL
CITY STAFF PROPOSED PROPOSED TIME REDUCED
TITLE HOURS CITY COSTS REDUCTION COSTS COMMENTS
Eng. PermIt
CoordInator- 0.25 8.37 8.37
Eng. C. E. Asst. 0.12 4. 02 4.02
Str. Supt. 0.02 0.78 50% 0.39 Based on 30%
random
samplIng by
Inspector.
Str. Inspector 0.50 19.68 50% 9.84 Based on
30% random
samplIng by
Inspector.
Wtr. Supt. 0.15 6.49 40% 3.89 Based on
notIfYIng
USA 30% of
the tIme.
Wtr UtIle Loc. 0.40 12.89 40% 7.73 Based on
notifYIng
USA 30% of
the tIme.
Traf. C. E. Tech. 0.20 5.89 5.89
Treas. Staff 0.07 1. 53 1. 53
F~n Staff 0.07 1. 53 1. 53
TOTAL 1. 78 $61.18 $43.19
Proposed Fee $60.00 $45.00
(Rounded)
Notes:
(1) a 10% Increase In random Inspection Increases costs by
$3.4l.
(2 ) A 10% Increase In USA notIfIcation Increases costs by
$3.87.
e
e
SANTA YlONICA UTILITY SERVICE CUT FEES
POTENTIAL POTENTIAL
CITY STAFF PROPOSED PROPOSED TI.'1E REDUCED
TITLE HOURS CITY COSTS REDUCTION COSTS COMMENTS
Eng. Perml t
Coordinator 0.25 8.37 8.37
Eng. C.E. Asst. 0.12 4.02 4.02
Str. Supt. 0.02 0.78 50% 0.39 Based on 30%
random
samplIng by
Inspector.
Str. Inspector 0.50 19.68 50% 9.84 Based on
30% random
sampllng by
lnspector.
wtr. Supt. 0.15 6.49 40% 3.89 Based on
notIfYIng
USA 30% of
the tIme.
Wtr Ut il . Lac. 0.40 12.89 40% 7.73 Based on
notIfYIng
USA 30% of
the time.
Tr af . c. E. Tech. 0.20 5.89 5.89
Treas. Staff 0.07 1. 53 1. 53
Fin Staff 0.07 1. 53 1. 53
TOTAL 1.78 $61.18 $43.19
Proposed Fee $60.00 $45.00
(Rounded)
Notes:
( 1 ) a 10% Increase 1n random lnspectlon Increases costs by
$3.4l.
( 2 ) A 10% lncrease In USA notlflcatlon lncreases costs by
$3.87.
..
. #'
CITY STAFF
TITLE
.
e
POTENTIAL
REDUCED
COSTS COMMENTS
Eng. Perm~t
Coord~nator
Eng. C.E. Asst.
Str. Supt.
Str. Inspector
wtr. Supt.
wtr utll. Loc.
Traf. C.E. Tech.
Treas. Staff
Fin Staff
TOTAL
proposed Fee
(Rounded)
Notes:
(1 )
( 2 )
SA~TA MONICA UTILITY SERVICE CUT FEES
PROPOSED
HOURS
POTENTIAL
TI~E
REDUCTION
PROPOSED
CITY COSTS
0.25
8.37
0.12
4.02
0.02
0.78
50%
0.50
19.68
50%
0.15
6.49
40%
0.40
12.89
40%
0.20
5.89
0.07
1. 53
0.07
1. 53
1. 78
$61. 18
$60.00
8.37
4.02
0.39
9.84
3.89
7.73
5.89
1.53
1. 53
$43.19
$45.00
Based on 30%
random
samplIng by
lnspector.
Based on
30% random
samplIng by
Inspector.
Based on
notlfYlng
USA 30% of
the tIme.
Based on
notlfYIng
USA 30% 0 f
the tIme.
a 10% Increase In random InspectIon Increases costs by
$3.41.
A 10% Increase In USA notIficatIon Increases costs by
$3.87.
..
.'
P.A.H. - 7/14/81
e
-
Santa Monicat Callfornlat July 1, 1981
To;
Chairperson and Parklng Authorlty
Z-//- ~/2-
From; City Staff
Subject; Open ParKlng Permits in Structures 1 through 5
Introduction
- This report recorrmends the Parking Authority el iminate the "Open Parkinq"
permits in Structures 1 throu9h 6.
Background
There are three different types of parking per~its for the parking structures.
There are ground floor reserved spaces ($30 per month), upper level permit
only spaces which are not reserved (520 per month), and Open parking spaces
($17 per month).
The "Open ParkingJl permlts can only be used in the three public parking aisles
directly belo"., the "permit only" parking area. These permits are nothlng more
than a t'hunting license" and do not guarantee the individual a parking space.
If the pub1 ic has filled up the three aisles where the "Open parkinq" permit
may be used, the individual is out of luck. The permits are sold on a monthly
basis only and are not sold durlng the month of December. Out of a total of
907 per~its sold, only 66 are for Open Parklng. The 66 Open spaces can be
accomodated in the existing Permit Only area.
Recommendation
It is recommended the ParkiDg Authority adopt the attached resolutlon elim-
inating Open Parking oermits ln parking structures 1 through 6.
Preoared by; Stanley Scholl, Director of General SerVlces
Ray Davls, Parklng & Traffic Englneer
Attachment: Resolutlon
'-..
I ..
,
"
e
Reso 1 uti on tlo.
(Parking Authority Series)
-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PARKmG AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MOruCA ELI~lINATING THE OPEN PARKING
PERMIT IN PARKING STRUCTURES 1 THROUGH 6.
WHEREAS, the Open Parking Permit is used by a small number of indlvlduals
in Parking Structures 1 through 6 and requires additional adminlstrative duties,
and
WHEREAS, there is available parking in the Permit Only area to acco~odate
all the Open Parking permits.
Nm4. THEREFORE, THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA t10NICA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Open Parklng permlts in Structures 1 through 6 are
eliminated effective August 1,1981.
SECTION 2. The Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution
and thenceforth and thereafter the same shalT be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,1~-L~ \..... . '---v~ --.
Robert M. Myers C)
City Attorney
~------
.~~~ .. ~_ -~--.;~=--=-~~_=---=~.-:.~...~~~~ :~.:;__ "':~~~~:~~:4 L~~~~~~~_:"';.;';sa~~~~~~~~~~; .~_;:-~-o::: ~~-:;~=-~-~~~:::