CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Meeting Date: November 14, 2000
Subject/Title: Cost Allocation Plan & Framework for Fees
Submitted by: Finance Department (P Ehler)
Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager
Approve a Resolution adopting the 2000/2001 Cost Allocation Plan, adopting
the DMG-Maximus report for computing fees for City Services and revising the
City’s Service Fees.
In December 1994, the Cost Allocation Plan/User Fee Study prepared by Ralph
Anderson & Associates was presented to City Council for adoption and implementation.
The Cost Allocation Plan was adopted February 24, 1998 for fiscal year 1997/98.
On November 10, 1998, the Cost Allocation Plan/User Fee Study prepared by DMG-Maximus
was adopted and approved for implementation by the City Council.
State law requires that fees be reasonably related to the actual cost of providing
the service. The purpose of a Cost Allocation Plan is to conform to state law
and to have a method to recover direct and indirect costs associated with providing
services and establish a framework for computing fees and charges. The Cost
Allocation Plan computes two overhead factors, departmental and City-Wide,
both of which are applied against direct costs to determine the total cost
of providing a given unit of service. Departmental and City-Wide overhead factors
are based on the distribution of expenditure categories including personnel,
operating and ongoing capital costs.
In April of 2000, the City contracted with DMG-Maximus to update current City
fees and charges. DMG-Maximus worked with City staff from each department to
develop a system for updating the fee-for-service charges. City staff provided
information relating to the actual time it takes to produce or complete each
user fee or permit service. The hourly rate calculations were applied to the
actual time estimates to come up with a total cost of providing each user fee
activity. The total costs were then compared to the current fees to yield an
over or under-recovery of costs so that the fees could be adjusted to meet
the City policy level.
A Model was developed to calculate these fees. The City reviews and updates
the fees and charges on an annual basis. Fees are proposed to be adjusted at
the beginning of each fiscal year by the annual changes to the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). DMG-Maximus recommends that the overall time estimates be reviewed/revised
every three to five years.
Cost Allocation Plan
Cost Recovery Study
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADOPTING THE 2000/01
COST ALLOCATION PLAN, ADOPTING THE DMG-MAXIMUS REPORT FOR COMPUTING FEES FOR
CITY SERVICES AND REVISING THE CITY’S SERVICE FEES
WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65104, 65909.5, 66014 and 66451.2
allow the City to establish fees to offset the City’s administrative
costs in processing permits, licenses, subdivision maps and entitlements;
WHEREAS, Brentwood Municipal Code § 17.800 requires payment of
such processing fees in conjunction with any application submitted for
permits, licenses, subdivision maps and entitlements; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1998 the City Council previously adopted
Resolution No. 98-195 on November 10, 1998 to establish processing fees,
which is now outdated; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2000, the City Council adopted the 2000 -
2005 Capital Improvement Program which is an integral part of the overall
system of public facility development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has periodically revised development
impact fees for public facilities, including the most recent revisions
contained in Resolutions 99-179 adopted on July 27, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City has compiled certain Cost Allocation Plans,
the most recent of which was adopted November 10, 1998, to compare direct
and indirect administrative costs in providing various services to the
WHEREAS, the City retained DMG-Maximus to work with City staff
to review the City’s Cost Allocation Plan and processing fees; and
WHEREAS, City staff and DMG-Maximus researched and developed the
Cost Allocation Plan and City Fees, Fiscal Year 2000/01 report, which
develops a model for computing fees to cover the City’s direct and indirect
(overhead) administrative costs incurred in response to requests for
permits, maps, licenses and entitlements, and which proposes a revised
schedule of such fees; and
WHEREAS, the Report and supporting data were available for public
inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been noticed and held in accordance
with Government Code Section 66018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information provided
to it by those testifying, and has reviewed and considered the information
provided in the staff report and staff presentation and has read and
considered the Report and supporting data.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
Section 1. Findings:
The Council makes each of the following findings:
A. The purpose of the processing fees is to support those City services which
are undertaken as a direct or indirect result of members of the public using
the services of the City, in particular the services of permits, licenses,
subdivision maps and entitlements.
B. After considering the Report and supporting data and the testimony received
at this public hearing, the Council approves and adopts the 2000-01 Cost Allocation
Plan and the Report, and incorporates them herein, and further finds that future
development in the City of Brentwood will generate a continued need for the
services specified in the Report.
C. The Report and the testimony establish:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and
the type of service for which the fee is imposed; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the estimated reasonable cost of providing the type of service for which the
fee is imposed; and
3. The amount of service provided does not exceed what is reasonably necessary
in order to process the requested service;
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the 2000-01 Cost Allocation Plan and
the Report are reasonable and best approximate the direct and indirect (overhead)
costs of City staff and consultants for providing the necessary service to
respond to the public’s requests
D. The method of allocating the City’s administrative costs of processing service
bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each member of the public’s burden
on, and benefit from, the services requested by that member.
E. The fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service
for which the fee is charged.
Section 2. Fees Imposed:
A. Each person requesting a service in the City of Brentwood for which a fee
is imposed pursuant to the Report shall pay the processing fee set forth in
B. On July 1 of each year, the fees shall be automatically adjusted by an amount
equal to the percentage of increase or decrease in the consumer price index
for this region, as last computed before the July 1 date.
C. The fees may also be adjusted if the City updates or modifies the Cost Allocation
Plan or the Report and conducts a public hearing to implement a new or revised
fee or fees based upon such update or modification.
D. The applicable fee shall be determined on the basis of the fee schedule
in effect at the time the application is submitted to the City for the requested
service. The fee shall be payable in full at the time the application is submitted.
E. The adoption of this Resolution does not affect the ability of the City
to request an agreement between the applicant and the City to pay extraordinary
processing costs and to establish deposit accounts.
F. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the fee for copying public
records requested by a member of the public, shall not exceed the direct costs
Section 3. Fee Adjustment or Waiver or Reimbursement:
A person subject to the fee imposed pursuant to this Resolution may apply to
the City Council for adjustment to that fee, or a waiver of that fee, or reimbursement
of part or all of the fee, solely by following the written protest procedure
in the time and manner provided by Government Code Section 66020 and detailing
the reasons for the adjustment, waiver or reimbursement.
A. A person subject to the fees imposed pursuant to this Resolution that desires
an adjustment or waiver of such fees shall follow the protest procedure contained
in Government Code Section 66020 (as may be amended), and within the time frame
set forth in subsection (d) thereof (as may be amended) or risk the loss of
the legal ability to request such adjustment or waiver. In no event shall the
City waive its right to rely on other applicable limitations periods, including
without limitation those set forth in Government Code Section 66022 (as may
B. A person may apply to the City Council for an adjustment to the fees by
filing an application with the City Clerk. The application shall be made in
writing and must identify the reasons why the City’s processing fees should
be adjusted. At a minimum, the reasons should explain why a reasonable relationship
is lacking between the service provided by the City, the costs incurred by
the City for such service and the fees imposed by the City for such service.
C. The application shall be filed with the City Clerk no later than the deadline
for filing protests as mentioned in subpart A. above. The City Clerk will present
the application to the City’s Finance Director or designee.
D. The City’s Finance Director, or designee, shall make a written determination
on the application. The City’s Finance Director, or designee, may authorize
an adjustment so long as the adjustment does not exceed Ten Percent of the
total amount of fees sought to be imposed by the City. Recommendations by the
City’s Finance Director, or designee, for adjustments in excess of Ten Percent
will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. The method and
timing of implementing the adjustment is subject to the discretion of the City’s
Finance Director (or designee) or City Council where applicable.
E. Any adjustment granted is limited to the project as proposed. If there is
any change in the project, the fee adjustment is suspended so that the City’s
Finance Director, or City Council where applicable, may re-evaluate where the
adjustment is still appropriate.
F. Decisions of the City’s Finance Director, or designee, are subject to appeal
to the City Council so long as such appeal is made in writing and within 10
days of the decision.
Section 4. Use of Fee Revenues:
The revenues raised by payment of these fees, along with any interest earned,
shall be used to pay for the City’s administrative costs spelled out in the
Report, including without limitation the capital costs and labor and contract
costs directly or indirectly associated with providing the requested service.
Section 5. Subsequent Analysis of the Fees:
The fees established herein are adopted and implemented by the Council in reliance
on the comprehensive studies that have been prepared by the City and consultants
to the City. During the coming years, the City will continue to gather additional
information that may affect the nature, scope and type of services to be provided
in response to requests of the public. Notwithstanding any term or condition
of any permit, subdivision map, license or entitlement granted by the City,
it is existing policy that the City Council may revise the fees to incorporate
the findings and conclusions of further studies, as well as increases due to
inflation, and that such revisions shall apply to any prior approved projects,
as well as new projects.
Section 6. Effective Date of Revised Fees:
The fees shall be effective sixty (60) days after the adoption of this Resolution;
provided, however, that, upon enactment of this Resolution, any person may
pay the revised fees instead of the current fees.
Section 7. Severability:
Each component of the fees and all portions of this Resolution are severable.
Should any individual component of the fee or other provision of this Resolution
be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall
be and continue to be fully effective, and the fee shall be fully effective
except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid.
Section 8. Repeal of Inconsistent Resolutions
Resolution No. 94-15 is hereby repealed.
Section 9. Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
The City Council finds that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of this Resolution,
pursuant to Sections 15061 and 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines because:
A. The fees established by this Resolution will be collected for the purposes
of meeting operational expenses and maintaining service to those that request
B. Because the fees authorized by this Resolution will be collected at the
application stage of the project, CEQA review will take place during the processing
of the project. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the adoption
of this Resolution establishing processing fees will not have a significant
effect on the environment.
Section 10. Statute of Limitations:
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul
the fees established by this Resolution, or the Resolution itself, shall be
commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the passage of this Resolution.
Any action to attack an adjustment adopted pursuant to Sections 2 or 5 shall
be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the adjustment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood
at a regular meeting held November 14, 2000 by the following vote: