City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration

2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City Council Members | Calendar of Events | Elections
eNotification | Sub-Committees| Pledge of Allegiance Sign Ups | Invocation Sign Up
Live Streaming Council Meeting | Streaming PC Help |
Streaming Mac Help |

Current Council Agenda and Past Meeting Information

Past Agendas


Meeting Date: August 26, 2003

Subject/Title: Approve a resolution adopting the 2003/04 Cost Allocation Plan & Schedule of City Fees

Submitted by: Pamela Ehler, Director of Finance & Information Systems

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager

Approve a Resolution adopting the 2003/2004 Cost Allocation Plan, and revising the City’s Service Fees.

In April of 2000 the City contracted with DMG-Maximus to update current City fees & charges. DMG-Maximus worked with City staff in Community Development, Engineering, Parks & Recreation, and Police in order to develop a system for updating the fee-for-service charges provided by these departments. 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. Fees can then be adjusted up or down to equal cost. A Model was developed to calculate these fees. This model is updated annually.

On November 14, 2000, by Resolution No. 2198 the City Council adopted the DMG-Maximus Report for computing fees for City services and revising the City services fees.

On August 13, 2002, by Resolution No. 2643, the City Council adopted the 2002/2003 Cost Allocation Plan and revised the City’s Service Fees.

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 as outlined below:

Departmental and Other
Overhead Factors
Community Development 51.27%
Engineering 60.92%
Public Works 133.11%
Parks and Recreation 111.27%
Police 38.72%
Redevelopment Agency 66.88%
Other City-wide 31.69%

Fee Changes:
• The Planning division has added a special studies fee in order to recover costs associated with outsourcing the performing of traffic, geographical and archeological types of studies. A fee has been added for the consultant preparation of a mitigated negative declaration. The fee for both is consultant cost plus 25% for City administration.

• The Police department special event response fee has been broken down into two categories. A fee for non-profit organizations, which does not include overhead and a fee for profit organizations, which does include overhead.

• Police civil subpoena fees are charged at a four-hour minimum.

• The administrative fees section includes the addition of a $10.00 fee for the purchase of compact discs. The election binder deposit fee of $10.00 has been eliminated.

• The Development fee program has only been updated to reflect the increase in Diablo Water District Fee at this time. The balance of the program fees are being analyzed and will be brought back for Council approval at a later date.

• The East County Transportation Improvement Authority fees have been updated to reflect the fees effective January 2003, which included administration that were adopted by the Authority.

• Parks and Recreation, Water and Wastewater fees have been updated to reflect the rate studies that were approved by Council.

• Solid Waste rates have been updated to include the disposal of propane tanks, stoves, printers, computer monitors and CPU’s.

• Rates have been added in Park and Recreation fees for open gym, youth dance, martial arts, yoga and pilates classes.

• Rental deposit rates for the Community Center have been increased for the Multi-purpose and Blue rooms to ensure adequate deposits for damage and extra cleaning if needed.

• The Business Tax has been updated to reflect the new ordinance passed by the voters in November 2002 (Measure D). The penalty fee has been changed to include a $30.00 minimum.

• On August 26, 2003, the Arts Commission is recommending the establishment of an ordinance that would require the inclusion of art in public capital projects, private construction and development projects. A Public Arts section, which lists the fee included in the aforementioned ordinance, has been added to the cost allocation plan.

• Rent at the Education and Technology Center of $3.48 per square foot had not been previously listed in the Cost Allocation Plan. It is now listed in the plan and has increased $3.50 per square foot. This amount will increase by the CPI each year.

• The Building section has some format changes clarification purposes. For example, the building valuation section has been split into two: A building valuation schedule and a miscellaneous and flat fee schedule. In addition, the fees that are directly associated with a rate per hour have the numbers of hours listed.

• Pools and Spas have been broken out by type and are now listed in the miscellaneous and flat fee schedule.

• The sprinkler system valuation now differentiates between residential and commercial. The residential value is $1.25 per square foot and the commercial value is $1.90 per square foot.

• Construction water fee was $2.00 per 1,000 square foot. Single family dwellings are now a flat rate of $49.97 and multi-family dwellings are a flat rate of $20.20. Non-residential rates are $2.56 per square foot.

• Previously, water softener and/or RO system installation was not included in the cost allocation plan, it has been added to the plumbing fees.

The City will review and update these 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). This year’s Consumer Price Index was 2.3%. DMG-Maximus recommends that the overall time estimates be reviewed/revised every three to five years.

Unknown at this time, however, fiscal impact will be reflected at reviews given to Council every quarter.

• Resolution
• 2003/04 Cost Allocation Plan



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; and

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 to establish processing fees, which is now outdated; and

WHEREAS, On November 14, 2000, by Resolution No. 2198 the City Council adopted the DMG-Maximus Report for computing fees for City services and revising the City services fees.

WHEREAS, on May 27, 2003, the City Council adopted the 2003/04 – 2007/08 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 Resolution 2643 adopted on August 13, 2002; and

WHEREAS, the City has compiled certain Cost Allocation Plans, the most recent of which was adopted August 13, 2002, to compare direct and indirect administrative costs in providing various services to the community; and

WHEREAS, City Finance Department researched and developed the Cost Allocation Plan and City Fees, Fiscal Year 2003/04 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; and

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.


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 2003/04 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 2003/04 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 the Report.

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 of duplication.

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 be amended).

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. 2366 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 it; and

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 August 26, 2003 by the following vote:


Brian Swisher


Karen Diaz, CMC
City Clerk/Director of Administrative Services

City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441