HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4237
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4237)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/5/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy
Title: Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee direct Staff to bring forward to the City Council the
attached draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for City Council discussion.
Executive Summary:
As directed by the Finance Committee at the September 17 meeting, this report presents a Draft User
Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for Finance Committee review (see Attachment A), summarizes the cost
components for fee-related activities, and transmits the September 17 Finance Committee report on the
Cost of Service Study (see Attachment B).
Background:
At the September 17 Finance Committee Meeting, staff transmitted a consultant report regarding the
cost of services study for fees not related to development services activities and presented policy
considerations for a forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (see Attachment B). At that
meeting, Committee Members expressed concern with approving a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
without understanding its application to the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule and its implications to the
values of the community. To address this concern, staff shared with the Committee that the FY 2015
Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule will include a cost recovery level percentage as an indicator regarding
the General Fund subsidy for fee-related activities and proposed to return to the Finance Committee
with a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy in November. After extensive discussion, the Finance
Committee asked staff to return in November with a draft Policy and a summary of the cost components
for setting municipal fees for final Finance Committee review and recommendation to forward the draft
policy and this report to the City Council.
Discussion:
As directed, a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy is attached (see Attachment A). Staff
City of Palo Alto Page 2
recommends that the Finance Committee forward the draft policy to the City Council for policy
discussion. After receiving input from the City Council and after review and approval of the Fiscal Year
2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule, staff will review and potentially update the draft policy and
submit a final version for Finance Committee review and approval in fall 2015.
As discussed at the September 17 Finance Committee meeting, as part of the development of the FY
2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule, staff will document the staff time to provide services for over
1,000 Municipal Fees and calculate the full cost for these fees including the cost components
summarized in the table below. As part of the publication of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee
Schedule, staff will include the average cost recovery level for grouped fees such as arts and science
classes, golf fees, or Hazmat Inspection fees, which will indicate the General Fund subsidy provided for
such fee-related activities.
Cost Component Description
Salary and Benefits by
Classification
Captures the hourly (or portions thereof) cost of employees by average
classification costs who provide the service
Compensated Absences Cost Captures the cost for vacation or sick time as well as time spent
working, which cannot be allocated to specific fees (e.g.: time spent in
meetings or trainings)
Departmental Administrative
Support Cost
Captures the portion of cost of administrative units in a Department
(e.g.: staff spending time on policy direction, analysis, and department
oversight)
City-wide Support Department
Costs
Captures the portion of cost of internal support departments (e.g.:
People Strategy and Operations, Purchasing, or Payroll)
Non-Salary Costs Any non-salary costs directly related to the fees (e.g.: paper or forms)
It is important to note, that the cost for facilities is not included as a cost component. Including facility
costs would require the measurement of office space related to the employees providing fee activity
services and allocate these costs over the time an employee spends on a particular fee. Based on a
preliminary analysis, the potential revenue from this cost component outweighs the cost for collecting
the data.
Resource Impact:
With the review of this draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy, no resource impact is anticipated.
However, to keep up with increasing salary and fringe cost, staff is evaluating increasing all FY 2014
Adopted Fees by 3 – 4 % as part of the FY 2015 Proposed Budget. This will ensure that the General Fund
subsidy for fee-related activity will not increase and that the same cost recovery level will be
maintained.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Next Steps:
If approved by the Finance Committee, staff intends to bring forward the draft User Fee Cost Recovery
Level Policy for City Council discussion in December or January.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (PDF)
Attachment B - Sept17 Finance Committee Cost of Services Study Report (PDF)
Page 1 of 2
USER FEE COST RECOVERY LEVEL POLICY
BACKGROUND
The City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community or individual
residents or businesses. For certain services such as regulatory fees, arts and science classes, or
recreational activities, the City traditionally has recovered partially or fully the cost for providing these
services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund.
Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to
impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against
taxes being imposed without a vote of the people.
POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the Palo Alto City Council to assess the cost recovery level of over 1,000 Municipal Fees
in lieu of subsidizing fee‐related activities with General Fund dollars based on the following Policy
Statements.
1. Community‐wide vs. Private Benefit: Funding services such as police patrol services only through
taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the entire community. When the service or
program provides a benefit to specific individuals or groups such as the issuance of building permits,
it is common for the individual(s) receiving that benefit to pay for all of the cost of that service.
2. Service Recipient vs. Service Driver: The concept of the service recipient vs. service driver is
particularly important for regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits.
Although the community primarily benefits, 100% cost recovery from the “driver“ of the need for
service is appropriate such as a building permit or a Massage establishment permit applicant.
3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s
quality of life may also be factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set
to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g.:
false alarms).
4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A
higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes
or summer camps for children and youth without overly‐stimulating a market by artificially low
prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may attract
participants from other Cities. Howev er, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the
demand for such services to low income individuals, children, or seniors.
5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in
situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for
core City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically
Attachment A
Page 2 of 2
delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery
levels.
Based on these policy statements, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low
(0‐30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges with the
Policy statements. It is important to note that these groupings provide policy guidance and are not
absolute. Some policy considerations may weigh more heavily than others, which will be considered in
the annual development of the Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. The Proposed Municipal Fee
Schedule is reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the City Council. For
example, fees for recreational activities should be set in general at the Medium cost recovery level.
However, fees for seniors or low income residents may be at the low cost recovery level. Alternatively,
permits and development activity should be set at close to 100% cost recovery level.
Cost Recovery
Levels
Cost Recovery
Percentage Range Policy Considerations
Low 0% ‐ 30% No intended relationship between the amount paid and the
benefit received
Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would
discourage compliance with regulatory requirements
No intent to limit the use of the service
Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users
of the service
Affordability of service to low‐income residents
Medium 30.1% ‐ 70% Services having factors associated with the low and high
cost recovery levels
High 70.1% ‐ 100% Individual users or participants receive most or all of the
benefit of the service
Other private or public sector alternatives provide the
service
The use of the service is specifically discouraged
The service is regulatory in nature
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3900)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/17/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Cost of Services Study
Title: Cost of Services Study - Draft Report
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee:
1) Accept this report and MGT’s draft report
2) Provide input on user fee cost recovery policy considerations
3) Direct Staff to bring forward to the City Council in November a draft user fee cost recovery
policy, which will guide the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule
Executive Summary:
As reported at the July 2012 and March 2013 Finance Committee Meetings, the City hired a consultant
to assist the City with a Cost of Services Study. This report transmits MGT’s draft report, recommends
considerations for a user fee cost recovery policy, responds to previous Finance Committee information
requests, and outlines next steps in the Cost of Services Study.
Background:
Propositions 13, 218 and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to
impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against
taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. Proposition 26 contains a more general articulation
of the cost of service principle and includes a requirement that the local government bear the burden of
proof that “a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to
recover the reasonable costs of the government activity, and that the manner in which those costs are
allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on , or benefits received
from, the governmental activity.” (Cal. Const. art. XIII C, § (e).). It is important to note that rental
charges for rooms or facilities, fines, penalties and late charges are not technically user fees and are not
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 2
required to be based on actual costs. Instead, these types of charges are more typically governed by
market rates, reasonableness and other policy driven factors.
As discussed at the July 2012 and March 2013 Finance Committee meetings, the City retained the
services of MGT of America (“MGT”) to assist staff in determining the full cost of providing General Fund
services for which fees are charged based on FY 2012 actual data. User fees, permits and rental charges
generated approximately $22.2 million in fiscal year 2012, which was approximately 15 percent of total
General Fund revenues. The following is a breakdown of General Fund fee revenues by department:
Planning and Community Environment (PCE) $9.0 million
Community Services Department (CSD) $6.2 million
Fire Department $5.0 million
Public Works $1.0 million
Police/Animal Services $0.7 million
All Other $0.3 million
In March 2013, staff presented an overview of the methodology MGT used for this analysis to the
Finance Committee along with examples of specific fee calculations (link to report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33539). MGT’s fee analysis, which follows
best practices, assesses the staff time worked and the staff’s hourly cost of providing a particular service
such as processing a permit or inspecting a fire sprinkler system. Then, indirect expenses are added to
recover costs for departmental administrative support, city-wide support department costs, and
compensated absences.
Discussion:
This section of the report provides a summary of the draft MGT report, recommends policy
considerations for a forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, and responds to previous Finance
Commmittee information requests.
MGT Report
Attachment A is MGT’s draft report dated August 1, 2013. MGT’s report was based on FY 2012 actual
data. Given the actual FY 2012 activity level, fee charged, and cost, the report provides the various cost-
recovery levels for fees and General Fund subsidies related to Public Works (Engineering), Police, Animal
Services, Fire (except for Emergency Medical Reponse activities), and Community Services. It does not
include the fee calculations for the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department as well as
some development related fees charged by other departments. Currently, these services are provided
by staff in PCE, Fire, Public Work and Utilities and, as such, costs related to these services are being
incurred in a multitude of cost centers across departments. The analysis of these services will be
completed once the cost for Development Services activities is analyzed in each affected department.
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Any changes resulting from this analysis will be brought forward to the Finance Committee as part of the
FY 2015 Proposed Budget process.
Overall, MGT’s analysis indicates that the City recovered approximately 35 percent of the full cost of
providing fee related services in FY 2012 for the departments mentioned above. Thus, the City’s
General Fund subsidized 65% percent, or approximately $20 million, of the cost of these services. As
expected, cost recovery levels varied quite a bit between departments and programs. Based on that
analysis, MGT also identified that 34 of the approximately 650 fees analyzed generated a cost recovery
level above 100%. In order to ensure that the City does not charge users fees with a cost recovery level
above 100% based on estimated FY 2014 activity levels, adopted fees, and budgeted costs, staff is in the
process of reviewing these fees.. Staff intends to return to the Finance Committee in November if this
analysis indicates reductions to FY 2014 Adopted Fees are required to bring them to a 100% cost
recovery level.
Fees Charged in Other Cities
Staff reviewed fees charged by seven other cities (Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Menlo Park,
Santa Clara, San Mateo and Fremont) in order to understand how Palo Alto’s fees place in comparison to
these agencies (see Attachment B). It is important to note that conclusions that can be drawn from
comparisons of fee levels across the surveyed cities are fairly limited due to agencies’ differences in
defining and structuring their respective fees. For example, certain services included in fees may be
combined in some cities but separated in others; fees in other cities may be based on historical or other
subjective factors unrelated to costs; and fees are also affected by differences in cost factors such as
cost allocations of indirect support costs, employee benefit costs, and service efficiencies (the overall
time necessary to complete a particular service or activity).
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Considerations
MGT’s report also includes policy considerations for setting cost recovery levels. Based on MGT’s report
and a review of other cities’ User Fee Cost Recovery policies, the following policy considerations are
presented to the Finance Committee for discussion. Based o n the Committee’s review and discussion,
staff recommends presenting a draft User Fee Cost Recovery policy to the City Council in November.
Such a policy will then inform the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule.
1. Community-wide vs. Private Benefit: The use of taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that
benefit the community as a whole such as police patrol services. When the service or program
provides a benefit to specific individuals or groups such as the issuance of building permits, it is
common for the individual(s) receiving that benefit to pay for all of the cost of that service.
2. Service Recipient vs. Service Driver: The concept of the service recipient vs. service driver is
particularly important for regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits.
Although the community primarily benefits, 100% cost recovery from the “driver“ of the need for
service is appropriate such as a building permit or a Massage establishment permit applicant.
3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s
quality of life may also be factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 4
to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g.
false alarms).
4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A
higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes
or summer camps for children and youth for without overly-stimulating a market by artificially low
prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may attract
participants from other Cities. It should be noted, that the current Municipal Fee Schedule for
recreational services includes a lower rate for Palo Alto residents than residents living outside of
Palo Alto. However, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services
to low income individuals, children, or seniors.
5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in
situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for
core City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically
delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery
levels.
Based on these policy considerations, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in
low (0-30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges. It is
important to note that these groupings provide guidance and are not absolute. Some policy
considerations may weigh more heavily than others, which will be considered in the development of the
FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. For example, fees for recreational activities should be set in
general at the Medium cost recovery level. However, fees for seniors or low income residents may be at
the low cost recovery level. Alternatively, permits and development activity should be set at close to
100% cost recovery level.
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Cost Recovery
Levels
Cost Recovery
Percentage Range Policy Considerations
Low 0% - 30% No intended relationship between the amount paid and the
benefit received
Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would
discourage compliance with regulatory requirements
No intent to limit the use of the service
Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users
of the service
Affordability of service to low-income residents
Medium 30.1% - 70% Services having factors associated with the low and high
cost recovery levels
High 70.1% - 100% Individual users or participants receives most or all of the
benefit of the service
Other private or public sector alternatives provide the
service
The use of the service is specifically discouraged
The service is regulatory in nature
With the exception of fees for classes offered through the Community Services Department (CSD), the
City currently has no formal policies in place governing cost recovery targets for user fee services. The
CSD’s class cost recovery guidelines are included in Attachment C. They are consistent with the policy
considerations recommended and overlay a process for continuously evaluating the programs offered
by CSD. However, CSD’s full costs and cost recovery factors have not been updated in six years. Once
the Committee has provided input to the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy considerations, staff will review
the attached CSD Class Cost Recovery Policy and bring forward recommendations for City Council
consideration, as necessary.
Since demand for services are factors to consider when evaluating fees charged by the Community
Services Department, the Finance Committee asked staff to provide utilization data for these programs
where available. Attachment D includes that data as well as information CSD staff compiled related to
facility rental rates. The utilization data reflects FY 2012 actual usage while the facility rental rates
represent charges as of spring 2013.
Resource Impact:
As discussed, based on FY 2012 data, MGT identified that 34 of the approximately 650 fees analyzed
generated a cost recovery level above 100%. In order to ensure that the City does not charge users fees
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 6
with a cost recovery level above 100% based on estimated FY 2014 activity levels, adopted fees, and
budgeted costs, staff is in the process of reviewing these fees. Staff intends to return to the Finance
Committee in November if this analysis indicates reductions to FY 2014 Adopted Fees are required to
bring them to a 100% cost recovery level. Any such reduction in fees may result in downward
adjustments to the FY 2014 fee revenue estimate.
Once the City Council approves the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, staff will develop the FY 2015
Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. Depending on the approved policy and the FY 2015 Base Budget
expenditures for activities related to Municipal Fees, the estimated fee revenue for FY 2015 may
decrease, increase, or remain approximately equivalent to the FY 2014 estimated fee revenue level.
Next Steps:
As mentioned in this report and previous Committee reports, by the end of the calendar year and fiscal
year, staff has to accomplish several milestones related to the Cost of Services Study.
Review of certain FY 2014 Adopted Fees
MGT’s methodology for assessing the cost related to Municipal Fees is rather complex. Therefore, staff
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed a simpler, albeit still labor intensive,
process to collect cost information and estimated fee activity levels from departments. Additionally,
indirect expenses are added to recover costs for departmental administrative support, city-wide support
department costs, and compensated absences. This cost assessment will not include costs for using City
facilities, since such a methodology still requires further analysis. This methodology will be used to
review these FY 2014 Adopted Fees, which have been identified in MGT’s report with a higher than
100% cost recovery level based on FY 2012 actual data. If this review determines that FY 2014 Adopted
Fees are above full cost-recovery levels, staff will bring forward recommendations to adjust these fees
downward in November 2013.
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
Based on input from the Finance Committee, staff recommends bringing forward to the City Council a
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. This policy will guide and inform the development of the FY 2015
Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. As part of the transmission of the FY 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule,
staff intends to present to the City Council the cost recovery percentages for fees and/or group of fees.
Due to the changing benefits structure of classic versus new employees, staff intends to analyze the cost
for fee activities annually and set fees in accordance with the forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
as part of the annual budget process. Once the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy is approved by the City
Council, the Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy will be reviewed and updated.
Cost of Services Studies for Internal Support Functions
As presented in the March 2013 Finance Committee Meeting report, staff has been reviewing internal
support functions to more effectively provide such services to direct services departments such as Public
Safety, CSD, or Utilities. Since the majority of internal support functions are either mandated by law
(e.g. financial reporting in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) or rather complex
in comparison to similar private sector activities (e.g.: benefits and payroll for various employee groups
with different special pay and benefit levels within the employee groups), the initial review has not led
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 7
to further analysis yet. Staff intends to continue the analysis and present the findings to the Committee
by the end of the calendar year.
Attachments:
Attachment A: MGT's Palo Alto User Fee Report (PDF)
Attachment B: Seven Cities Fee Comparison (PDF)
Attachment C: Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy (PDF)
Attachment D: Cost of Services (PDF)
Attachment B
Attachment AAttachment AAttachment AAttachment A
City of Palo Alto
Draft User Fee Study Findings
August 1, 2013
2001 P Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811
Attachment B
Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
Introduction 2
Scope and Objectives 2
Economic and Policy Considerations 4
Methodology 5
Study Findings 9
User Fee Summaries by Department:
Public Works - Engineering 12
Police 14
Animal Services 18
Fire 19
Community Services 24
Attachment B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
MGT of America (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Palo Alto (City) with this summary of findings for the user fee study.
The City has not undertaken a comprehensive analysis of its user fees since the 2002/03 fiscal year. Since that time, the City has adjusted fees on an
annual basis, largely via a CPI adjustment factor. The City is now interested in knowing the current full cost of providing user fee-related services,
and exploring the options of modifying current fees to better reflect Council priorities. In 2012, the City contracted with MGT to perform this cost
analysis using fiscal year 2012 expenditures, staffing and operational information. MGT was also tasked with recommending fee adjustments for each
department based on industry best-practices.
This report is the culmination of the past fifteen months of work between MGT and City management and staff. MGT would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge all management and staff who participated on this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and
continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to the success of this study.
Study Scope and Objectives
This study included a review of fee-for service activities within the following departments/divisions:
Public Works (Engineering)
Police
Animal Services
Fire
Community Services
At the request of the City, the analysis of fees charged by the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department and other development
related fees was deferred pending a comprehensive review of all costs related to development services. Currently, development related services
are provided by staff in the PCE, Public Works, Fire and Utilities Departments. Once all development related costs are consolidated into one
budget, the full cost of development services will be determined. The study was performed under the general direction of the Office of
Management and Budget with the participation of representatives from each department. The primary goals of the study were to:
Page 2
Attachment B
Define what it costs the city to provide various fee-related services.
Recommend fee adjustments based on industry best practices, practices of comparable agencies and MGT’s professional opinion.
Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees.
Compile information regarding fees charged by the following neighboring cities:
Cupertino, Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Provide user fee models and templates to City staff enabling staff to update the study results in future years and incorporate new fees as
they occur. The industry standard is to conduct a comprehensive review of fees every three to five years and make annual adjustments
based on an inflation index. However, given the increasing cost of public sector employee benefits, agencies may incorporate those cost
increases into the annual fee adjustments.
The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed
decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on general fund revenues.
The following is a list of legal, economic and policy issues that governmental agencies typically take into consideration when determining cost
recovery levels.
State Law – In California user fees are limited to the “estimated reasonable cost of providing a service” by Government Code section
66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. Proposition 26 was approved by California voters in November of 2010 and clarified which
charges are considered user fees and which are considered taxes. The significance of this distinction is that user fees may be raised by
Council action up to the limit of actual cost, whereas taxes may not be increased without a majority vote of the public. None of the fee
adjustments recommended by MGT are considered taxes per Proposition 26 guidelines. It should be noted that fees charged for the use of
government property are exempt from Proposition 26. These include fees for parks and facility rentals as well as green fees, cart and other
equipment rental fees for golf services. All of these fees may be set at any price the market will bear.
Economic barriers - It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they
might not otherwise be able to afford.
Page 3
Attachment B
Community benefit - If a user fee service benefits the community as a whole to some extent, it is appropriate to subsidize a portion of
the fee. Many community services fees have very moderate cost recovery levels. Some programs are provided free of charge or for a
minimal fee regardless of cost. Youth and senior programs tend to have the lowest recovery levels (15%-50%). Miscellaneous classes tend
to have the moderate cost recovery levels (50%-85%) and adult sport programs typically have higher cost recovery levels (60%-100%).
Private benefit – If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, the fee is typically set at, or close to 100% full cost recovery. Development-
related fees generally fall into this category, however exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged
exclusively to residential applicants.
Service driver - In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be
considered. For example, code enforcement activities benefit the community as a whole, but the service is driven by the individual or
business owner that violates city code.
Managing demand - Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain city services; increasing the price may result in a reduction of
demand for those services, and vice versa. For most cities recreation services are highly elastic. Due to Palo Alto’s demographics, this may
not necessarily be the case for Palo Alto’s recreational programs. It should be noted that Palo Alto provides a much wider array of services
to its community than are found in other cities. Consequently, a significant number of non-residents participate in Palo Alto’s recreational
programs and services.
Competition - Certain services, such as recreation classes, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and
therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City’s fees
are too low, demand enjoyed by private-sector competitors could be adversely affected.
Incentives – Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as water heater permitting or youth sports activities.
Disincentives – Penalties can be instituted to discourage undesirable behavior. Examples include fines for constructing without a building
permit and fines for excessive false alarms within a one-year period.
The flow chart below helps illustrate the economic and policy considerations listed above.
Page 4
Attachment B
Who
Benefits
Public
Mostly taxes
& some fees
Youth sports
Private
Private / Public
Public / Private
Type of
Service
Individual benefit only
Primarily the individual
with some community-
wide benefits
Primarily the individual
with some community
benefits
Community Police patrol services
Example
Services
Mostly fees
& some taxes
100% fees
100% taxes
Tax vs. Fees
Policy
Development services
Code enforcement
services
DECISION-MAKING FLOW CHART
Methodology
The standard approach for analyzing the cost of providing fee-related services is commonly referred to as a “bottom up” approach. The bottom up
approach was used for all user fees except Community Services and Animal Services fees. Community Services and Animal Services fees will be
discussed later in this report. A general description of the “bottom up” approach is as follows:
1. Identify all direct staff time spent on the fee related activity or service
MGT conducted a series of meetings with staff from Public Works, Police, Animal Services and the Fire Department to identify every employee,
Page 5
Attachment B
by classification, who performs work directly in support of a fee related service. Direct staff costs are incurred by employees who are “on the
front line” and most visible to the customers (e.g. park rangers, fire inspectors, etc.). Once all direct staff were identified, departments
estimated how much time those employees spend, on average, working on each particular service or program.
Developing time estimates for fee related services can be challenging and departments should be commended for the time and effort they put
into this. Although MGT provided departments with templates and other tools to assist them in developing average or “typical” time estimates,
these calculations were necessarily developed by the subject matter experts in each operating department.
2. Calculate direct cost of the staff time for each fee using productive hourly rates
Productive hourly rates are used to support full cost recovery. A full-time employee typically has 2,080 paid hours per year. However, cost
studies reduce that number to account for non-productive hours (sick leave, vacation, holidays, training, meetings, etc.). MGT calculated the
productive hourly rate for each classification based on the salary and benefit information provided by the City and an analysis of annual
productive hours by classification.
3. Determine any other operational costs (i.e. other than personnel costs) that can readily be traced to a specific fee-related
service as a direct cost
Professional services contracts are an example of an expense that can often be traced to a specific service or program.
4. Determine indirect or “overhead” costs
Generally there are two types of indirect costs: departmental and citywide overhead. These indirect costs are allocated across user fee services
in order to capture the full cost of providing the service. . If a department performs non-fee related services, a commensurate amount of
indirect cost is segregated and not allocated to the fee related services.
Departmental overhead costs – these costs include managers, supervisors and support staff as well as other operational costs, such
as materials and supplies that are incurred for a common purpose and not readily assigned to a particular service or program.
Citywide overhead costs – each department and fund within the city receives an allocation of cost from the city’s various central
service departments. Central service departments are those whose main function is to support other city departments and funds.
Such departments include the Auditor, Clerk, Attorney, City Manager, Administrative Services, Human Resources and Public
Works/Facilities Maintenance. The methods for allocating central service costs can vary but must demonstrate a causal relationship
between the allocation methodology and the costs allocated to the operating department. The State Controller’s Office guidelines
Page 6
Attachment B
stress the importance of allocating citywide overhead costs in a way that “equitably reflect the value of service” provided to the
department receiving the service(s). In most cases, industry standards call for one of the following methodologies for allocating
central services costs:
Number of full-time equivalent staff in the operating department
Total operating department expenditures, excluding fixed assets, pass through funds and large purchases (e.g. energy
purchases)
Actual or estimates of time spent in support of the operating department based on documented procedures
5. Compare total costs to the current fee schedule.
Once all direct, indirect and crossover costs are calculated, MGT compared the total cost for each fee-related service to the fee currently
charged to the public. In most cases we found the total cost of providing a service exceeded the fee charged. In these instances, the fee can be
increased to recover these subsidies. However, there were a number of services for which the total calculated cost was less than the fee
charged. In these cases the fee must be lowered to comply with State law.
6. Annual volume figures are incorporated.
Up to this point we have calculated fee costs and revenues on a per-unit basis. By incorporating annual volume estimates provided by each
department into the analysis, we extrapolate the per-unit results into annual cost and annual revenue information. This annualization of results
accomplishes two primary benefits:
Management information: the annualized results give management an estimate of the fiscal impact of any fee adjustments. Because
annual volume will change from one year to the next, these figures are estimates only. Actual revenue will depend on future
demand level and collection rates, which for some services can be less than 100%.
Cross checks and reasonableness tests: by annualizing the results we also annualize the time spent by staff on each service. These
annualized results will surface any instances of over or under estimation of time. In these cases we review these results with staff
and resolve any anomalies. All staff hours were identified to either fee or non-fee related services.
Page 7
Attachment B
7. Recommend fee adjustments.
MGT provides fee adjustment recommendations based on industry best practices and practices of comparable agencies. Of course MGT’s
recommendations are advisory in nature only – ultimately Council must decide what fee levels are appropriate for Palo Alto.
Methodology – Community Services and Animal Services fees
In some cases, the potential benefits of conducting a bottom up analysis of a particular fee are outweighed by the expense that would be
incurred in developing this information. This is almost universally the case with recreational and animal service programs, where a substantial
amount of effort would be required to identify and track costs at the individual fee level. For example, it is difficult to estimate city staff time
related to an individual participating in a karate class. The cost of conducting such a detailed analysis would outweigh the value of this
information, in particular because elasticity of demand and local policy goals are typically factors that are evaluated when establishing recreational
and animal service fees.
Accordingly, we have analyzed Community Service and Animal Service fees at the program level using a “top down” approach. In this approach
we identify the direct 2012 expenditures for each program and incorporate division, departmental and citywide overhead in a manner similar to
the “bottom up” approach. We then compare the resulting full cost against 2012 program revenues to calculate the cost recovery level for each
program.
Page 8
Attachment B
Study Findings
The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision-makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the
full cost of services and presents recommended fee adjustments and their fiscal impact. Recommendations are based on careful consideration of the results
of the cost analysis, industry best practices and market comparisons. Although there are opportunities to increase fees and cost recovery levels for Animal
Control and Community Services, these fees are typically set based on local elasticity of demand considerations and/or each jurisdiction’s goals and
priorities.
The results of the study identified that overall, most departments recover much less than the actual cost of providing services. Accordingly, there is an
opportunity to raise additional funds through fee adjustments. There are several possible reasons for the current subsidy levels:
During the 2003 comprehensive fee analysis, Council may have intentionally subsidized certain services. Subsequently, even if these fees were
adjusted annually to keep pace with increasing city costs, these fees would still be below actual cost.
It is likely the City’s practice of adjusting fees annually via a CPI factor did not keep pace with actual governmental service costs. Over the past
decade, government sector costs have outpaced general inflation.
Many user fee related processes have changed over the past decade. Often this is the result of increasing service-level demands by the general
public. Also, the State has mandated many additional inspections and reviews that add to the City’s cost structure within the development-related
departments, including Public Works Engineering.
Restructuring of fees. We found that several of the City’s fees could be more equitably charged via a different fee structure. This is particularly true with
for the Engineering fees. For example, Construction in the Right of Way fees: these fees are currently assessed on a flat 5% of the cost of construction.
Discussion with Engineering staff and subsequent analysis of time estimate responses indicated that economies of scale exist with these services.
Accordingly, we restructured these fees into a declining percentage sliding scale structure.
Comparison analysis. A component of our analysis included a survey of user fees charged by neighboring cities. This survey gives City management a
picture of the market environment for city services. This survey is imprecise in that a fee with the same name may involve slightly different services among
the various cities surveyed. Some cities lump several services into one fee category, whereas other cities break fees down into a high level of specificity.
Accordingly the purpose of this comparison analysis is to impart a sense of how Palo Alto’s fees levels compare with neighboring jurisdictions. The
comparison analysis is provided under a separate cover.
The exhibit on the following page displays the summary of costs and revenues for each department/division analyzed:
Page 9
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto
User Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue Analysis
Actual 2012
RecommendedRecommendedRecommendedRecommended
Costs, UserCosts, UserCosts, UserCosts, User CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent General FundGeneral FundGeneral FundGeneral Fund
Cost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost Recovery IncreasedIncreasedIncreasedIncreased
Department/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/Division Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A) Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B ) Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )
Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D) Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E)
Public Work Public Work Public Work Public Work ---- EngineeringEngineeringEngineeringEngineering $1,108,780 $816,846 74% $291,934
$1,108,780 100% $291,934
PolicePolicePolicePolice $443,545 $338,389 76% $105,156
$443,545 100% $105,156
Animal ControlAnimal ControlAnimal ControlAnimal Control $1,969,171 $1,008,427 51% $960,744
$1,008,427 51% $0
FireFireFireFire $1,553,690 $886,140 57% $667,550
$1,553,690 100% $667,550
Community ServicesCommunity ServicesCommunity ServicesCommunity Services $25,525,449 $7,645,996 30% $17,879,453
$7,645,996 30% $0
Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total: $30,600,635 $10,695,798 35% $19,904,837
$11,760,438 38% $1,064,640
Column A, User Fee Costs –––– The full cost of the services we analyzed was approximately $30.6 million. The vast majority of these costs were incurred
providing fee-related services. However, because the analyses for Animal Control and Community Services were done at the program level, the full cost for
those analyses includes non-fee related expenses. For example, costs for maintaining open space are included in the Community Services Department and
costs for field operations are included in Animal Control.
Column B, Current Revenues –––– Based on current individual fee levels, the City generates fee related revenues of $10.69 million and is experiencing a
35% cost recovery level. Within each department, cost recovery levels fluctuate significantly. Several Police and Fire fees are currently set above actual
cost. MGT recommends the City review employee benefit and other cost increases that have occurred since FY 2012 to determine if these fees will need
to be reduced. The analyses of individual fees are presented in subsequent sections of this report. Again, since Animal Control and Community Services
were analyzed at the program level, some of the revenues for these programs are not derived from user fees. For example, Animal Control revenues
include approximately $600,000 in reimbursements for services provided to other cities.
Column C, General Fund Subsidy –––– Current fee levels recover 35% of full cost, leaving 65% or $19,904,837 to be funded by other funding sources. This
represents a “window of opportunity” for the City to increase fees and general fund revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the subsidization of services
by the general General Fund subsidy. Please note, however, that approximately $17.9 million of this $19.6 million represents historically subsidized
programs within the Community Services Department.
Page 10
Attachment B
Column D, Recommend Recovery –––– It is estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery policy would generate fee revenues of
$11,760,438. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 38.%.
Column E, Increased Revenue –––– Increasing fees to recover full costs in the Fire, Police and Public Works Departments would generate approximately
$1,064,640 in additional revenue. This represents a 10% increase over revenue currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annual basis.
Please note that the above information does not include costs or cost recovery levels for development-related services. As stated earlier in this report, the
analysis of those fees will be completed once the Development Services budget is established.
Department Summary Charts
The subsequent pages display the results of our individual fee analysis. Because Community Services and Animal Services were analyzed on a program level,
their results reflect cost and revenue on a program basis only. For all other departments, the current charge, total cost and recommended fee are listed for
each fee-related service.
The summaries are in the following order:
Public Works (Engineering)
Police
Animal Services
Fire
Community Services
Page 11
Attachment B
Public Work –
Engineering
Attachment B
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
1
Certificate of Compliance/ Correction/
Map Amendment 14 $3,000 80%80%80%80% $3,731 $52,239 $42,000 $10,239 100%$3,731 $52,239 $10,239
4 Street Cut - Excellent Pavement per sq ft 5,200 $15 68%68%68%68%$22 $115,001 $78,000 $37,001 100%$22 $115,001 $37,001
5 Street Cut - Good Pavement per sq ft 4,700 $10 54%54%54%54%$18 $86,319 $47,000 $39,319 100%$18 $86,319 $39,319
6 Street Cut - Fair Pavement per sq ft 3,200 $8 51%51%51%51%$15 $46,770 $24,000 $22,770 100%$15 $46,770 $22,770
7 Street Cut - Poor Pavement per sq ft 3,900 $5 46%46%46%46%$11 $42,376 $19,500 $22,876 100%$11 $42,376 $22,876
8 Service Lateral Connection 305 $1,000 87%87%87%87% $1,151 $350,930 $305,000 $45,930 100%$1,151 $350,930 $45,930
9 Encr - Dumpster, Container 30 $135 64%64%64%64% $211 $6,317 $4,050 $2,267 100%$211 $6,317 $2,267
10 Encr - Fence 5 $135 23%23%23%23% $596 $2,982 $675 $2,307 100%$596 $2,982 $2,307
11
Encr - Non-residential Long Term > 5
days 30 $850 103%103%103%103% $825 $24,754 $25,500 -$746 100%$825 $24,754 -$746
12 Encr - Residential $400 61%61%61%61% $660 100%$660 n/a n/a
13
Encr - Non-residential Short Term < 5
days 15 $425 102%102%102%102% $416 $6,240 $6,375 -$135 100%$416 $6,240 -$135
14 Encr - Non-residential 1 Day 30 $200 61%61%61%61% $330 $9,902 $6,000 $3,902 100%$330 $9,902 $3,902
15
Encr - VTA Bus Shelters'
Installation/Relocation $315 12%12%12%12% $2,713 100%$2,713 n/a n/a
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Public Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - Engineering
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
16 Encr - Flood variance fee Cost + 15% n/an/an/an/a t&m n/a n/a n/a 100%t&m n/a n/a
17 Grading:101-1,000 cubic yards 20 $130 per 100 cy 67%67%67%67% $576 $11,525 $7,723 $3,802 100% $215 per 100 cy $11,525 $3,802
18 Grading: 1,001-10,000 cubic yards 20
$1,310 plus $130
each addl 1000 cy 67%67%67%67% $2,155 $43,097 $29,027 $14,070 100%
$2,155 plus $253
each addl 1000 cy $43,097 $14,070
19 Grading: 10,001 cubic yards or more 5
$2,485 plus $130
each addl 10,000
cy 62%62%62%62% $4,435 $22,175 $13,725 $8,450 100%
$4,435 plus $200
each addl 10k cy $22,175 $8,450
20 Flood Zone Determination Letter $55 30%30%30%30% $181 100%$181 n/a n/a
21 Temporary Elevation Benchmarks 1 $270 54%54%54%54% $501 $501 $270 $231 100%$501 $501 $231
22
Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain
from Construction Site Dewatering.10 $135 + $80/month n/an/an/an/a $133 $1,334 $133 $1,201 100% $135 + $135/month $1,334 $1,201
23 Storm Plan Check 10 $350 48%48%48%48% $726 $7,259 $3,500 $3,759 100%$726 $7,259 $3,759
24 Storm Inspection Fee + Hrly 25 $320 60%60%60%60% $534 $13,344 $8,000 $5,344 100%$534 $13,344 $5,344
25 Construction and Repair Per Hour 10 $86 85%85%85%85% $102 $1,017 $864 $153 100%$102 $1,017 $153
Page 12
Attachment B
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volum
e
Current Fee Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Public Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - Engineering
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
26 Sweeping Services Per Hour 5 $89 50%50%50%50% $176 $880 $443 $438 100%$176 $880 $438
27 Traffic Control/Graffiti Services Per Hour 15 $79 85%85%85%85%$93 $1,397 $1,182 $215 100%$93 $1,397 $215
28 Tree Services Per Hour 15 $73 53%53%53%53% $137 $2,056 $1,091 $965 100%$137 $2,056 $965
29 Supervision Per Hour 2 $85 63%63%63%63% $135 $270 $170 $100 100%$135 $270 $100
30 Newsrack Impoundment Fee $50 +$3/day n/an/an/an/a $125 100%$125 n/a n/a
31 Street trees-new trees for subdivisions $100 ---------- Delete ----------n/a n/a n/a 100%n/a n/a n/a
32 Tree Removal
addl for
damage 2
$100/ inch of
trunk n/an/an/an/a
$100/ inch of
trunk $2,000 $2,000 100% $100/ inch of trunk $2,000
33 Tree Inspection for private development
change to
flat fee 200 $105 / insp 41%41%41%41% $494 $98,851 $41,000 $57,851 100%$494 $98,851 $57,851
34 Construction in ROW: $1-$5k
% of const.
cost 37
$240 or 5% of
contract 58%58%58%58% $413 $15,296 $8,880 $6,416 100% 10.3% of const. cost $15,296 $6,416
35 Construction in ROW: $5-$25k
% of const.
cost 80
$240 or 5% of
contract 56%56%56%56% $1,077 $86,193 $48,000 $38,193 100% 9% of const. cost $86,193 $38,193
36 Construction in ROW: $26-$100k
% of const.
cost 13
$240 or 5% of
contract 151%151%151%151% $1,992 $25,896 $39,000 -$13,104 100% 3.3% of const. cost $25,896 -$13,104
37 Construction in ROW: $101k +
% of const.
cost 5
$240 or 5% of
contract 190%190%190%190% $4,874 $24,369 $46,250 -$21,881 100% 2.6% of const. cost $24,369 -$21,881
38 Improvement Plan Review: $1-$25k 2 t&m n/an/an/an/a $814 $1,628 $1,628 100% 3.3% of const. cost $1,628
39 Improvement Plan Review: $26-$100k 2 t&m n/an/an/an/a $1,628 $3,256 $3,256 100% 1.6% of const. cost $3,256
40 Improvement Plan Review: $101k +1 t&m n/an/an/an/a $2,605 $2,605 $2,605 100% 0.9% of const. cost $2,605
Total User Fees $1,108,780 $816,846 $291,934 $1,108,780 $291,934
% of Full Cost 74% 26%100% 36%
Page 13
Attachment B
Police
Attachment B
Service Name
Fee
Descriptio
n
Annual
Volum
e
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
1 Adult Entertainment Estb - business location change Flat $810 81%81%81%81%$996 100% $996
2 Adult Entertainment Estb - new (non-refundable application fee) Flat $1,790 83%83%83%83%$2,152 100% $2,152
3 Adult Entertainment Estb - renewal Flat $810 81%81%81%81% $996 100% $996
4 Billiard Room (non-refundable application fee)Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a
5 Bingo Establishment Flat 1 $50 n/an/an/an/a n/a
6
Bingo employee (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling
Processing Fee)Flat 2 $70 n/an/an/an/a n/a
7
Bingo employee renewal (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and
Rolling Processing Fee)Flat $53 n/an/an/an/a n/a
8 Bowling Alley (non-refundable application fee)Flat $120 n/an/an/an/a n/a
9 Carnival Flat $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a
10 Circus Flat $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a
11 Closing out sale Flat $61 56%56%56%56% $109 100% $109
12 Closing out sale - renewal (maximum of 2)Flat $61 56%56%56%56%$109 100% $109
13 Firearms Dealer Master Permit – New Flat $2,100 100%$2,100
14 Firearms Dealer Master Permit – Renewal Flat $800 100%$800
15 Background Investigation - new each owner, officer, agent employee Flat $136 80%80%80%80% $169 100% $169
16
Background Investigation - renewal, each owner, officer, agent
employee Flat $53 42%42%42%42% $126 100% $126
17 Helicopter Landing Fee Flat 5 $240 885%885%885%885% $27 $136 $1,200 -$1,064 100% $27 $136 -$1,064
18 Hot tub/sauna business location change Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a
19
Hot tub/sauna employee (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and
Rolling Fee)Flat $81 n/an/an/an/a n/a
20 Hot tub/sauna new (non-refundable application fee)Flat $1,790 n/an/an/an/a n/a
21 Hot tub/sauna - renewal Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a
22 Hot tub/sauna sale or transfer of interest Flat $122 n/an/an/an/a n/a
23 Massage estb - new establishment (non-refundable application fee) Flat $1,790 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $1,790
24 Massage estb - sale or transfer of interest Flat $122 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $122
Re-evaluate massage establishment
fees once the new program and
program guidelines are implemented
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
no data
no data
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Police Police Police Police
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Page 14
Attachment B
Service Name
Fee
Descriptio
n
Annual
Volum
e
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Police Police Police Police
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
25 Massageg estb - renewal Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $810
26 Massage estb - business location change Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $810
27
Massage Tech - New (Does not include DOJ or FBI Fingerprint and
Rolling Fee.)Flat 200 $81 179%179%179%179% $45 $9,042 $16,200 -$7,158 100% $45 $9,042 -$7,158
28 Massage Tech - Renewal Flat $63 100%
29 Mechanical Amusement Device Establishment Flat 1 $74 68%68%68%68%$109 $109 $74 $35 100% $109 $109 $35
30 Noise Exception Permit Flat 108 $250 137%137%137%137% $182 $19,656 $27,000 -$7,344 100% $182 $19,656 -$7,344
31
Push Cart Vendor - New license (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint
and Rolling Fee.)Flat $244 19%19%19%19% $1,302 100% $1,302
32 Push Cart Vendor - Renewal Flat $86 79%79%79%79% $109 100% $109
33 Push Cart Vendor - Each additional cart Flat $244 675%675%675%675%$36 100% $36
34 Push Cart Vendor - Location change and/or cart change Flat $163 100%$163
35
Push Cart Employee - New license (Does not include DOJ
Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $81 100% $81
36 Push Cart Employee - Renewal Flat $63 100% $63
37
Soliciting information for commercial purpose (Does not include DOJ
Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $2,250 100% $2,250
38
Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint
and Rolling Fee.) - day Flat $81 224%224%224%224% $36 100% $36
39
Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint
and Rolling Fee.) - quarter Flat $122 337%337%337%337% $36 100% $36
40
Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint
and Rolling Fee.) - year Flat 2 $365 1009%1009%1009%1009% $36 $72 $730 -$658 100% $36 $72 -$658
41
Each employee operating under Master License (Does not include
DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat 20 $81 224%224%224%224% $36 $723 $1,620 -$897 100% $36 $723 -$897
42 Taxi/Pub Transp Vehicle - Each Vehicle-Inspection/permit Flat 200 $61 169%169%169%169%$36 $7,234 $12,200 -$4,966 100% $36 $7,234 -$4,966
43 Taxi/Public Transp Vehicle - Master License-Application/certificate Flat 2 $1,750 61%61%61%61%$2,890 $5,781 $3,500 $2,281 100% $2,890 $5,781 $2,281
44 Taxi/Pub Transp Vehicle - Master License-Annual renewal Flat 3 $810 75%75%75%75%$1,085 $3,255 $2,430 $825 100% $1,085 $3,255 $825
45
Taxicab/Public Transportation/Vehicle Service Driver (Does not
include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) new and renewal Flat 200 $81 299%299%299%299% $27 $5,425 $16,200 -$10,775 100% $27 $5,425 -$10,775
no data
Re-evaluate massage establishment
fees once the new program and
program guidelines are implemented
no data
no data
no data
Page 15
Attachment B
Service Name
Fee
Descriptio
n
Annual
Volum
e
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Police Police Police Police
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
46 Taxi/Pub Transp Veh - Transfer fee Flat 12 $40 88%88%88%88% $45 $543 $480 $63 100% $45 $543 $63
47 Temp Street Closure - Class A: Parades, Runs, Street Fair, etc. Varies 10 $100 - $1,260 n/an/an/an/a $486 $4,855 $4,855 100% Hourly $4,855
48 Traveling Show Flat 2 $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a
49 Permit Inspection Fee Flat 2 $90 25%25%25%25% $364 $728 $180 $548 100% $364 $728 $548
50 Permit Inspection Fee 201-400 attendees Flat 1 $110 26%26%26%26%$425 $425 $110 $315 100% $425 $425 $315
51 Permit Inspection Fee 401-600 attendees Flat $125 26%26%26%26%$486 100% $486
52 Permit Inspection Fee each additional 200 attendees Flat $20 33%33%33%33%$61 100% $61
53 Report Copy Fee Flat 1400 $10 37%37%37%37% $27 $38,277 $14,000 $24,277 100% $27 $38,277 $24,277
54 Clearance Letter Flat 130 $30 111%111%111%111% $27 $3,508 $3,900 -$392 100% $27 $3,508 -$392
55 Photo Reprint, color or black and white Flat 10 $35 74%74%74%74%$47 $473 $350 $123 100% $47 $473 $123
56 Research Fee (includes audio and video taping)hourly 100%
57 Subpoena Copy Fee Statute 100%
58 Location Crime Statistics Fee Flat 15 $39 39%39%39%39% $101 $1,518 $585 $933 100% $101 $1,518 $933
59 Parenting Project Program Flat 25 $120 49%49%49%49% $243 $6,069 $3,000 $3,069 100% $243 $6,069 $3,069
60 Parenting Project Materials Flat 5 $35 58%58%58%58% $61 $303 $175 $128 100% $61 $303 $128
61 Vehicle Impound Fee Flat 260 $125 46%46%46%46% $274 $71,174 $32,500 $38,674 100% $274 $71,174 $38,674
62 Vehicle Reposession Receipt Flat 25 $15 55%55%55%55% $27 $684 $375 $309 100% $27 $684 $309
63 Audio copy request Flat $120 100%$120
64 Alarm registration - new Flat 286 $35 129%129%129%129% $27 $7,758 $10,010 -$2,252 100% $27 $7,758 -$2,252
65 Alarm registration - renewal Flat 2145 $35 194%194%194%194% $18 $38,791 $75,075 -$36,284 100% $18 $38,791 -$36,284
66 Attendant Lot Parking Fee Structure
67 0-1 hours no charge
68 1-3 hours flat $2 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
69 3-4 hours flat $4 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
70 Over 4 hours flat $8 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
71 Daily Maximum flat $8 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
72 Emergency Response Fee actual cost $50-$12,000 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100% hourly rates n/a n/a
Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3
Page 16
Attachment B
Service Name
Fee
Descriptio
n
Annual
Volum
e
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Police Police Police Police
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
73 Fingerprints
74 DOJ Fed rate $52 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
75 FBI Fed rate $24 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
76 False Alarm Response Fees - Excessive
77 3rd Residential False Alarm Flat 313 $100 47%47%47%47% $211 $66,056 $31,300 $34,756 100% $211 $66,056 $34,756
78 3rd Bank/Commercial False Alarm Flat 157 $100 27%27%27%27%$372 $58,353 $15,700 $42,653 100% $372 $58,353 $42,653
79 4th False Alarm Flat $150 100% 150% of 3rd
80 5th and each Subsequent False Alarm Flat $200 100%200% of 3rd
81 Police Service Fees
82 Community Service Officer hourly 200 $68 78%78%78%78% $87 $17,363 $13,600 $3,763 100% $87 $17,363 $3,763
83 Police Agent hourly 100 $131 58%58%58%58% $226 $22,642 $13,100 $9,542 100% $226 $22,642 $9,542
84 Police Officer hourly 200 $121 76%76%76%76% $160 $31,957 $24,200 $7,757 100% $160 $31,957 $7,757
85 Police Reserve hourly 100 $51 84%84%84%84% $61 $6,062 $5,100 $962 100% $61 $6,062 $962
86 Police Sergeant hourly 60 $144 59%59%59%59% $243 $14,565 $8,640 $5,925 100% $243 $14,565 $5,925
Total User Fees $443,545 $338,389 $105,156 $443,545 $105,156
% of Full Cost 76% 24%100% 31%
Fees#82 thru 86) for events where less than 80% of the proceeds go directly to a "non-profit" organization, a 20% discount shall apply. For events where 80% or more of the proceeds go directly to a "non-profit" organization; or
events declared as co-sponsored by the City of Palo Alto, a 25% discount shall apply.
Page 17
Attachment B
Animal Services
Attachment B
Program Fee
Description Annual Cost Current
Recovery
Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery Level
Range
Revenue at
Current Rate
Recommended
Subsidy
1 Adoptions Varies $147,104 52%52%52%52% $77,137 $69,967 50-70% $77,137 $69,967
2 Animal Boarding Varies $46,771 72%72%72%72%$33,732 $13,039 16-90% $33,732 $13,039
3 Disposal of Dead Owned Animals/Euthanasia Varies $128,706 74%74%74%74%$94,821 $33,885 50-90% $94,821 $33,885
4 Impoundment Varies $221,460 68%68%68%68%$151,114 $70,346 50-90% $151,114 $70,346
5 Licenses and Pet Identification Varies $112,964 90%90%90%90%$101,956 $11,008 100% $101,956 $11,008
6 Miscellaneous Sales, Pet Supplies Varies $52,572 86%86%86%86%$45,291 $7,281 80-100% $45,291 $7,281
7 Veterinary Services Varies $98,435 65%65%65%65%$64,404 $34,031 50-100% $64,404 $34,031
8 Annual Permits Varies $34,481 46%46%46%46%$15,877 $18,603 14-80% $15,877 $18,603
9 Spay and Neuter Clinic Varies $344,714 82%82%82%82%$284,161 $60,552 80-100% $284,161 $60,552
12 Animal Testing Varies $33,963 0%0%0%0%$0 $33,963 60-80%$0 $33,963
13 Vaccinations/Microchip Varies $98,261 71%71%71%71%$69,580 $28,681 100% $69,580 $28,681
14 Trap Rental/Home Quarantine Inspection Varies $38,693 61%61%61%61%$23,602 $15,091 8-60% $23,602 $15,091
15 Cremations Services Varies $30,738 87%87%87%87%$26,639 $4,099 73% $26,639 $4,099
16 Field Services Varies $580,309 3%3%3%3%$20,112 $560,197 0-10% $20,112 $560,197
Total User Fees $1,969,171 $1,008,427 $960,744 $1,008,427 $960,744
% of Full Cost 51% 49%51%49%
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Police Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal Services
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
Page 18
Attachment B
Fire
Attachment B
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
1 Automatic fire sprinkler installation/modification (per building)Flat 225 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $249,380 $67,500 $181,880 100% $1,108 $249,380 $181,880 $0
2 Automatic fire sprinkler installation/modification (per building)Per head 30000 $1.50 54%54%54%54% $2.78 $83,523 $45,000 $38,523 100% $3 $83,523 $38,523 $0
3
Other automatic fire extinguishing systems (hood and duct, FM200, Inergen, CO2)
NOTE: If system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well.Flat 12 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $13,300 $3,600 $9,700 100% $1,108 $13,300 $9,700 $0
4
Other automatic fire extinguishing systems (hood and duct, FM200, Inergen, CO2)
NOTE: If system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well.Per nozzle 350 $6.50 54%54%54%54% $12.07 $4,226 $2,275 $1,951 100% $12 $4,226 $1,951 $0
5 Fire Alarm Systems; install/modify (per building)Flat 140 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $155,170 $42,000 $113,170 100% $1,108 $155,170 $113,170 $0
6 Fire Alarm Systems; install/modify (per building)Per device 5000 $6.50 114%114%114%114% $5.73 $28,627 $32,500 -$3,873 100% $6 $28,627 -$3,873 $0
7 Standpipe system wet, dry or combination, per riser Flat 12 $175 23%23%23%23% $752 $9,029 $2,100 $6,929 100% $752 $9,029 $6,929 $0
8 Hydrants private on-site; install/modify Flat 1 $220 25%25%25%25% $889 $889 $220 $669 100% $889 $889 $669 $0
9 Hydrants private on-site; install/modify Per hydrant 3 $50 50%50%50%50% $101 $303 $150 $153 100% $101 $303 $153 $0
10
Underground fire service line (includes inspection and re-inspection - 1 each
occurrence)Flat 11 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $12,192 $3,300 $8,892 100% $1,108 $12,192 $8,892 $0
11 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Flat 4 $300 36%36%36%36% $844 $3,375 $1,200 $2,175 100% $844 $3,375 $2,175 $0
15 Verification of Fire Protection System Maintenance and Certification Flat 300 $75 45%45%45%45% $167 $49,950 $22,500 $27,450 100% $167 $49,950 $27,450 $0
16
A Level I Facility - Minimal Storage (defined as having no hazardous materials over
CFC Permit amounts as specified in CFC section 105)Flat 87 $230 71%71%71%71% $324 $28,208 $20,010 $8,198 100% $324 $28,208 $8,198 $0
B Level II Facility - Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal.,
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
17
B Level II Facility - Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal.,
500 lbs. Or 200 cu. Ft. Category also includes Dry Cleaning, Fixed Medical Gas,
Auto or Aircraft Repair and Service Stations Flat 140 $470 97%97%97%97% $487 $68,122 $65,800 $2,322 100% $487 $68,122 $2,322 $0
18
C Level III Facility - Quantities exceed 50 gal., 500 lbs. Or 200 cu. Ft. and not
categorized as Level II Flat 200 $825 95%95%95%95% $865 $172,939 $165,000 $7,939 100% $865 $172,939 $7,939 $0
19 D Business Plan (HMBP) Flat 251 $285 93%93%93%93% $307 $77,024 $71,535 $5,489 100% $307 $77,024 $5,489 $0
20 E Petroleum Abovegroung Storage Tank Flat 16 $500 58%58%58%58% $858 $13,721 $8,000 $5,721 100% $858 $13,721 $5,721 $0
21 E Provisional (6 month term)Delete 0 $165 n/a n/a
22
F Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure,
otherwise modify a Hazardous Materials storage/use facility. (See CEQA for
additional fees.)Flat 47 $300 37%37%37%37% $816 $38,370 $14,100 $24,270 100% $816 $38,370 $24,270 $0
23
F Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure,
otherwise modify a Hazardous Materials storage/use facility. Additional hours over 2 Per hour 30 $150 84%84%84%84% $179 $5,379 $4,500 $879 100% $179 $5,379 $879 $0
24 Late Fee for Hazardous Materials Storage Permits Fine 0
25% of haz
mat fee n/an/an/an/a n/a 100%
25% of haz mat
fee
Page 19
Attachment B
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
25 Fees charged for additional re-inspections after the first re-inspection.Flat 12 $300 81%81%81%81% $368 $4,421 $3,600 $821 100% $368 $4,421 $821 $0
26
Fees charged for additional re-inspections after the first re-inspection - each hour
over 2 Per hour 6 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $2,004 $900 $1,104 100% $334 $2,004 $1,104 $0
27
After hours inspection fee (before or after normal business hours; weekends and
holidays included, and is to be paid in advance of inspection)Per hour 100 $165 48%48%48%48% $344 $34,381 $16,500 $17,881 100% $344 $34,381 $17,881 $0
28 Christmas Tree Lot/Pumpkin Patch Flat 5 $150 25%25%25%25% $603 $3,013 $750 $2,263 100% $603 $3,013 $2,263 $0
29
Care Facility (including community, child day care and residential care for the elderly)
Fire and Safety Inspections (CFC 111.4). Excludes residential elderly care facilities
with six or fewer persons. Flat 91 $150 27%27%27%27% $546 $49,676 $13,650 $36,026 100% $546 $49,676 $36,026 $0
30 Care Facility Inspection including fire clearance 7-25 clients Delete 0 $65 n/a n/a
31 Care Facility Inspection including fire clearance >25 clients Delete 0 $125 n/a n/a
32 Outside Cooking Booths Flat 11 $165 30%30%30%30% $546 $6,005 $1,815 $4,190 100% $546 $6,005 $4,190 $0
33 Use and Occupancy Fire Inspection Flat 100 $125 23%23%23%23% $537 $53,743 $12,500 $41,243 100% $537 $53,743 $41,243 $0
34 Standby fire watch or after-hours at fire or incident scene Per hour 0 $165 49%49%49%49% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0
High Rise Building; certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise
building which is required by State law to be inspected and certified
annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable State of
California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC
35
California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC
111.4.3)Flat 7 $600 36%36%36%36% $1,670 $11,689 $4,200 $7,489 100% $1,670 $11,689 $7,489 $0
36
High Rise Building; certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise
building which is required by State law to be inspected and certified
annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable State of
California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC
111.4.3) - each hour after 4 Per hour 3 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $1,002 $450 $552 100% $334 $1,002 $552 $0
37 Consultation fee Per hour 0 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0
38 Alternate Means and Methods Application Flat 1 $300 28%28%28%28% $1,073 $1,073 $300 $773 100% $1,073 $1,073 $773 $0
39 Hazardous Materials investigation Per hour 0 $150 84%84%84%84% $179 $0 $0 $0 100% $179 $0 $0 $0
40 Appeals to decisions Per hour 0 $250 75%75%75%75% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0
41 Additional hours over plan review/inspection (hourly minimum to be billed)Per hour 0 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0
42 Site Disaster Planning Per hour 250 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $83,495 $37,500 $45,995 100% $334 $83,495 $45,995 $0
43 Hydrant Flow Fee Flat 0 $200 59%59%59%59% $341 $0 $0 $0 100% $341 $0 $0 $0
Page 20
Attachment B
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
44 Hazardous Materials Data Entry Fee Per hour 50 $65 36%36%36%36% $179 $8,964 $3,250 $5,714 100% $179 $8,964 $5,714 $0
45 Aerosol Products Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0
46 Amusement buildings Flat 0 $365 76%76%76%76% $481 $0 $0 $0 100% $481 $0 $0 $0
47 Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0
48 Bowling alley and pin refinishing involving the use of flammable liquids Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0
49 Candles and open flames in assembly areas Flat 114 $135 44%44%44%44% $306 $34,901 $15,390 $19,511 100% $306 $34,901 $19,511 $0
50 Carnivals and fairs Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0
51 Cellulose nitrate storage/nitrate film Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0
52 Confined Space Flat 0 $125 10%10%10%10% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
53 Combustible fiber/material storage Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0
54 Dust producing devices Flat 0 $105 8%8%8%8% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
55 Excavate within 10 feet of flammable or combustible pipeline Flat 0 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
56 Explosive or blasting agents Flat 2 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $244 $510 -$266 100% $122 $244 -$266 $0
57 Fireworks display Flat 0 $525 80%80%80%80% $660 $0 $0 $0 100% $660 $0 $0 $0
58 High-piled combustible storage Flat 1 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $122 $255 -$133 100% $122 $122 -$133 $0
59 Hot Work (Welding and Cutting) operations Flat 53 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $11,226 $9,010 $2,216 100% $212 $11,226 $2,216 $0
60 Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Flat 33 $255 209%209%209%209%$122 $4,032 $8,415 -$4,383 100%$122 $4,032 -$4,383 $060Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Flat 33 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $4,032 $8,415 -$4,383 100% $122 $4,032 -$4,383 $0
61 Malls, Covered Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0
62 B Place of public assembly (temporary)Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
63 C Open flame/flame producing devices Flat 4 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $5,071 $300 $4,771 100% $1,268 $5,071 $4,771 $0
64 D Liquid or gas-fueled powered equipment Flat 0 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
65 Magnesium working Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0
66 Occupant load increase (temporary public assembly)Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
67 Open burning Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
68 Operate a tank vehicle to transport flammable/combustible liquids Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0
69 Organic coatings Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0
70 Ovens, industrial baking or drying Flat 4 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $489 $1,020 -$531 100% $122 $489 -$531 $0
71 Parade Float Per hour 0 $95 7%7%7%7% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
72 Place of public assembly (annual or each occurrence)Flat 196 $200 34%34%34%34% $594 $116,516 $39,200 $77,316 100% $594 $116,516 $77,316 $0
Page 21
Attachment B
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
73 Pyrotechnical special effects material Flat 0 $170 523%523%523%523% $33 $0 $0 $0 100% $33 $0 $0 $0
74 Refrigeration Equipment Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0
75 Spraying/Dipping Flat 18 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $3,813 $3,060 $753 100% $212 $3,813 $753 $0
76
Tent or air-supported structure having an area in excess of 200 square feet; or
canopies in excess of 400 square feet (includes a public assembly permit of $125.00
for all tents)Flat 30 $365 61%61%61%61% $603 $18,080 $10,950 $7,130 100% $603 $18,080 $7,130 $0
77 Tire recapping/tire storage Flat 0 $480 38%38%38%38% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0
78 Corrosives Flat 62 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $10,354 $15,810 -$5,456 100% $167 $10,354 -$5,456 $0
79 Cryogenic Fluids Flat 49 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $8,183 $12,495 -$4,312 100% $167 $8,183 -$4,312 $0
80 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Flat 181 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $30,226 $46,155 -$15,929 100% $167 $30,226 -$15,929 $0
81 Flammable Solids Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0
82 Compressed Gas (inert)Flat 32 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $5,344 $8,160 -$2,816 100% $167 $5,344 -$2,816 $0
83 Flammable Gas Flat 29 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $4,843 $7,395 -$2,552 100% $167 $4,843 -$2,552 $0
84 Oxidizing Gas Flat 35 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $5,845 $8,925 -$3,080 100% $167 $5,845 -$3,080 $0
85 Pyrophoric Gas Flat 2 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $334 $510 -$176 100% $167 $334 -$176 $0
86 Toxic, highly toxic, moderately toxic, health hazard Gas Flat 12 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $2,004 $3,060 -$1,056 100% $167 $2,004 -$1,056 $0
87 Unstable Reactive Gas Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153%$167 $0 $0 $0 100%$167 $0 $0 $087Unstable Reactive Gas Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153%$167 $0 $0 $0 100%$167 $0 $0 $0
88 Health Hazard (liquids & solids)Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0
89 Organic Peroxides Flat 1 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $167 $255 -$88 100% $167 $167 -$88 $0
90 Oxidizers (liquids & solids)Flat 19 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $3,173 $4,845 -$1,672 100% $167 $3,173 -$1,672 $0
91 Pyrophoric Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 6 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $1,002 $1,530 -$528 100% $167 $1,002 -$528 $0
92 Radioactive Materials Flat 29 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $4,843 $7,395 -$2,552 100% $167 $4,843 -$2,552 $0
93
Toxic, highly toxic, health hazard materials (includes pesticides, fumigants, and
etiologic agents)Flat 45 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $7,515 $11,475 -$3,960 100% $167 $7,515 -$3,960 $0
94 Unstable Reactive Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 1 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $167 $255 -$88 100% $167 $167 -$88 $0
95 Water Reactive Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0
96 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Flat 12 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $2,004 $3,060 -$1,056 100% $167 $2,004 -$1,056 $0
97 Emergency Response Fee (Hazmat -PAMC 17.24.050)Sliding 0 $1,080 0%0%0%0% $0 $0 $0 $0 hourly
98 Engine Company Second Re-inspection (After inspection and re-inspection only) Per hour 0 $195 0%0%0%0% $0 $0 $0 $0 hourly
Page 22
Attachment B
Service Name Fee
Description
Annual
Volume
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual
Revenue
Annual
Subsidy
Recovery
Level
Fee @
Policy Level
Annual
Revenue
Increased
Revenue Subsidy
City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto
Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention
2012201220122012
CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual
99
Installation or Closure without approved plans and/or permits (Fire
Protection/HazMat; double original fee)Penatly 0 $725 n/a $725
100 Preventable False Alarm (CFC 401.3.1)Penatly 0 $180 n/a $180
Total User Fees $1,553,690 $886,140 $667,550 $1,553,690 $667,550 $0
% of Full Cost 57% 43%100% 43% 0%
Page 23
Attachment B
Community Services
Attachment B
Total Direct
Expense
Total Indirect
Expense Total Full Cost
Total Fee
Revenue
Total Other
Revenue Total Revenue
Total General
Fund Subsidy
Direct
Costs %
Recovery
Full Cost %
Recovery
Children's Theatre 1,235,046$ 515,804$ 1,750,850$ 360,304$ 80,000$ 440,304$ 1,310,546$ 36%25%
JMZ-Sciences 767,528$ 239,633$ 1,007,161$ 500,698$ -$ 500,698$ 506,463$ 65%50%
JMZ-Exhibits & Zoo 408,874$ 180,183$ 589,057$ 6,721$ 3,000$ 9,721$ 579,336$ 2%2%
Art in Public Places 105,629$ 45,124$ 150,753$ 2,625$ -$ 2,625$ 148,128$ 2%2%
Community Theatre 29,460$ 522,435$ 551,895$ -$ 18,449$ 18,449$ 533,446$ 63%3%
Summer Concerts 73,270$ 18,849$ 92,119$ -$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 90,119$ 3%2%
Visual Arts-Youth 293,085$ 75,397$ 368,482$ 200,074$ 38,000$ 238,074$ 130,408$ 81%65%
Visual Arts - Adults 169,697$ 43,655$ 213,352$ 61,694$ -$ 61,694$ 151,658$ 36%29%
Art Exhibitions 135,481$ 34,853$ 170,334$ -$ -$ -$ 170,334$ 0%0%
Music & Dance - Youth 56,845$ 14,624$ 71,469$ 62,864$ -$ 62,864$ 8,605$ 111%88%
Music & Dance - Adults 61,895$ 15,923$ 77,818$ 24,314$ -$ 24,314$ 53,504$ 39%31%
Arts Facilities 842,882$ 506,476$ 1,349,358$ -$ 15,802$ 15,802$ 1,333,556$ 2%1%
Total Arts and Sciences 4,179,693$ 2,212,956$ 6,392,649$ 1,219,294$ 157,251$ 1,376,545$ 5,016,104$ 33%22%
Aquatics 514,702$ 224,132$ 738,834$ 501,164$ -$ 501,164$ 237,670$ 97%68%
MSA 326,515$ 110,157$ 436,672$ 289,391$ -$ 289,391$ 147,281$ 89%66%
Recreation - Adults 278,827$ 98,389$ 377,216$ 187,686$ -$ 187,686$ 189,530$ 67%50%
Recreation - Teens 306,622$ 76,472$ 383,094$ 114,540$ -$ 114,540$ 268,554$ 37%30%
Program Publication 100,807$ 24,874$ 125,681$ -$ -$ -$ 125,681$ 0%0%
Recreation - Youth 614,001$ 151,508$ 765,509$ 754,294$ 754,294$ 11,215$ 123%99%
Rec - Special Needs 56,072$ 13,836$ 69,908$ 6,942$ 1,500$ 8,442$ 61,466$ 15%12%
Recreation - Facilities 1,025,410$ 296,684$ 1,322,094$ 431,955$ -$ 431,955$ 890,139$ 42%33%
Special Events 92,289$ 22,773$ 115,062$ 15,821$ 15,821$ 99,241$ 17%14%
Total Recreation 3,315,245$ 1,018,825$ 4,334,070$ 2,301,793$ 1,500$ 2,303,293$ 2,030,777$ 69%53%
Golf 2,388,173$ 542,126$ 2,930,299$ 2,624,748$ 95,393$ 2,720,141$ 210,158$ 114%93%
Open Space 1,724,555$ 421,921$ 2,146,476$ 34,630$ 9,135$ 43,765$ 2,102,711$ 3%2%
Parks 4,398,314$ 1,203,052$ 5,601,366$ 25,639$ 336,538$ 362,177$ 5,239,189$ 8%6%
Total OS/Parks/Golf 8,511,043$ 2,167,099$ 10,678,142$ 2,685,017$ 441,066$ 3,126,083$ 7,552,059$ 37%29%
Total Cubberley 1,349,431$ 1,064,354$ 2,413,785$ -$ 840,075$ 840,075$ 1,573,710$ 62%35%
Total Human Services 1,278,249$ 428,554$ 1,706,803$ -$ -$ -$ 1,706,803$ 0%0%
TOTAL CSD 18,633,661$ 6,891,788$ 25,525,449$ 6,206,104$ 1,439,892$ 7,645,996$ 17,879,453$ 41%30%
Page 24
Attachment B
ANIMAL SERVICES
Fee Palo Alto
Cupertino
(Humane
Society of SV) Fremont
Menlo Park
(Peninsula
Humane)
Mountain View
(SVACA)
San Mateo
(Peninsula
Humane) Santa Clara (SVACA)
Sunnyvale (Humane
Society SV)
Adoptions ‐ Dogs $125
pp $ ;
Adult: $175;
Companion
prices if adopt
2 $171‐$175
Under 7‐$120;
7+ ‐ $75;
under 6 mos ‐
$135 $150
Under 7‐$120;
7+ ‐ $75; under
6 mos ‐ $135 $150
Puppies: $350;
Adult: $175;
Companion prices if
adopt 2
Adoptions ‐ Cats $125
Kittens: $175;
Cats: Currently
waived $124‐$136
Under 7 ‐ $80;
7+ ‐ $50;
under 6 mos ‐
$105
Under 6 mos ‐
$150; All Other ‐
$100
Under 7 ‐ $80;
7+ ‐ $50; under
6 mos ‐ $105
Under 6 mos ‐ $150;
All Other ‐ $100
Kittens: $175; Cats:
Currently waived
Impound Dog ‐
Licensed
$30 (1st
offense) up to
$165 (11th+
offense)
Altered: $90;
Unaltered: $95
(1st); $110
(2nd); $160
(3rd);
$92 (1st
offense); $184
(2nd offense);
$276 (3rd
offense)
$35 (Altered/1st
offense); $100
(Unaltered/1st
offense); $125‐
$205
(subsequent
offenses)
$35 (Altered/1st
offense); $100
(Unaltered/1st
offense); $125‐$205
(subsequent
offenses)
Altered: $90;
Unaltered: $95 (1st);
$110 (2nd); $160
(3rd);
Impound Dog ‐
Unlicensed
$50 (1st
offense) up to
$200 (11th+
offense)
$30 (1st
offense) up to
$165 (11th+
offense)
$92 (1st
offense); $184
(2nd offense);
$276 (3rd
offense)
$35 (Altered/1st
offense); $100
(Unaltered/1st
offense); $125‐
$205
(subsequent
offenses)
$35 (Altered/1st
offense); $100
(Unaltered/1st
offense); $125‐$205
(subsequent
offenses)
Altered: $90;
Unaltered: $95 (1st);
$110 (2nd); $160
(3rd);
Impound Cat
$30 (1st
offsense); $45
(2nd offense);
$60 (third
offense)
Altered: $90;
Unaltered: $95
(1st); $110
(2nd); $160
(3rd);
$92 (1st
offense); $184
(2nd offense);
$276 (3rd
offense)
$35 (Altered/1st
offense); $100
(Unaltered/1st
offense); $125‐
$205
(subsequent
offenses)
$35 (Altered/1st
offense); $100
(Unaltered/1st
offense); $125‐$205
(subsequent
offenses)
Altered: $90;
Unaltered: $95 (1st);
$110 (2nd); $160
(3rd);
1 9/9/2013
Attachment B
ANIMAL SERVICES
Fee Palo Alto
Cupertino
(Humane
Society of SV) Fremont
Menlo Park
(Peninsula Humane)
Mountain View
(SVACA)
San Mateo
(Peninsula
Humane)
Santa Clara
(SVACA)
Sunnyvale
(Humane
Society SV)
License ‐
Dog/Neutered
$20 (12 mos);
$30 (24 mos);
$40 (36 mos)
$20 (12 mos);
$30 (24 mos);
$40 (36 mos)
$12 (12 mos);
$17 (24 mos);
$21 (36 mos)
$20 (12 mos); $55
(36 mos)
$22 (12 mos); $32
(24 mos); $42 (36
mos)
$20 (12 mos);
$55 (36 mos)
$22 (12 mos);
$32 (24 mos);
$42 (36 mos)
$20 (12 mos);
$30 (24 mos);
$40 (36 mos)
License ‐
Dog/Spayed
$20 (12 mos);
$30 (24 mos);
$40 (36 mos)
$20 (12 mos);
$30 (24 mos);
$40 (36 mos)
$12 (12 mos);
$17 (24 mos);
$21 (36 mos)
$20 (12 mos); $55
(36 mos)
$22 (12 mos); $32
(24 mos); $42 (36
mos)
$20 (12 mos);
$55 (36 mos)
$22 (12 mos);
$32 (24 mos);
$42 (36 mos)
$20 (12 mos);
$30 (24 mos);
$40 (36 mos)
License ‐ Dog/
Unaltered
$40 (12 mos);
$60 (24 mos);
$80 (36 mos)$150 (12 mos)
$25 (12 mos);
$35 (24 mos);
$42 (36 mos)
$50 (12 mos); $145
(36 mos) $100 (12 mos)
$50 (12 mos);
$145 (36 mos) $100 (12 mos) $150 (12 mos)
Neuter Dog ‐
Resident
$100‐$250
based on
weight
$110‐$130 based on
weight
$110‐$130
based on weight
Neuter Dog ‐
Regular or Non‐
Resident
$135‐$325
based on
weight
$85‐$135 based
on weight $91
$80‐$140+ based on
weight
$135‐$155 based on
weight
$80‐$140+ based
on weight
$135‐$155
based on weight
$85‐$135 based
on weight
Spay Dog ‐
Resident
$120‐$270
based on
weight
$120‐$140 based on
weight
$120‐$140
based on weight
Spay Dog ‐
Regular or Non‐
Resident
$160‐$345
based on
weight
$110‐$170
based on weight $91
$90‐$150+ based on
weight
$145‐$165 based on
weight
$90‐$150+ based
on weight
$145‐$165
based on weight
$110‐$170
based on weight
Neuter Cat ‐
Resident $65 $60 $60
Neuter Cat ‐
Regular or Non‐
Resident $90 $60 $54 $50 $75 $50 $75 $60
Spay Cat ‐
Resident $95 $70 $70
Spay Cat ‐
Regular or Non‐
Resident $130 $95 $54 $60 $85 $60 $85 $95
2 9/9/2013
Attachment B
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT
Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale
Classes/Camps
Residents: $6‐
$865; Non‐
Residents: Fee
plus up to 50%
Fees are formula
driven based on
instructor's hrly
rate, number of
classes, min.
number of
participants,
indirect and
equipment/supply
costs, add 20% for
non‐residents
Not in fee schedule. Fees
are published in each
Activities schedule. Fees
are set to cover all direct
costs including
instructors, materials,
contracted services, City's
costs of arranging
programs, use of facilities
and "necessary
overhead". $5 additional
charge for non‐residents
Varies ‐ City has
independent
contract
agreements
with instructors
who provides
guaranteed
income to the
course
Fees for most
classes/activities
are set based on
targeted cost
recovery of
direct and/or
indirect costs for
each
class/activity
Not included
in Muni Fee
schedule ‐
Priced in each
Rec Activity
Guide; Higher
fees for non‐
residents
Set
administratively
by Parks/Rec
Director; non‐
residents pay
lower of 25% or
$50 more per
class than
residents
Tennis
Primetime: Residents ‐
$9/hr; Non‐resident ‐
$11/hr; Non‐Primetime:
$8/hr.
Yearly Key ‐
Residents: $50;
Non‐residents:
$100 $8
Resident ‐
$6/hour; Non‐
resident ‐
$8/hour
Aquatics ‐ Lap Swim Set by Director
Daily : Non‐
Resident $4‐$6 $5
Daily: Non‐Resident $4‐$6 $6
10 Swim: Resident $40
10 Swim: Non‐
Resident $60
25 Swim: Resident $87.50
25 Swim: Non‐
Resident $109
25 Swim:
Sr./Resident $30
25 Swim: Sr./Non‐
Resident $38
3 9/9/2013
Attachment B
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT
Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale
Aquatics ‐
Recreational
Swim
Varies by pool,
activities and
residency Set by Director
Child ≤2 $0‐$4
Spectator $3
Child ‐
Resident $2,50‐$5 $3 $3
Child ‐ Non‐
Resident $2.50‐$6 $4 $4
Adult ‐
Resident $3‐$6 $4 $5
Adult ‐ Non‐
Resident $3‐$8 $5 $6
Family ‐
Resident $10 $139‐$180
Family ‐ Non‐
Resident $18 $174‐$220
4 9/9/2013
Attachment B
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT
Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale
GOLF ‐ 18 Holes
Wkday: Resident $36‐$40 Up to $31 $33 $25 $35
Wkday ‐ Regular or
Non‐Resident $38‐$42 Up to $38 $38 $37 $35
Wkday ‐
Resident/Sr. $27‐$30 Up to $21 $27
Wkday ‐ Jr.(≤ 17)
$12‐$16 after 1pm
Sept 1‐April 30 Up to $16
$14/ resident
only
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Resident $46‐$51 Up to $47 $45 $34 $44
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Regular $48‐$53 Up to $54 $53 $50 $48
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Resident/Sr.
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Jr.(≤ 17)
$15‐$18 after 1 pm
Sept 1‐April 30 $17/resident only
GOLF‐ 9 Holes
Wkday: Resident $23‐$25 $15 $15
Wkday ‐ Regular or
Non‐Resident $23‐$25 $17 $15
Wkday ‐
Resident/Sr.$14‐$16
Wkday ‐ Jr.(≤ 17) $11‐$13
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Resident $26‐$29 $17 $17
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Regular or Non‐
Resident $26‐$29 $19 $19
Wkend/Holiday ‐
Resident/Sr.$17‐$19
5 9/9/2013
Attachment B
FIRE
Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale
Fire Flow Test $215 $250 $211
Fire Suppression/
Sprinkler
Inpection
$325 plus
sprinkler heads
Varies by type
of facility
$96/hour plus
fee based on
sprinkler heads
Varies by type of
facility $85/hour; 3 hour min.
Varies by type of
facility
$535‐$1,474
depending on
facility & sprinkler
heads
Varies by
facility/size
Preventable False
Alarm
$195‐
$1,622/hour ‐
charged after 2
in 12 month
period
After second
incident: Engine ‐
$508; Inspector ‐
$332
$134 for 3rd and
subsequent
occurences $385
$253 ‐ After 3rd
time in 180 day
period
3rd‐4th: $200;
5th‐7th:$350;
8th‐10th:
$500; 11th+:
$750
Fireworks
$565 each
occurrence $96/hour $1,084 $154/hour
$292 per
occurrence plus
standby personnel
at time of show
$571 each
occurrence $229
Licensed
Community Care,
Residential or
Child Day Care
Inspections
$160/annual or
each license
renewal
Based on
assessed risk
level
Pre‐license
Inspection: $164
plus $368‐$484
based on occupancy $154/hour
$100 per
inspection
$134‐$404
depending on
max
occupancy
Haz Mat
Emergency
Response
Up to $1,170
each incident or
100% full cost
recovery
Job cost based
on employees'
salary plus
overhead Hourly rates
Hourly rates for
personnel/engine
Hourly rates for
personnel and
equipment
Hourly rates for
personnel/truck
company Actual costs
6 9/9/2013
Attachment B
POLICE
Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale
Massage Estab. ‐
New $750
$395 includes
fingerprint
$300 plus
background
Sole proprietor ‐
$135 plus
background $900
$444 plus hrly
rate for
personnel
Sole proprietor
$313 $924
Massage Estab. ‐
Renew $450 $93 $150
Sole proprietor ‐
$135 plus
background $450 $74 biyearly
Sole proprietor ‐
$210 $857
Massage
Therapist ‐ New $300
$298 includes
fingerprint
$60 plus
background $450
$336 plus
hourly rate for
personnel $209
Massage
Therapist ‐
Renew $150 $62 $30 $98 biyearly $45
False Alarm
Registration: $38;
3rd alarm: $108;
4th: $162; 5th+:
$216 $160
Registration:
$40 (new);
Permit renew:
$20; $60 fine if
more than 3
alarms in 120
days or 5 in 365
days
Registration:
$25; Standard:
$175; High Risk:
$350
Registration:
Residential ‐ $20;
Commercial ‐ $80;
2nd alarm: $100;
3rd alarm: $150; 4th
alarm: $250; 5th+
alarm: $500
2nd and
subsequent:
$104
Registration: $24;
Fines: $63 (3rd);
$90 (4th); $115
(5th +); additional
for bank hold up
alarm
Registration:
Residential ‐ $35;
Business ‐ $70;
3rd‐4th alarm:
$200; 5th‐7th
alarm: $350; 8th‐
10th alarm: $500;
11th+ alarm:
$750
Taxi Driver ‐
Permit
$88/up to 4 years,
plus fingerprint
$323, includes
fingerprint $306
$75, including
fingerprint $180 $90 $160 $205
Taxi Driver ‐
Renewal $194 $108 $50 $130 $37 $144
Taxi ‐ Vehicle
Inspection $66/year $28 $200 (biennial) $108 $53 $116
Fingerprinting
DOJ and FBI
established fees $52 plus DOJ/FBI
$45 plus DOJ
and other
agency fees
City's cost plus
DOJ/FBI $72 $32 plus DOJ/FBI $66
7 9/9/2013
Attachment B
POLICE
Vehicle ‐
Impound
Release $135 $196
Vehicle Code
Infraction: $200;
Misdeameanor
or Felony: $300
$150 plus additional
$120 if
misdemeanor or
felony and
addiitonal $150 if
repeat offender
(within 12 mos)
Impound: $76;
Stored: $76 $52 $238
7 9/9/2013
Attachment B
PUBLIC WORKS
Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale
Encroach
Residential: $430;
Non‐residential:
$460‐$920
Major: $488;
Minor: $244
Varies based on
type and size
Major: $825 plus
3% of cost;
Minor: $470;
Residential:
$1,069; Non‐
residential: $1,955
$312 plus 6%
of project cost
Processing Fee ‐
$186; engineering
and inspection ‐
higher of $179 or
8% of construction
cost
Varies based on
size/duration
Cert of
Correct/
Compliance $3,240 $1,620
Deposit/Actual
Cost
Correction: First
3 sheets: $750;
Each Addl: $100;
Compliance:
$900 Compliance: $700 $107/hour
Correction ‐ $2,509
per certificate;
Compliance ‐ staff
salary X 2.25
Correction: $301;
Compliance: $534
Bldg
construct/
street impact
Higher of $240 or
5% of contract
work
.58% of project
valuation
Flat rate plus % of
construction costs
(% varies based on
dollar amount)$910
Flat rate plus % of
construction costs (%
varies based on dollar
amount)
Street Trees $100
15 gallon:
$155; 24" box:
$330 $85
15 gallon tree:
$100
15 gallon:
$11.07/linear ft. 24" box: $350 $155 $251
Street Cuts
Service lateral
connection:
$1,080/ trench; $5‐
$16/sq.ft of trench
depending on
pavement
condition
Minor ‐ $609;
Major:
$1,583; Over
15 days or
$30K = 5% of
project Costs
Deposit plus fee
based on linear ft.
Fees based on
staff hourly
billing rates
Varies based on
sq.footage
$312 deposit;
$107/hour
Varies based on
sq.ft. and thickness
of asphalt
Deposit plus fee
based on linear ft.
8 9/9/2013
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT C
Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy
The Community Services Department (CSD) offers a variety of programs within its various
divisions such as recreational activities, arts and sciences classes, and open space interpretive
programs. The following Class Cost Recovery Policy is to be used as a guideline to establish
cost recovery targets for fee-based classes and camps within the divisions of Recreation & Golf,
Arts & Sciences, and Open Space & Parks.
Included in CSD’s Strategic Plan is an initiative to “focus energy and (budgetary) resources on
sustaining and enhancing core services”. Through implementation of this Class Cost Recovery
Policy, the department aims to establish cost recovery levels while providing core services and
meeting the social needs of the community.
Policy
The policy takes into consideration: (1) minimum level of acceptable cost recovery, (2) target
level of cost recovery, and (3) fee setting considerations. Cost recovery levels are inclusive of
direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs include both department and City overhead.
Although each program has set minimum and target cost recovery levels, other fee setting
considerations may factor into the pricing of registration fees. Fee setting considerations may
either increase or decrease fees and place cost recovery outside of the minimum and target
levels. These factors include, but are not limited to, market rates, programs for those with
special needs, new programs still being established, and population served. However, within
each of the three divisions offering fee-based classes, the division-wide cost recovery should
meet minimum cost recovery levels.
Once a program is determined to be within the purview of the Class Cost Recovery Policy,
program fees are to be established using the Class Cost Recovery Model and adjusted as
needed. The model is included in the pages to follow.
Each fee-based class or camp is placed in one of four Cost Recovery Groups. The groups
range from Community Benefit to Personal Benefit, representing opposite ends of a cost
recovery spectrum. Programs rated as Community Benefit will cost recover less, while
programs rated as Personal Benefit will cost recover more. This cost structure is in line with
the department’s mission statement: “Engaging individuals and families to create a strong and
healthy community, through parks, open space, recreation, social service, arts, and sciences.”
The four Cost Recovery Groups are:
• Group I: Community Benefit
• Group II: Majority Community Benefit
• Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit
• Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit
Attachment B
Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the
value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four groups. Each group has a cost
recovery range inclusive of a minimum cost recovery and a target cost recovery level. This
detail is reflected in pages to follow.
On an annual basis, programs are to be reviewed to ensure the established cost
recovery levels are met and adjustments made.
Recovered Costs
Direct costs are expenses incurred in correlation to a class being offered. These costs would
not be incurred if a class were not offered. Typical direct costs are instructor fees and supplies
and materials.
Department indirect costs cover overhead costs incurred by the department for administrative
support, program supervision, utilities, and some maintenance. Some of these costs would
probably be incurred regardless whether a class is offered or not.
City indirect costs encompass citywide overhead, administrative, and facility maintenance
costs. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless of whether a class is
offered or not.
Department indirect cost is estimated to be 15% of direct cost while both department and City
indirect costs are estimated to be 35% of direct cost. These estimates are subject to change as
programs are reviewed and to reflect changing overhead costs.
Attachment B
Class Cost Recovery Model
This model is to be used by Program Coordinators, Supervisors, and Division Managers to plan,
evaluate program cost recovery, and determine expenses, revenues, and course registration
fees.
Attachment B
Class Cost Recovery Guidelines
In conjunction with the Cost Recovery Model, the following guidelines are to be used to place
classes and camps into one of the four Cost Recovery Groups.
Process:
1) Set a cost recovery range for each Cost Recovery Group, with minimum and target
recovery levels.
2) Evaluate and place each existing program in a Cost Recovery Group.
3) Determine guidelines to be used to place future new programming into a Cost Recovery
Group.
Parameters:
1) Apply to fee-based class and camp programs.
2) Generally, cost recovery for children’s programs will be less than adult programs.
3) Some programs may cost recover less than the minimum level. However, other
programs will need to make up for the difference.
4) Approximately 15% above Direct Costs covers Department Overhead, subject to
adjustment.
5) Approximately 35% above Direct Costs covers both Department and City Overhead, subject to
adjustment.
6) Other fee considerations should be taken into account, such as, but not limited to, market
pricing, competition from other service providers, new program being established, and
population served.
Cost Recovery Groups, Cost Recovery Minimum, and Cost Recovery Targets:
Group I: Community Benefit
• Cost Recovery Minimum: Less than Direct Cost
• Cost Recovery Target: Direct Cost
Group II: Majority Community benefit
• Cost Recovery Minimum: Direct Cost
• Cost Recovery Target: 115% Direct Cost
Group III: Equal Community and Personal Benefit
• Cost Recovery Minimum: 115% Direct Cost
• Cost Recovery Target: Up to 135% Direct Cost
Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit
• Cost Recovery Minimum: 135% Direct Cost
• Cost Recovery Target: 135% Direct Cost
Attachment B
Characteristics of Community Benefit vs. Personal Benefit programs
The four Cost Recovery Groups represent a cost recovery “spectrum”. Programs classified as
being of Community Benefit will cost recover less than programs classified as being of Personal
Benefit.
Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors,
determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four cost recovery
groups.
• Group I: Community Benefit
• Group II: Majority Community Benefit
• Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit
• Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit
Below are characteristics to define Community and Personal benefit, opposite ends of a cost
recovery “spectrum”. The opposite ends are represented by Group I and IV. As most programs
have aspects of both benefits, they are placed within the spectrum in either Group II or III.
Community Benefit Characteristics Personal Benefit Characteristics
Youth and Teen Development Leisure Time Experiences
Safety Financial Enhancement
Early Childhood Development Stress Reduction
Environmental Stewardship Mental / Physical Health for adults
Fitness/Healthy Lifestyle for youth Professional Development
Connecting / Involving People w/ Community Competitive Sports for adults
Service Back to Community Personal Enhancement
Encourages Volunteerism Weight Loss
Cultural Understanding Fitness for adults
Cross-Generational Understanding Fashion/Beauty/Personal Enhancement
Unique Experiences not provided by other
organizations
Classes already provided by other
organizations for adults
Life Skills for Self Independence Life-Long Learning
Diversity of Experience Skill Building
Community Policing – Public Involvement Social Networking / Contacts for
personal gain
Sustaining our Resources
Attachment B
Attachment D
CSD DEPARTMENT WIDE TOTAL
Resident %
when
available or
applicable
Non‐Resident %
when available or
applicable
Number of classes and camps offered Adult 203
Child 582
Total 785
Enrollments in classes and camps Adult 2,688 76%24%
Child 12,062 90%10%
Total 14,750 89%11%
ARTS &SCIENCES DIVISION
Children's Theatre:
▪Show Attendance 27,907
▪Show Participants 1,087
Community Theatre:
▪Show Attendance 45,635
▪Number of Performances 175
▪Enrollments in Music and Dance 941
Jr. Museum & Zoo:
▪Enrollments in classes and camps 2,575 87%13%
▪School Outreach Classes ‐ Est. # of Children 9,701
Art Center:
▪Total Attendance 62,055
▪Exhibition Visitors 29,717
OPEN SPACE, PARKS, GOLF
▪Total visitors at Foothills Park 171,413
▪Hours of Athletic Field Use 44,226
▪Gardening Program Participants 292 100% 0%
▪Rounds of Golf 65,653 12% 88%
RECREATION CLASS ENROLLMENTS
▪Dance 886
▪Aquatics 196
▪Middle School Athletics 1,455 95%5%
▪Private Tennis Lessons 240
▪Other Recreation 3,532
CUBBERLEY
▪Total Number of Hours Rented 29,282
▪Total Number of Rental Bookings 9,348 92%8%
Community Services Department (CSD) Recreational Activities Participant Data
Fiscal Year 2012
Page 1 of 2
Attachment B
Attachment D
City Location Room Sq. Ft. Resident Non-Resident
Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Ballroom 2,800 $152/hr $228/hr
Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Sequoia 2,378 $125 - $170/hr $170 - $230/hr
Mountain View Senior Center Social Hall $115 - $231/hr $289 - $405/hr
Mountain View Community Center Auditorium $114 - $120/hr $182 - $197/hr
Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Community Room 1,125 $110/hr $165/hr
Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Juniper 1,085 $55 - $75/hr $75 - $100/hr
Mountain View Senior Center Multi A $75 - $150/hr $174 - $289/hr
Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Fireside Room 650 $88/hr $132/hr
Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Willow 680 $35 - $50/hr $50 - $70/hr
Mountain View Senior Center Multi B $23.25 - $46/hr $93 - $127/hr
Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Patio 6,300 $90/hr $135/hr
Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Large Patio $125 - $170/hr $170 - $230/hr
Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Kitchen $32/hr $48/hr
Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Kitchen 480 $25 - $40/hr $50 - $70/hr
Palo Alto Cubberley Center Dance Studio 1,650 $47/hr $47/hr
Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Maple Dance Studio 2,030 $75 - $100/hr $100 - $135/hr
Mountain View Community Center Room 3 (Dance) $38 - $48.50/hr $113 - $131/hr
Palo Alto Cubberley Center Gymnasium A $92/hr $92/hr
Palo Alto Cubberley Center Gymnasium B $110/hr $110/hr
Menlo Park Onetta Harris Center Gymnasium 6,732 $59/hr $76/hr
Mountain View MV Sports Pavilion Gymnasium $110/hr $139/hr
Mountain View Whisman Sports Center Gymnasium $110/hr $139/hr
Palo Alto Rinconada & Mitchell Parks Group Picnic Sites $43 - $119/day Not Available
Menlo Park Various Parks Group Picnic Sites $5/hr $10/hr
Mountain View Various Parks Group Picnic Sites $103/day Not Available
Youth All others
Palo Alto Various locations Athletic Fields $3 - $27/hr $46 - $216/hr
Menlo Park Various locations Athletic Fields $8 - $34/hr $22 - $100/hr
Mountain View Various locations Athletic Fields $2/hr $25 - $88/hr
Facility Rental Rates Comparison (Fiscal Year 2013)
Page 2 of 2
Attachment B