Agenda packet — Atherton City Council, December 6, 2023

AGENDA PACKET
Town of Atherton
City Council
DECEMBER 06, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
4:00 PM
Council Chambers
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Join Zoom Meeting:

One tap mobile: 16699006833,,97102770195#
US (San Jose)
Dial by your location: 1 669 900 6833 US (San
Jose)
Meeting ID: 971 0277 0195
Weblink: https://ciathertonca.zoom.us/j/97102770195
Remote Public Comments:

Meeting participants are encouraged to submit
public comments in writing in advance of the
meeting. The following email will be monitored
during the meeting and documented for the record.

Email: [email protected]
This Agenda may not reflect the actual order of items. The order of items is subject to change based on Council action.

SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL – Holland, DeGolia, Lewis, Vice Mayor HawkinsManuelian, Mayor Widmer PUBLIC COMMENT – Public Comments can be emailed directly to [email protected]
As a Special Meeting, Public Comment is limited to items that are on the Agenda. Speakers’ time is limited to three minutes. Speakers may also speak when the item comes up on the Agenda during the meeting.

PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION ELIZABETH BETSY GLIKBARG
ACTION ITEMS

1. AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MADEMOISELLE COLETTE TO ADJUST THE RENT DEFERRAL PERIOD FOR THE CAFÉ AT THE LIBRARY Report: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council consider an amendment to the current lease agreement with Mademoiselle Colette, Inc., for the café located at the Atherton Library in the Historic Town Hall building, extending the initial rent deferral period; authorize the City Attorney to prepare the lease amendment; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

Description: This item will involve a Council action to consider a modification to the lease agreement between the Town and Mademoiselle Collette, Inc.

STUDY SESSION
Meeting Agenda Packet – December 06, 2023

Page 1 of 89 ends

Description: This item will involve a Council action to consider a modification to the lease agreement between the Town and Mademoiselle Collette, Inc.

STUDY SESSION

2. PRESENTATION, REVIEW AND DISCUSSION USER FEE STUDY COST ALLOCATION, IF APPROPRIATE PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MASTER FEE

SCHEDULE
Report: ROBERT BARRON III, FINANCE DIRECTOR
Recommendation: Presentation, review, and discussion on the User Fee Study prepared by Capital Accounting Partners. If appropriate provide directions on the proposed master fee schedule.

Description: This will involve a Council discussion related to the User Fee Study conducted by the Finance Department.

COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMENTS

ADJOURN
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

If you challenge a Town zoning, planning, or any other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior to, the public hearing. Judicial review of any Town administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period.

Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection by 5:00 p.m. the Friday before each regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 7520500. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (29 CRF

35.104 ADA Title II)
AB 2449 & AB 361:

Page 2 of 89 ends

35.104 ADA Title II)
AB 2449 & AB 361:

AB 2449 reiterates standard Brown Act teleconference rules, recodifies the rules set out in AB 361 for times of declared emergency, and also provides for relaxed teleconferencing rules when a member of the legislative body needs to attend remotely for an emergency, or other reasons supported by “just cause.”
Teleconference Rules Available January 1, 2023
A legislative body may hold a “hybrid” (partial teleconference, partial inperson) meeting without having to comply with certain procedural requirements (post agendas at teleconference locations, identify teleconference locations in the agenda, make all teleconference locations open to the public) in the following limited circumstances:

One or more members of the legislative body (but less than a quorum) have “just cause” for not attending the meeting in person (childcare or family caregiving need, contagious illness, physical or mental disability need, or travel while on official public business); or One or more members of the legislative body (but less than a quorum) experience an “emergency circumstance” (a physical or family medical emergency that prevents inperson attendance).

The legislative body will continue to have the option to meet via teleconference by following traditional Brown Act rules of identifying, posting, and opening up their teleconference locations.

Meeting Agenda Packet – December 06, 2023

Page 3 of 89 ends

Mayor Widmer ● Vice Mayor Hawkins-Manuelian ● Councilmember DeGolia ● Councilmember Holland ● Councilmember Lewis Town of Atherton

Proclamation
IN RECOGNITION OF ELIZABETH GLIKBARG’S 50 YEARS OF

SERVICE AS CHAIR OF THE MENLO CHARITY HORSE
SHOW
WHEREAS, the Menlo Charity Horse Show began 50 years ago with Elizabeth “Betsy” Glikbarg co-chairing; and
WHEREAS, the Menlo Charity Show was so successful the Menlo Circus Club decided to continue it on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, under Betsy’s leadership and the support of many others, the Menlo Charity Horse Show which began as a way to raise funds to repair the stables was so successful it rose to national prominence; and
WHEREAS, the Menlo Charity Horse Show has attained national recognition becoming a United States Equestrian Federation Heritage Horse show; and
WHEREAS, the Menlo Charity Horse Show has been inducted into the National Horse Show Hall of Fame and has funded the refurbishment of the Equestrian Center at the Club; and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the show now go to assist the Vista Center for the Blind and Visually impaired; and
WHEREAS, the Club has recently dedicated the Equestrian Center and barn to Betsy for her continued devotion and work on the annual horse show from inception through the last 50 years; and
NOW, THEREFORE, as Mayor of the Town of Atherton, and on behalf of the Atherton City Council, I hereby recognize an outstanding citizen of Atherton, Elizabeth “Betsy” Glikbarg for her tireless work in organizing this event and bringing thousands of visitors and world class equestrians to Town.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of the Town of Atherton
to be affixed this 6th day of December 2023.

____________________________
Bill Widmer, Mayor
Town of Atherton

Page 4 of 89 ends

Item No. 1
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – ACTION ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH

MADEMOISELLE COLETTE TO ADJUST THE RENT
DEFERRAL PERIOD FOR THE CAFÉ AT THE LIBRARY

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council consider an amendment to the current lease agreement with Mademoiselle Colette, Inc., for the café located at the Atherton Library in the Historic Town Hall building, extending the initial rent deferral period; authorize the City Attorney to prepare the lease amendment; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

BACKGROUND
Following completion of the new Town Center and Library complex, the Town entered into a lease agreement with Mademoiselle Collette, Inc., for a new café at the Atherton Library, in the Historic Town Hall Building. The lease agreement commenced on July 1, 2023, with an initial term of five (5) years, extendable for one (1) additional five (5) year term upon mutual agreement. Monthly rent is set at 4% of gross receipts generated in the previous month of operations, capped at $35,000 annually during the initial lease term. In consideration of the cost of tenant improvements, time to complete the improvements and allow for operational startup, the tenant’s rent obligation was deferred, with a commencement date of July 1, 2023.

Due to various issues, related to obtaining a contractor and delays in completing construction, the café did not open until September 24, 2023.

ANALYSIS
On October 11, 2023, following opening of the café, the City Manager received email correspondence from Debora Ferrand, CEO of Mademoiselle Colette, Inc., requesting an extension of the rent deferral period through March 2024, along with assistance with getting the word out regarding the opening of the cafe.

Page 5 of 89 ends

Mademoiselle Colette Lease Amendment
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

7 0
5 The email advised that they had hit a number of operational issues which prevented them from opening on-time and that the cost of completing the tenant improvements were 100% over budget.

Though there is positive feedback regarding the café and its offerings, business has been slower than expected. Additionally, there is a concern regarding the coming winter and potential sales drop with lack of indoor seating.

The request is intended to assist in making up for lost time in opening the café and in setting the café on a more stable starting foundation to maintain operations and is supported by staff. If approved, rent payments would commence on May 1, 2024, based on revenue generated in April 2024.

Staff has already addressed the issue of an address and additional advertising via Town channels.

However, the Council may also wish to discuss with Ms. Ferrand any other areas, to include but not be limited to, hours of operation, status of liquor license, and winter operations.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is limited fiscal impact as rent is 4% of the café’s prior month’s receipts.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area B – Preserve Small Town Character and Quality of Life • Goal Area C – Create and Expand the Town Center/Library

POLICY FOCUS
The Town Council discussion should focus on the desire to support the café at the Town Center during its initial months of operation as was intended with the lease agreement.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

Page 6 of 89 ends

Mademoiselle Colette Lease Amendment
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

7 0
5 ATTACHMENTS

1. Mademoiselle Colette Rent Deferral Request

2. Lease Agreement

Page 7 of 89 ends

On Oct 11, 2023, at 2:59 PM, debora ferrand wrote:
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
To: George Rodericks
City Manager,
Town of Atherton
Dear Mr Rodericks:

I am hereby seeking the approval by the Council of Atherton to amend the terms of the contract that ties Mademoiselle Colette to the Town of Atherton.

I would first like to state that, as the CEO of Mademoiselle Colette, I am thrilled to have been selected as the company that can deliver on premise premium Food for the employees and visitors of the Town facilities.

While we are off to a slow start, we have been hit by a number of operational issues which have prevented our little business from opening on time. While I could get into the details of why this happened, let me just share with you that the costs involved in the construction have shot up 100% above budget. In addition, while the feedback we have received from customers has been so far very good, the ramp has been slower than expected (probably due to the time it takes for people to realize we are open now but also due the seasonality as well). Last, with the winter coming, and given the fact that we have no place where people can sit inside, we believe that our sales will be severely impacted.

For all these reasons, I would very much appreciate if you and the Council could consider the following three requests:
- An extension of the free rent until the end of March 2024. - Some more Press within the Town of Atherton residents. - Ensure that we have a physical address (people can't find us on GoogleMaps) These would go a long way to keep our business floating. As you hopefully can attest, we have invested a lot in this place, mostly because we wanted to deliver a "special" experience. I have personally spent countless hours and feel very proud of the result. I can tell you that your constituents that have experienced our Pastry/Bakery have been raving about it and are quite happy. I believe we are creating something special here.

I hope you can revert back to me with some positive news on my requests, Sincerely yours,
Debora
--
Débora Ferrand
CEO Mademoiselle Colette, Inc

Page 8 of 89 ends

Page 9 of 89 ends

Page 10 of 89 ends

Page 11 of 89 ends

Page 12 of 89 ends

Page 13 of 89 ends

Page 14 of 89 ends

Page 15 of 89 ends

Page 16 of 89 ends

Page 17 of 89 ends

Page 18 of 89 ends

Page 19 of 89 ends

Page 20 of 89 ends

Page 21 of 89 ends

Page 22 of 89 ends

Page 23 of 89 ends

Page 24 of 89 ends

Page 25 of 89 ends

Page 26 of 89 ends

Page 27 of 89 ends

Page 28 of 89 ends

Page 29 of 89 ends

Page 30 of 89 ends

Page 31 of 89 ends

Page 32 of 89 ends

Page 33 of 89 ends

Item No. 2
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – STUDY SESSION
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT BARRON III, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION, REVIEW AND DISCUSSION USER FEE STUDY

COST ALLOCATION, IF APPROPRIATE PROVIDE DIRECTION

ON MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDATION
Presentation, review, and discussion on the User Fee Study prepared by Capital Accounting Partners. If appropriate provide directions on proposed master fee schedule.

BACKGROUND
The Town last performed a User Fee Study Cost Allocation Plan in 2013. Since then, the Town has only increased user fees by CPI index in 2020 and 2022 to reflect accumulated CPI adjustments. During those times, no changes were made to valuation-driven fees or flat fees for Building and Plan check fees. The Building Permit and Plan Check remained constant since 2013.

The Town engaged the services of Capital Accounting Partners to prepare a User Fee Study. The results of the Study will inform updates to the Town’s Master Fee Schedule and the development of new fees. The Master Fee Schedule includes all fees charged by all Town Departments. Most fees are set at full cost recovery. If the fees are not consistently updated, this will often result in a greater need for the Town’s General Fund to support private development services. The Town had planned to complete a User Fee Study in 2018; however, with the new Town Center nearing construction, the Town opted to hold off on completing the Study until after the Town Center was completed to allow a full assessment of overall overhead costs.

When imposing a fee, the Town must establish the full cost of services and cannot assess a fee that exceeds the cost of providing the service. Identifying the cost components of providing the services is important in establishing the fees and rates of cost recovery and to get to that number, a User Fee Study is required (Proposition 26).

Page 34 of 89 ends

User Fee Study
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 2 of 7 ends

FINDINGS
Dan Edds of Capital Accounting Partners met with individual departments to assess the full cost associated with the services provided. This included discussion with staff to understand each task provided at an operational level and identifying the tasks involved in the core business processes used to provide services. Planning and Building services, for example, entail pre-application review, application intake, plan check, and inspection. Core to the process is understanding the time estimates for direct and indirect processes for service delivery. The time estimates are assigned to each step and the sum is the total time required to provide the specific development service.

Cost Recovery of Services
The fee analyses in the User Fee Study are based on full cost recovery. Provided in the Appendices of the report is a comparison of the total assigned cost of service per fee and the actual fees being charged. The result is either a unit surcharge or (subsidy). For services provided by the Town for which fees are set below cost recovery, services are subsidized by the Town’s General Fund or other funding sources. Setting fees at full cost recovery is to recover the cost of services provided to those who receive a private/individual benefit. Most of the fees in the Master Fee schedule are for specific services where they are user fees specific to an individual or group that benefits from the use. These are often regulated activities that call for compliance with government codes and include development reviews, building permits, and encroachment permits. In this instance cost recovery is appropriate. The Town currently provides Development Services that include services from Engineering, Planning, and Building departments. These services support and regulate private Town development. They are high-demand services, and the cost recovery goal should be close to 100 percent. The requirement that private development pay 100% of the cost of development services is a policy practice for municipal government.

Agencies also adopt policies that do not charge for full cost recovery but set fees for compliance, level of demand, and the public-private benefits of the service. In reviewing the Fee Study, the City Council can identify areas for cost recovery as well as areas where the Town wishes to encourage compliance. For example, Planning service fees are typically incurred only when the applicant files a project application. There are no fees associated with discussions with planners at the public counter to discuss what is necessary for project development. The Town pays the cost of this service directly.

The Town could set fees at full cost recovery or tiers for cost recovery at low, medium, or highcost recovery. Recovery levels can be used to assist in identifying targets for cost recovery. The policy framework could look like the following based on a percentage:
• Low-Cost Recovery- (Policy Percentage 0-30%)
• Medium Cost Recovery (Policy Percentage 30-70%)
• High-Cost Recovery (70-100% development programs such as planning, building, and engineering)

Page 35 of 89 ends

User Fee Study
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 3 of 7 ends

Or the Town could set fees based on a Tier type benefit:

Tier Type Cost Recovery
Private Benefit Fees that will achieve 75% to 100% Cost recovery for services that primarily provide
benefit to the property owner and place
considerable time and demand on staff.

Private & Public Benefit Fees that will achieve 50% cost recovery for services that generally provide an equal benefit
to the property owner and to the community.

Public Benefit Fees that will achieve less than 50% cost recovery to encourage compliance with
Town’s codes, regulations, and policies.

Building Department
The Building Department is responsible for making sure all new construction and building alterations meet Municipal Building Codes, and State of California Building Codes. The Town maintains a professional services contract with Interwest. They have provided our building development services since 2011 and have maintained the same level of fee share. Interwest has held their rate base constant since 2013. To assess the true cost of services, the User Fee Study used the current costs for service to provide building services for plan check, inspection, and counter services.

The base building permit fee is valuation-driven and is based on a per square foot calculation. As was discussed in the Study, there are multiple options for calculating a value. The Town utilizes an established value or cost per square foot within a valuation model. This value of cost per square foot has not been adjusted since 2013.

The Use Fee Study reveals that the current Building revenue fees show a subsidy when compared to the actual cost of services. This demonstrates that based on the cost of building services, there is a shortfall of $785,465 in building fee revenue. The Study advises that the valuation-based fees must increase by 45.6% - raising the base value from $350 per square foot to $509. This amount per square foot does not represent actual construction but is only a multiplier for establishing the final fee. Based on the valuation table there will be valuation permits that are less in value. For the smaller valuation permits, it was suggested that a minimum permit fee of $168 be added as a building permit fee. This would cover the processing of a permit. There are building permits that are flat fee permits which require review and processing of plans, permits and inspections. They differ in complexity but are required to ensure the Municipal and Building codes are adhered to.

Some of these include Heritage Tree removal permits, landscape screening permit fee, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical permits. Below are Building Department samples of flat fees and comparison example if set at cost recovery of 90%.

Page 36 of 89 ends

User Fee Study
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 4 of 7 ends

Building Department Samples of Flat Fees
Flats Fees Total Cost Assigned 90% Cost Recovery
Swimming Pool (over 1000sf) $2,542 $2,287
Patio Covers & Gazebos (up to 1000sf) $1,563 $1,407
Non inhabitable Pool house $2,525 $2,273
Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical $301 $271
Landscape Screening Permit Fee $654 $587
Heritage Tree Removal (First Tree) $716 $644
Planning Department
As was discussed in the report, the current costs for planning personnel are higher than the prior vendor and include increased planning support process requirements. During the Study, Capital Accounting Partners analyzed planning review processes and counter hour estimates, and these led to some updates in the fee calculations and new planning fee types. In the prior fee study, planning fees were not set to full cost recovery. They were set lower to address customer service hours provided to applicants as part of the process, to encourage compliance with Town’s Codes and regulation policies. However, over the last ten years there have been substantial changes to land use regulations, State mandated processing requirements and other new laws that have made the planning process more complex.

Revenue at current fees shows a subsidy when compared to the full cost of services. The Fee Study indicates that based on full cost of planning services, there is a subsidy of $927,753 in the planning fee revenue. The Town could elect to set Planning fees below cost recovery for compliance and counter hours; however, staff recommends that fees be set as percentage of not less than 80 percent or at a tier structure as presented above. Below are Planning fee samples of Initial Reviews.

Planning Samples of Initial Reviews
Initial Review Total Cost Assigned 80% Cost Recovery
Fence $986 $789
Accessory Structure (including pools) $1,198 $958
Accessory Buildings $1,251 $1,000
Additions $2,050 $1,640
New Construction $2,712 $2,170
As the Council reviews the report, discussion should also include policy choices related to the setting of fees. For example, Planning fees could be set at $0 for the processing of an ADU or JADU application where there is a deed-restriction; or Building permit fees can be set at $0 for solar installation. As part of the Study process, new fees were also identified related to the processing of new types of applications, such as an SB 9 application.

Engineering
The Engineering division works in tandem with the Building and Planning Departments. Their interaction stems from the protection and development of public infrastructure during the

Page 37 of 89 ends

User Fee Study
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 5 of 7 ends

development process. This includes preserving and maintaining the public right of way, drainage improvements, storm water, protecting and maintaining the Town’s heritage trees. Most of the fee types include encroachment permits, that also include grading and drainage review, and water detention systems.

Current engineering revenue at current fees shows a subsidy when compared to the full cost of services. The Fee Study indicates that based on the full cost of services to provide engineering development services, there is a subsidy of $114,756 in engineering fee revenue. Below are some engineering fee samples of encroachment permits and comparison example if set at cost recovery of 90%.

Encroachment Total Cost Assigned 90% Cost Recovery
Class B – Two Inspections Required Driveway
connect to street
$593 $534
Class C – Three or more Inspections Requiredwith Driveway culvert$875 $788 Class C – Three or more Inspections Requiredwith Driveway connection to street$875 $788 Class D- Public Right of Way Landscaping fence
etc. - minor
$522 $470
Class D- Public Right of Way Landscaping fence
etc.-standard
$593 $534
Class D- Public Right of Way -Utility Minor $451 $406
Class D- Public Right of Way -Utility connection
in pavement
$734 $660
The Study also identified a new fee for reviewing traffic control permits on projects. The need arose due to the number of construction projects and the necessity to ensure that traffic control measures were in place in the entirety of the encroachment permit process. Staff recommends a new permit for traffic control and based on the timeline of the projects.

New Permit -Traffic Control Total Cost Assigned
Traffic Control Permit (includes plan check & first week of inspection) Base Permit
$451
Traffic Control Inspection (each additional week) $141
Traffic Control Permit (for longer term) Inspection per month) $423 Police & Park Services Fees
Police services have a limited number of fees that were updated based on cost of services. Fees for market-driven services, such as rental of public spaces (Park or Town Hall) may be set independent of a cost analysis. Park fees are not set for update. Park rentals are slowly recovering from the pandemic protocols. They are reviewed periodically and are set based on market area trends.

Page 38 of 89 ends

User Fee Study
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 6 of 7 ends

Comparison Study/Recommendations
Within the Study is a comparative analysis of selected fees with five benchmark cities of Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Belmont, Hillsborough, and Belvedere. These cities are similar in size and represent similar demographics. A comparison study was provided to see if fees are reasonably aligned with similar cities. There is a note of caution in comparing fees and services as they may differ in policies for fee recovery and the service levels that are provided particularly in the development departments. The Town of Atherton has one of the quickest turnarounds in the plan check reviews. Other agencies may not update their fees regularly and may offer challenges in comparisons. There were selected comparative examples within building project costs, planning reviews, and engineering permit fees. The Atherton user fees reveal we are in similar alignment with benchmark cities.

The Council may wish to have the consultant add additional comparatives for information prior to adoption of any fee adjustments. Other communities may include Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood City, or Tiburon.

The Fee Study provides a comparative of the total assigned cost of service per fee and actual fees being charged. Staff is recommending user fees based on cost recovery in the master fee schedule.

This Study Session is an opportunity to clarify and answer any questions on the Fee Study. The master user fee schedules are in the Appendices of the Fee Study Report. The User Fee Study recommends updating fees through a CPI adjustment every year and conducting a thorough assessment of Town fees every 3 to 5 years.

The Council could also consider implementing fee adjustments incrementally. This would need to be done in a singular process. For example, the Council could direct an increase in fees to a set amount and direct that the increases be implemented in tranches – 50% in FY 2023/24 and 50% in FY 2024/25. Thereafter, fees could be adjusted via CPI.

POLICY ISSUES
The City Council’s policy discussion should revolve around ensuring the Town’s compliance with Proposition 26 which requires the Town’s fees to be set at or below full cost recovery.

FISCAL IMPACT
None. Any proposed fee adjustments would be incorporated into the Town’s Master Fee Schedule and would be reflected in the remainder of the FY 2023/24 anticipated revenues.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal Area A – Maintain Fiscal Responsibility

PUBLIC NOTICE

Page 39 of 89 ends

User Fee Study
DECEMBER 6, 2023

Page 7 of 7 ends

Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

ATTACHMENTS

1. User Fee Study

Page 40 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton,
California
User Fee Study Results
December 2023
Capital Accounting Partners, LLC
3570 Buena Vista Drive
Sacramento, CA 95864

Page 41 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners
Table of Contents
Project Scope ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Summary of Costing Methodologies – User Fee Study .............................................................................................4 Assuring Quality Results ....................................................................................................................................................6 User Fee Study Results............................................................................................................................................................8 Report Structure....................................................................................................................................................................8 Summary of Results..................................................................................................................................................................9 Development Services ........................................................................................................................................................9 Public Safety – Police Fees............................................................................................................................................. 16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Comparison Study.................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Comparison of Development Services Fees............................................................................................................ 20 Staff Productive Hourly Rates............................................................................................................................................ 23 Observations and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 25 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Page 42 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Hypothetical Example of a Planning Fee Calculation..............................................................................6 Figure 2 Calculating Quality ..................................................................................................................................7 Figure 3 Development Services Cost Recovery.....................................................................................................9 Figure 4 Revenue Requirements to Fulfill Town and Contractor Needs ............................................................10 Figure 5 Revenue Requirements By Fee Type ....................................................................................................10 Figure 6 Current Fee Calculation for a 10,000 SF Custom Home........................................................................11 Figure 7 Prosed Fee Calculation for a 10,000 SF Custom home .........................................................................11 Figure 8 Valuation Fee Table ..............................................................................................................................12 Figure 9 Net Planning Fee Revenue....................................................................................................................14 Figure 10 Total Cost Recovery from Engineering Fees .......................................................................................15 Figure 11 Annual Revenue Impacts for Police Fees............................................................................................16 Figure 12 Recreation Cost Recovery ...................................................................................................................17 Figure 13 Results of Comparison Study ..............................................................................................................19 Figure 14 Comparison of Selected Building Fees................................................................................................20 Figure 15 Comparison of a Custom Home..........................................................................................................21 Figure 16 Planning Comparison Graphic.............................................................................................................22 Figure 17 Engineering Fees Comparison.............................................................................................................22 Figure 18 Productive Hourly Rates .....................................................................................................................24

Page 43 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 3 ends

PROJECT SCOPE
The Town of Atherton engaged Capital Accounting Partners (CAP) to provide a comprehensive User Fee study. This project was in conjunction with preparing a Full Cost, Indirect Cost Allocation Plan. These projects aim to calculate the full cost of providing various Town fee-based services. By full cost, we mean:
• An allocated portion of Citywide indirect costs.
• An allocated portion of departmental administrative costs, where appropriate. • All labor expenses, and
• All non-labor costs, such as services and supplies.

The scope of the User Fee Study included four components:
1) Private Development:
• Building fees.
• Current Planning fees.
• Development Engineering fees.
2) Public Safety – Police fees.
3) Recreation Services.
4) Development of productive hourly rates for staff.

We especially want to thank the outstanding efforts of Town staff for their excellent contribution to this project.

Page 44 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 4 ends

SUMMARY OF COSTING
METHODOLOGIES – USER FEE STUDY
The methodology used to calculate the cost of user fees is based on developing a driver-based costing model. This is a detailed and robust method of calculating the cost of a specific service. The approach is based on activity-based costing principles, which calculate cost by assessing operational workflows.

Practically, this means it relies on understanding the time staff invests in core business processes to provide fee and non-fee services.

Project Steps and Process
Step 1: Collect Data – This first step involves discussions with staff to identify those positions within the department that provide and support direct services. It also consists in collecting departmental budget and expenditure data, identifying the salary and benefits for each position, and identifying non-personnel expenditures and any departmental and Citywide overhead. Specifically, the steps involve the following:
• Identifying staff positions – This includes aligning staff names and positions. • Calculating the number of productive hours – For each position, vacation time, sick leave, paid holidays, professional development (training), routine staff meetings, and daily work breaks are deducted from the standard 1950 annual hours. The result is a range of hours available for each position annually. This range is typically 1,500 to 1,600 hours. Factors influencing this range are length of service with the jurisdiction, local holidays, and personal leave time policies. However, for consistency, we used 1526.5 product hours per position. • Identifying and allocating non-personnel costs – Materials and supplies costs are allocated to each position's salary and benefits.
• Assigning any other expenses budgeted in other areas – There are often expenses that should be included with the total cost of services. Examples of such costs might include amortized capital expenses for vehicles and technology.
• Identifying core business processes or activities – This step also involves discussions with staff to understand, at an operational level, the work of the operating unit. The tasks involved identifying and defining core business processes used to provide services. • Direct processes and activities – Those processes that directly contribute to processing an application or permit are first identified. Examples of direct activity are building inspection, application intake, and pre-application review.
• Indirect processes and activities – These processes support but do not directly apply to processing a specific application or permit. An example of an indirect activity is customer service or staff

Page 45 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 5 ends

training to maintain certifications. Most jurisdictions highly value customer service, but assigning a specific unit of time to individual service would be impossible.

Step 2: Building cost structures – This second step involves significant interaction with staff and the development of time estimates for both direct and indirect processes in each department. Specifically, this step is at the core of the analysis. Four processes comprise this step:
• Gathering time estimates for direct processes – By interviewing staff in individual and group meetings, an estimate of time was assigned to each service by the indicated process. For example, for Building fees, core business processes included the following:
o Permit intake;
o Plan review; and
o Construction inspections.

In this analysis, staff time is estimated and assigned to each step. The sum of all the process steps is the total time that is required to provide that specific service. • Assigning indirect and annual process time – An annual time estimate is gathered from staff for those indirect or support processes in which they are involved. These may include activities such as program administration, customer service, and department administration. These costs are allocated to services proportionately to services and functions provided by the department. • Calculating fully loaded hourly rates and the cost of service – Once the total time for each direct and indirect service is estimated, the cost of service is calculated using the full loaded hourly rates for each staff member or position involved with the service. The fully loaded hourly rate for each employee is based on the employee's salary and benefit costs plus a share of non-personnel and City overhead costs divided by the employee's available work hours (i.e. 1,950 hours minus all leave hours). Thus, the direct and indirect cost by activity also includes departmental and Citywide overhead as well as nonlabor costs. The City's indirect and non-personnel costs are from the annual budget or cost allocation established by the City.
• Gathering activity or volume data – A critical element in the analysis is the number of times a given service is provided annually. This is critical data for three reasons:
• It allows a calculated projection of current revenue based on current prices. This is compared with actual revenue to ensure there is a close match.
• It allows for a calculated projection of revenue at full cost. This is compared to actual expenditures to ensure there is a close match..
• It allows for a calculation of total hours consumed. Hours consumed must closely match actual hours available.

If any of the three calculations do not approximate actual numbers, then time estimates and/or volume data need re-evaluation. Again, these are critical quality checks for costing accuracy.

Page 46 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 6 ends

Step 3: Calculating the full cost of services – This third step calculates the full cost by adding layers for direct and indirect costs.

Step 4: Set fees
The recommended fees can be established based on new, existing, or revised cost recovery policies. The recommended fees will be established based on City staff recommendations and Council discussion in the future. The fee analyses in this report are based on full cost recovery, although the Council always has the option of setting each fee at a different cost recovery rate. The only stipulation is that the final fee cannot be more than full cost.

Assuring Quality Results
In our analysis, we utilize both quantitative and qualitative tests for quality. These tests are an essential part of our costing models and processes. Without these, the results lack defensibility and integrity.

Qualitative
Our process incorporates substantial input from both individuals and groups. Our bias is that we get the best data from group interviews. For example, in determining how much time is required for any specific building inspection, we want to hear the perspective of an inspector, the inspector supervisor, and the counter tech or project manager. Each will have a perspective. Each will contribute value to the estimate.

When all perspectives agree, we have confidence in our results.

Quantitative
We also utilize four quantitative measures of quality data. When each of these measures match and there are no major disagreements with the quantitative assessment, we have significant confidence in our results.

These quantitative measures are:

Application or Fee Title
Signing Programs (Five or More Signs)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Manager
Associate
Planner
Executive
Assistant Totals
Pre-submittal meeting 0.5 0.5 1
Land Use Application Intake 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75
Application Review 1 6.5 7.5
Development Review Committee (DRC) 0.5 2 2.5
Prepare for decision 0.5 1.25 5 1 7.75
Public hearing 0.33 0.33 2 0.33 2.99
Plan Check of accepted plans – post entitlement 1.25 0.5 1.75 Total Time by Position 0.83 3.83 17.50 2.08 24.24
Calculated Full Loaded Hourly Rate 203.67 183.96 152.38 128.66 Total Direct Cost by Position 169 705 2,667 268 3,808
Total support or indirect costs assigned $ 574
Total Cost Assigned $ 4,382
Assigning Staff Cost and Time
Figure 1 Hypothetical Example of a Planning Fee Calculation

Page 47 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 7 ends

Quantitative Analysis Targeted Margin of Error
1) Budgeted expenses entering the cost models must equal total expenses accounted for in the costing model.
0%
2) Projected revenue from fees must closely match actual revenue from fees. + or – 5%-10%
3) Available staff time must be fully accounted for in the costing models. 0%
4) Total revenues from fees and contributions from the general fund or other sources must match total expenses.
0%
Figure 2 Calculating Quality

Page 48 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 8 ends

USER FEE STUDY RESULTS
The Town of Atherton stands to gain significant new revenues by bringing its user fees up to full cost recovery. We would expect this, given it has been ten or eleven years since a full evaluation of its fees.

Our bias is that keeping user fees at or near full cost recovery results in better service to stakeholders, reduces the demand on the General Fund, assists in keeping technology up to date, and maintains the integrity of long-term planning. From our experience, those municipal agencies that maintain full cost recovery are better able to fund essential services like police an fire because they do not have the competition for staffing Development Services. Furthermore, maintaining annual adjustments to fees sets the expectation that Development Services, the major component of user fees, should pay for itself. This is a standard value that most municipal agencies hold.

Report Structure
This report is separated into four parts:

1. Summary of Results. In this section, we will summarize the basic findings of each work unit and compare current cost recovery vs. cost recovery at full cost.

2. Comparison study with selected benchmark cities. This project’s scope included comparing calculated fees at full costs vs similar fees of selected benchmark cities.

3. General observations and recommendations. In this section, we will summarize our observations and make recommendations that the City may consider as it moves forward.

4. Appendices – Fee Report Tables. This section provides a detailed analysis of each work unit studied.

Page 49 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 9 ends

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The summary of results is presented in three sections:
1) Development services, which comprise Building, Planning, and Engineering fees. 2) Public Safety – Police Fees
3) Recreation Services.

Development Services
Please note that there is no single department called “Development Services.” For the purposes of this report, we organized Engineering, Building, and Planning into a single section. This is because these work units are closely tied together and represent a system for the support and regulation of City development.

The following table outlines the total cost recovery of these three work units.

Annual Revenue Impacts
Work Unit Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Building Fee Revenue $2,133,135 $1,347,670 ($785,465)
Planning Fee Revenue $1,204,283 $276,530 ($927,753)
Engineering Fee Revenue $596,812 $482,055 ($114,756)
Totals $3,934,230 $2,106,255 ($1,827,974)
Figure 3 Development Services Cost Recovery
Building Fees
The role of the Building Department is to enforce the provisions of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, generally referred to as the California Building Code and the Atherton Municipal Code.

The intent and purpose of the Building Code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health, and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, green building, construction standards, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment.

Page 50 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 10 ends

The Building Department issues permits reviews construction plans and performs building inspections for new construction and alterations within the Town of Atherton. As such, the Division has primary responsibility for ensuring that all new construction and building alterations meet Municipal Building codes, consistent with the State of California Building Codes. This work is primarily contracted to Interwest Consulting Group.

In working with Interwest and staff from the Building Department, it was clear that the Town has a robust and exhaustive Building Fee Schedule that required little modifications. One of the challenges in calculating Building fees is determining the Town’s actual cost. Interwest is the contracted service provider and does not charge the Town on a per-fee basis. Instead, Interwest and the Town split the revenue so that each will recover its cost in full.

The contract with Interwest is in the process of being updated after ten years. Therefore, to calculate the full cost of Building services we updated staffing costs to fully staff the Town for plan check, inspection, and counter tech services. We then added the Town’s expenses which included administrative overhead. The total estimated costs to the Town are reflected in the figure below:

With updated estimates of hourly costs for plan check, inspection, and counter tech services, we were able to calculate the cost of the flat fees as well as the total revenue from these fees. From this we were able to calculate the remaining revenues that would be required to fully compensate the town and Interwest. These costs were then assigned to the valuation-based fees. In summary, these revenue breakdowns are as follows:

Cost Requirements (Budget FY 23-24)
Cost Requirements (Interwest) $ 1,600,000
Cost Requirements (Town) $ 533,135
Total Cost Requirements $ 2,133,135
Figure 4 Cost Requirements to Fulfill Town and Contractor Costs Cost Requirements by Fee Type
Building (new construction) Permit Cost $1,022,189
Building Plan Check Cost $568,069
Flat and Trade Permit Cost $542,877
Total Projected Cost $ 2,133,135
Figure 5 Revenue Requirements by Fee Type

Page 51 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 11 ends

The end result is that the valuation-based fees must increase by an average of 45.6% to recover the costs for both the Town and Interwest.

Current Valuation Based Fee Model
Number of SF 10,000
Value Per SF $ 350
Total Valuation $ 3,500,000
Total Fee (permit only) $ 16,269
Plan Check (45% of Permit) $ 7,321
Total Fees $ 23,590
Figure 6 Current Fee Calculation for a 10,000 SF Custom Home Proposed Valuation Based Fee Model
Number of SF 10,000
Value Per SF $ 509
Total Valuation $ 5,090,000
Total Fee (permit only) $ 22,676
Plan Check (45% of Permit) $ 10,204
Total Fees $ 32,881
Figure 7 Prosed Fee Calculation for a 10,000 SF Custom home

Page 52 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 12 ends

Total Valuation Building Permit Fee Plan Review Fee
$1.00 to $500 $24.70 65% of Building
Permit Fee
$501 to $2,000
$25.95 for the first $500. plus $3.37 for each
additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000
65% of Building
Permit Fee
$2,001 to
$25,000
$76.47 for the first $2,000, plus $15.46 for each
additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000
65% of Building
Permit Fee
$25,001 to
$50,000
$432.06 for the first $25,000, plus $11.15 for each
additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000
65% of Building
Permit Fee
$50,001 to
$100,000
$710.89 for the first $50,000, plus $7.73 for each
additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and
including $100,000
65% of Building
Permit Fee
$100,001 to
$500,000
$1,097.40 for the first $100,000, plus $6.18 for
each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000
65% of Building
Permit Fee
$500,001 to
$1,000,000
$3571.03 for the first $500,000, plus $5.25 for each
additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000
45% of Building
Permit Fee
1,000,001 and
up
$6,193.74 for the first $1,000,000, plus $4.03 for
each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof.
45% of Building
Permit Fee
Figure 8 Valuation Fee Table
About Valuation Model
The result is that valuation fees will increase 45.6% from $350 value per square foot to $509 value per square foot. In addition, setting a value of $509/SF has little, if anything to do with actual construction value. This valuation number only creates the multiplier to establish the final fee. It is the final fee that is charged the applicant that must be in alignment with the actual cost of providing plan check and permitting services.

For smaller projects, we added a minimum fee of $168. This is to ensure that the Town has a fee that is adequate to recover the cost of processing a permit and providing a minimum of one inspection.

Observations and Recommendations
While we recognize that these fee increases are not inconsequential, it should be noted that it has been ten years since the last adjustment to these fees. Therefore, the increase is in line with what we

Page 53 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 13 ends

would expect. As always, we strongly advocate for user fees to be updated by a simple labor adjustment factor annually. This is then followed up with a full user fee study every three to five years.

Planning Fees
The Planning Department serves a variety of functions including:
• Preparation of town-wide planning documents (e.g., the General Plan) • Administration of the Zoning Title and Subdivision Ordinance • Works as the staff liaison to the Planning Commission in furtherance of the Town's land use laws.
• Review of development proposals to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Title
• Preparation of environmental documents required under CEQA • Preparation of staff reports regarding land use matters for the Planning Commission and City Council
Thus, the Planning Department works with the community and developers to design and build structures that will meet the Town’s land use laws and requirements.

Like the Building Department, the Planning Department has a robust fee schedule. In working with staff and the contracted service provider (M-Group), we took this opportunity to simplify the fee schedule where appropriate and expand the schedule to account for the full breadth and scope of Planning services. Staff from the M-Group are also working to strengthen the Planning Department, streamline application processing, and ensure that the Town’s Planning codes are being fully implemented.

Figure 9 below illustrates the current revenue shortfall from processing Planning applications. It shows that the Town is supporting private development by an amount equal to $927,753.

Page 54 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 14 ends

From our observation, there are three reasons why the revenue shortfall is so high:

1. The Town did not bring its Planning fees up to full cost ten years ago when the last fee study was completed. This alone will create a significant gap to close if the Town determines that full cost recovery is in its best interests.

2. In the last ten years, there have been substantial changes to Land Use regulations, which drive costs. This is a common observation that we see in most of our work with Planning organizations. The regulatory environment is always becoming more complex, which drives costs higher.

3. The Town has established a new contract for Planning staff. The rates for these new staff are higher, as the rates for the previous staff were 30% below market. In addition, the level of reviews being provided to the Town from the prior vendor was insufficient to fully support Planning requirements.

Observations and Recommendations
Our bias is to fully recover the cost of Town land development services. As stated earlier, we see trends that suggest that those cities and towns with the highest cost recovery provide the highest levels of service to the development community. We fully recognize that bringing Planning up to full cost may cause concern within the development community. Therefore, the Town might consider $1,204,283
$276,530
$(927,753)
$(1,500,000)
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
Net Revenue From Planning Fees
Full Cost Current Cost Recovery Net Revenue
Figure 9 Net Planning Fee Revenue

Page 55 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 15 ends

phasing these new fees over a three-year period or select a percentage of cost recovery that is appropriate to the Town.

Development Engineering
Development Engineering works closely with the Building and Planning Departments to provide seamless and effective services for the development community. Its mission is to ensure the protection and development of public infrastructure in a way that is personal, responsive, and innovative.

As with Building and Planning, engineering staff and leadership took this opportunity to review the fee schedule. This included deleting no longer relevant fees, adding fees, and changing the language in some fees. In summary, there was a substantial effort to bring all the fees up to the current regulatory requirements.

Figure 6 below illustrates that bringing Engineering fees to full cost will generate an additional $114,756 in annual revenue. This should fully reimburse the Town for its cost to provide private development engineering services to the development community.

Observations and Recommendations
The reader will note that several Planning applications have been added to the Engineering fee schedule. We have added these applications because Engineering has a significant role in reviewing $596,812
$482,055
$(114,756) $(200,000)
$(100,000)
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
1 Net Revenue From Engineering Fees
Full Cost Current Cost Recovery Net Revenue
Figure 10 Total Cost Recovery from Engineering Fees

Page 56 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 16 ends

them for impact to public infrastructure. Over the last several years, we have been seeing more and more detailed reviews of Planning applications by the engineering team. Therefore, to capture the full cost of Planning applications, we worked with Engineering leadership to identify those Planning applications that they review on a regular basis. Internally, the Town will have multiple ways of recognizing these revenues to the Engineering function and presenting the appropriate fee levels to the general public.

Public Safety – Police Fees
The Police Department has a limited number but very common set of fees. Our approach was to review with Police leadership and staff the processing requirements for each fee. Then, recalculate the cost of each fee based on these new time estimates and update productive hourly rates for each position.

The reader will note that bringing Police fees up to full cost will result in an additional $26,814 of revenue. While not a significant increase in revenues. However, on a percentage basis, the rate of increase is lower than development services. This is because the Town increased Police fees in both 2020 and 2022.

Recreation
Our approach to calculating the cost of Recreation services differs from how we approach the other fees in the project. Calculating the cost of individual Recreation services requires extensive analysis that quickly becomes invalid. Recreation services are often driven by seasonal, market, and economic & social values. For example, many cities will adjust their prices for recreation facility rentals based on seasonal and market forces. Others will include social and economic factors in setting fees for recreational services. In addition, the consensus we see is that the Town is not under a legal obligation to align the fees charged for recreational services with a reasonable estimate of cost. This is in contrast to development fees, where there is a solid legal requirement to align development fees with the cost of each service.

Annual Revenue Impacts
Revenue at Full Cost of
Services
Projection of Revenues
at Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
$ 97,432 $ 70,618 ($26,814)
Figure 11 Annual Revenue Impacts for Police Fees

Page 57 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 17 ends

Therefore, calculating the cost of recreation programs has more value than costing each individual fee or service. To this end, we reviewed the budgeted revenues and expenditures for the Recreation funds and developed three levels of cost recovery.
1) Direct budgeted revenues and expenses.
2) Direct budgeted revenues and expenses plus an allocated amount for Town administrative overhead.
3) Direct budgeted revenues and expenses, Town administrative overhead, plus an allocated amount for general park maintenance. This allocation of general park maintenance is somewhat arbitrary. In working with Town Financial leadership, we agreed that it would be appropriate to include something for park maintenance in the Recreation Services cost allocation. However, lacking any definitive allocation measure we agreed that it would be appropriate to include 10% of the total cost of park maintenance to the costs for Recreation Services.

In summary, these data are reflected in the following figure:

Recreation Cost Recovery Ratios Total Recovery
Percentage
Direct Budgeted Expenses & Revenues 180%
Plus, Town Administrative Overhead 141%
Plus, Allocated Park Maintenance 103%
Figure 12 Recreation Cost Recovery
From our experience, the Town of Atherton is fully recovering the cost of its recreation services.

However, we do not recommend that charges for Recreation Services be set exclusively based on this analysis. We recommend that this analysis be used as a starting point for conversations surrounding the appropriate levels of cost recovery. As stated earlier, these are values-based decisions that reflect community social and economic forces as well as competitive factors with surrounding municipal agencies.

Page 58 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 18 ends

COMPARISON STUDY
As part of this analysis, a survey was conducted to compare selected fees with five benchmark cities.

Our approach to comparison studies is to identify a small number of relevant projects or services rather than comparing the universe of fees. Our benchmark cities for the comparison are Los Altos Hills, Woodside, Belmont, Hillsborough, and Belvedere. These communities were selected because 1) they were used for the last fee study, 2) they are similar in size, and 3) they represent a similar social and economic demographic.

In comparing fees and services, we do urge caution for the following reasons:
• Communities have different policies regarding user fees. Some desire to subsidize their fees, while others charge the full cost. Therefore, newly calculated costs are being compared against prices that may be intentionally subsidized.
• Many cities and counties do not routinely update their fees. Therefore, comparisons contrast today’s cost against prices established 10-15 years ago. • Service levels can vary dramatically from community to community, and fees reflect these service levels. For example, most municipal building departments aim to respond to a request for a building inspection within 24 hours. However, we recently had a client that responded in 8-12 days for routine Building inspections.
• Service descriptions can vary, and cities will often bundle services while others keep them separate. For example, the entire list of Building and Safety fees for a recent client was two pages for another city of approximately the same size, it was 104 pages. • Many cities will calculate building plan checks and inspection (permitting) fees based on the value of the construction project. However, there are multiple options for calculating a value.

These include:
o Given construction costs.
o Value calculated based on a published standard such as the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC is updated at least annually. However, cities are not obligated to use the most current table. We routinely find cities using an ICC Table of 5-15 years old.

Page 59 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 19 ends

o An established value or cost per square foot. This is the method utilized by the Town of Atherton.

Therefore, comparing one service that is provided by the Town of Atherton with the same service for a neighboring city can be challenging – at best. We urge caution. We advise looking at trends. Do the trends show high fees, low fees, or fees that are within a reasonable range? In our view, the trends we see in this comparison illustrate what we would expect - fees that are reasonably aligned with benchmark cities.

Figure 13 Results of Comparison Study
Town of Atherton Los Altos Hills Woodside Belmont Hillsborough Belvedere Average Planning Fees/Projects Atherton Actual or
Estimated Cost Los Altos Hills Woodside Belmont Hillsborough Belvedere Average Conditional Use Permit $ 8,360 $ 6,080 $ 2,800 $ 11,604 $ 2,000 $ 7,211 Variance $ 10,428 $ 5,200 $ 2,970 $ 12,302 $ 5,800 $ 2,000 $ 7,340 Lot Line Adjustment $ 3,008 $ 3,500 $ 2,850 $ 3,315 $ 5,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,168 Tentative Parcel Map $ 11,179 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 12,426 $ 20,000 N/A $ 10,901 Plan Review - Fence $ 986 $ 520 $ 660 $ 481 $ 722
Engineering Fees/Permits Atherton Actual or
Estimated Cost Los Altos Hills Woodside (plus
actual costs for each) Belmont Hillsborough Belvedere Average Driveway Connection to Street: $ 451 $ 679 $ 600 $ 1,609 $ 229 $ 260 $ 638 Right-of-Way Landscaping, Fence,
Etc. - Standard (up to 2 inspections) $ 522 $ 679 $ 600 $ 609 $ 229 $ 260 $ 483 Connection to Storm Drain or
Atherton Channel: In pavement $ 1,016 $ 1,326 $ 600 $ 1,162 $ 229 $ 260 $ 765 Utility Connect/Disconnect: in
pavement $ 734 $ 1,326 $ 600 $ 2,861 $ 229 $ 260 $ 1,002 Grading and Drainage: with
detention system $ 3,950 $ 1,326 $ 500 $ 1,073 $ 1,164 $ 1,603 Building Atherton Actual or
Estimated Cost Los Altos Hills Woodside (plus actual costs for each) Belmont (Includes
Plan Check) Hillsborough Belvedere Average
8,000 Sf Ft new home, (two story)
4,000 Sq Ft basement (12,000 total
SqFt) (Permit only)
$ 50,523 $ 52,380 $ 17,792 $ 87,000 $ 23,945 $ 23,129 $ 42,461 800 SF detached garage (Permit
only) $ 2,472 $ 2,902 $ 1,600 $ 4,836 $ 2,399 $ 2,239 $ 2,741 1500 SF pool house (permit only) $ 4,954 $ 6,872 $ 4,450 $ 11,453 $ 4,764 $ 4,485 $ 6,163 1000 SF pool $ 2,542 $ 1,800 $ 2,700 $ 3,000 $ 1,677 $ 1,554 $ 2,212

Page 60 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 20 ends

Comparison of Development Services Fees
Selected Comparative Examples
The following three comparisons, select a single fee from the chart on the prior page. In total, they demonstrate the challenges of comparisons. The difference between the lowest and the highest cost for the same fee can be very great. Therefore, we advocate looking at trends wherever possible.

Building Comparison
The following graphic demonstrates that on average, newly calculated Building fees are comparable with the benchmark communities.

Figure 14 Comparison of Selected Building Fees

Page 61 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 21 ends

Figure 15 Comparison of a Custom Home
Planning Comparison
Planning fees, like Building fee comparisons demonstrate that Planning fees are also in line with the selected benchmark communities.

Page 62 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 22 ends

Engineering Comparison
As with Building and Planning fee comparisons, Engineering fee comparisons also show good alignment with their Benchmark communities. The one exception to this is the Grading and Drainage fee.

Figure 16 Planning Comparison Graphic
Figure 17 Engineering Fees Comparison

Page 63 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 23 ends

STAFF PRODUCTIVE HOURLY RATES
As part of our analysis, the Town also requested that we calculate productive hourly rates for public safety offers, Administrative and Finance staff. The objective of this analysis is to develop rates for the event where the services of these staff can be charged.

To capture these costs, we included the following:
• Labor and benefit costs.
• Services and supplies.
• Town administrative costs.

Figure 14 below details the calculations by individual staff members. To maintain some degree of confidentiality, we have omitted the names.

Page 64 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 24 ends

Figure 18 Productive Hourly Rates
Department / Work Unit Title/Position Salary Plus Benefits Services & Supplies Citywide Cost Allocation Totals PHR Police 19.2% $ 1,658,099
Chief of Police * $ 274,561 $ 52,639 $ 75,956.19 $ 403,156.00 $ 244.34 Commander $ 315,573 $ 60,502 $ 87,302.15 $ 463,377.47 $ 280.83 Sergeant (84hrs) $ 268,815 $ 51,537 $ 74,366.56 $ 394,718.66 $ 180.73 Sergeant (84hrs) $ 265,410 $ 50,884 $ 73,424.56 $ 389,718.76 $ 178.44 Sergeant (84hrs) * $ 228,958 $ 43,896 $ 63,340.26 $ 336,193.92 $ 153.93 Officer (84hrs)* $ 205,235 $ 39,348 $ 56,777.59 $ 301,360.92 $ 137.99 Sergeant (84hrs) * $ 228,958 $ 43,896 $ 63,340.26 $ 336,193.92 $ 153.93 Officer (84hrs) * $ 203,578 $ 39,030 $ 56,319.09 $ 298,927.30 $ 136.87 Officer (84hrs) * $ 209,722 $ 40,208 $ 58,018.76 $ 307,948.75 $ 141.00 Officer (84hrs) * $ 201,117 $ 38,558 $ 55,638.25 $ 295,313.59 $ 135.22 Officer (84hrs) $ 230,058 $ 44,107 $ 63,644.75 $ 337,810.07 $ 154.67 Officer (84hrs)* $ 176,961 $ 33,927 $ 48,955.59 $ 259,843.75 $ 118.98 Officer (84hrs) * $ 206,955 $ 39,677 $ 57,253.22 $ 303,885.47 $ 139.14 Officer (84hrs) $ 213,418 $ 40,917 $ 59,041.26 $ 313,375.90 $ 143.49 Officer (84hrs) $ 215,502 $ 41,316 $ 59,617.71 $ 316,435.53 $ 144.89 Officer (84hrs)* $ 181,346 $ 34,768 $ 50,168.72 $ 266,282.74 $ 121.92 Officer (84hrs)* $ 166,057 $ 31,836 $ 45,938.89 $ 243,831.86 $ 111.64 Officer (84hrs)* $ 170,861 $ 32,758 $ 47,267.94 $ 250,886.13 $ 114.87 Officer (84hrs)* $ 186,309 $ 35,719 $ 51,541.63 $ 273,569.77 $ 125.26 Officer (84hrs) * $ 165,888 $ 31,804 $ 45,892.39 $ 243,585.09 $ 111.53 Officer (84hrs)* $ 162,485 $ 31,152 $ 44,950.70 $ 238,586.83 $ 109.24 Officer (84hrs)* $ 148,593 $ 28,488 $ 41,107.61 $ 218,188.69 $ 99.90 $ -
Dispatch
Dispatcher $ 180,870 $ 34,676 $ 50,036.86 $ 265,582.88 160.96 Dispatcher $ 168,566 $ 32,318 $ 46,633.25 $ 247,517.38 150.01 Dispatcher $ 153,118 $ 29,356 $ 42,359.57 $ 224,833.74 136.26 Dispatcher * $ 160,819 $ 30,832 $ 44,489.82 $ 236,140.56 143.12 Dispatcher * $ 142,403 $ 27,302 $ 39,395.35 $ 209,100.44 126.73 Admin - Civilian
Exec Assistant $ 160,485 $ 30,768 $ 44,397.58 $ 235,650.98 142.82 CSO/Dispatcher $ 161,558 $ 30,974 $ 44,694.41 $ 237,226.47 143.77 Code Enforcement * $ 121,824 $ 23,356 $ 33,702.05 $ 178,881.87 108.41 Hyrbid Code Enf Disp * $ 117,573 $ 22,541 $ 32,526.04 $ 172,639.90 104.63 Total Police $ 5,993,575 $ 1,149,091 $ 1,658,099 $ 8,800,765 Administration 29% $ 324,694
City Manager $ 313,664 $ 90,166 $ 123,483 $ 527,313 $ 320 Asst to CM/City Clerk $ 220,933 $ 63,509 $ 86,977 $ 371,419 $ 225 Management Analyst II $ 171,713 $ 49,361 $ 67,600 $ 288,674 $ 175 Receptionist/Clerk $ 118,457 $ 34,052 $ 46,634 $ 199,143 $ 121 Total Administration $ 824,767 $ 237,088 $ 324,694 $ 1,386,549 Finance 34% $ 277,224
Finance Director 285,121 $ 96,838 $ 137,224 $ 519,182 $ 315 Accountant 152,859 $ 51,917 $ 73,568 $ 278,344 $ 169
Jr. Accountant 138,032 $ 46,881 $ 66,432 $ 251,345 $ 152 Total Finance $ 576,012 $ 195,635 $ 277,224 $ 1,048,871

Page 65 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 25 ends

OBSERVATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Besides the observations and recommendations referenced earlier, the Town can benefit from our standard recommendations:

1. Updating its fees through a simple CPI adjustment each year.

2. Conducting a thorough assessment of its fees every 3-5 years.

These practices are a part of our standard recommendations for any municipal or state agency. We find that if cities were to adopt these practices, their cost recovery would be sustainable, and they would have the ability to provide a higher level of service to their citizens.

Page 66 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton Report
Capital Accounting Partners

Page 26 ends

APPENDICES

Page 67 of 89 ends

Building Fee Table

Page 68 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Building Fees
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Other
external
costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge
or (Subsidy)
Revenue at
Full Cost of
Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Permitted Value of Construction
New Habitable Construction
Valuation
base: per SF $509 $509
$350
($159)
Remodeled Habitable Construction
Valuation
base: per SF $437 $437
$300
($137)
New or Remodeled Non-Habitable
Construction
Valuation
base: per SF $182 $182
$125
($57)
Valuation - non defined project Valuation base
$1
$1
Non-habitable construction: ie. Patio covers &
gazebos (> 1000 Sq Ft or attached to new
construction)
Valuation
base: per SF $146 $146
$100
($46)
Flat Fees **
Swimming pools (first 1000 sf )
Plan check and
inspection 21.00 $918 $1,207 $2,125
$1,095
($1,030) $44,625 $22,995 ($21,630)
Swimming pools (Over 1000 sf)
Plan check and
inspection 7.00 $1,098 $1,444 $2,542
$1,313
($1,229) $17,793 $9,191 ($8,602)
Patio covers & gazebos (up to 1000 Sq Ft)
Plan check and
inspection 9.00 $675 $888 $1,563
$813
($750) $14,070 $7,317 ($6,753)
Drive way gates
Plan check and
inspection 31.00 $558 $734 $1,291
$661
($630) $40,027 $20,491 ($19,536)
Non Habitable new pool house including
cabanas (up to and including 1500 sf)
Plan check and
inspection 2.00 $1,090 $1,435 $2,525
$1,336
($1,189) $5,049 $2,672 ($2,377)
Other Building (Flat) Fees
Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical (MP&E)
Permit (single inspection) 263.00 $130 $171 $301 $143 ($158) $79,186 $37,609 ($41,577) MP&E each additional inspection $94 $123 $217 $97 ($120) MP&E plan check (min .5 hour) $55 $72 $127 $88 ($39)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 69 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Building Fees
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Other
external
costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge
or (Subsidy)
Revenue at
Full Cost of
Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Demolition Permit Fee 43.00 $283 $372 $654 $286 ($368) $28,134 $12,298 ($15,836) Landscape Screening Permit Fee 33.00 $224 $294 $518 $389 ($129) $17,101 $12,837 ($4,264) Water Well Permit Fee 15.00 $393 $517 $909 $397 ($512) $13,636 $5,955 ($7,681) Solar Panels Permit Fee * $283 $372 $654 $500 ($154)
Heritage Tree Removal - Staff Level (First Tree) 207.00 $309 $407 $716 $261 ($455) $148,298 $54,027 ($94,271) Heritage Tree Removal - Staff Level (Each
Additional Tree) $107 $141 $248 $103 ($145)
Excavation Permit
Plan check revision Fee (1 hour min) Hourly 193.00 $134 $176 $310 $198 ($112) $59,786 $38,214 ($21,572) Address Change $285 $375 $660 $275 ($385)
Property Search (plus photocopying and/or
printing posts and excludes public records
searches) Hourly $95 $125 $220
$92
($128)
Reactivation of an Expired Permit (Up to OneHalf the Amount Required for a New Permit for Such Work)
(Up to OneHalf the
Amount
Required for a
New Permit for
Such Work)
Code Enforcement - Administrative (Penalty) Hourly
Second Utility Deposit (Ordinance 15.04.040) $5,000 $5,000 Landscape Screening Deposit (Ordinance

17.50.060) $5,000 $5,000
Temporary Occupancy Deposit: $5,000 $5,000
$176 $176
Administrative Fee (TOC) $173 $227 $400 $176 ($224)
Excavation Road Deposit (Ordinance

15.04.045) $5,000 $5,000
Recycled Deposit
$1000 Min &
$500 Min for
reroof permits
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 70 of 89 ends

3.30%
$0 $0 $0
Storm water compliance review/inspection T&M $500 $500
Tree protection verification (deposit) + COP T&M $2,500 $2,500 Tree protection administration for flat fee
permits (initial inspection) 44.00 $321 $423 $745 $293 ($452) $32,762 $12,892 ($19,870) Tree protection administration for flat fee
permits (full inspection) $393 $517 $910 $732 ($178)
Additional Arborists Inspection $107 $141 $248 ($248)
Tree protection zone execption (staff level) $309 $407 $716 $732
$16
Tree protection verification (deposit) + COP
Reroofing < 5000SF Per app 57.00 $321 $423 $744 $328 ($416) $42,410 $18,696 ($23,714) Reroofing > 5000SF Per app $446 $587 $1,034 $458 ($576) Reroofing requiring additional inspections Per insp. $125 $165 $290 $130 ($160) Reroofing requiring plan check (min one hour) Per PC $110 $145 $255 $176 ($79) SMIP Fee (State Mandate)
Building Standards Administration Special
Revolving Fund ( Senate Bill No. 1473 State
Mandate)
Surcharge for General Plan Maintenance and
Update (2.0%) 1.00 2.55% $0 $0 $0
57 Generator installation (per valuation schedule) New
63 Minimum New Construction Fee $73 $96 $168 ($168)
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 71 of 89 ends

APPENDIX

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 72 of 89 ends

Planning Fee Table

Page 73 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Planning Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Conditional Use Permit 4.00 $5,723 $2,638 $8,360 $2,920 ($5,440) $33,442 $11,680 ($21,762) Variance 2.00 $7,138 $3,290 $10,428 $2,920 ($7,508) $20,855 $5,840 ($15,015) Heritage Tree Removal Permit 6.00 $4,642 $2,139 $6,781 $2,245 ($4,536) $40,688 $13,470 ($27,218) Special Structures New 4.00 $5,525 $2,547 $8,072 ($8,072) $32,287 ($32,287) Excessive Height Delete
Lot Line Redesignation $4,014 $1,850 $5,864 $2,920 ($2,944) Lot Line Adjustment $2,059 $949 $3,008 $1,685 ($1,323)
Tentative Parcel Map 2.00 $7,652 $3,527 $11,179 $2,920 ($8,259) $22,358 $5,840 ($16,518) Final Parcel Map 2.00 $3,593 $1,656 $5,249 $2,920 ($2,329) $10,498 $5,840 ($4,658) Appeal 6.00 $4,020 $1,853 $5,873 $842 ($5,031) $35,237 $5,052 ($30,185) School Master Plan 6.00 $4,523 $2,085 $6,607 $842 ($5,765) $39,644 $5,052 ($34,592) Initial Review/Negative Declaration $6,416 $2,957 $9,373 $2,245 ($7,128) Zoning Ordinance Amendment $9,154 $4,219 $13,374 $5,615 ($7,759) General Plan Amendment $21,657 $9,982 $31,639 $5,615 ($26,024) Zoning Review for Home Occupation
Business
$554 $255 $809 $107 ($702)
Pre-Application Review Hourly $180 $83 $263 $51 ($212)
Street Easement Vacation $4,560 $2,102 $6,661 ($6,661)
Code Enforcement - Administrative
(Penalty) $904 $416 $1,320 $1,065 ($255)
Initial Review (2 reviews for fee amount;
additional reviews billed hourly):
a. Fence 68.00 $675 $311 $986 $180 ($806) $67,043 $12,240 ($54,803) b. Accessory Structures (includes pools) 172.00 $820 $378 $1,198 $506 ($692) $206,084 $87,032 ($119,052) c. Accessory Buildings 52.00 $856 $395 $1,251 $1,067 ($184) $65,064 $55,484 ($9,580) d. Additions 20.00 $1,403 $647 $2,050 $1,095 ($955) $41,002 $21,900 ($19,102) e. New Construction 30.00 $1,857 $856 $2,712 $1,570 ($1,142) $81,369 $47,100 ($34,269) Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 74 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Planning Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Revisions to Previously Approved Plans
School Master Plan Plus CUP $6,257 $2,884 $9,141 ($9,141) Technology Surcharge (upgrade and
maintain development technology) Percentage 3.60% $0
Subdivision Exception New 2.00 $7,228 $3,331 $10,559 ($10,559) $21,118 ($21,118) SB 9 Tentative Map New 16.00 $7,690 $3,544 $11,234 ($11,234) $179,747 ($179,747) SB 9 Final Map New 8.00 $4,744 $2,186 $6,930 ($6,930) $55,439 ($55,439) Wireless WTF (minor modification) new 6.00 $4,857 $2,239 $7,095 ($7,095) $42,572 ($42,572) Wireless WTF (major modification) new $7,042 $3,246 $10,288 ($10,288) Junior accessory dwelling unit new 10.00 $532 $245 $778 ($778) $7,779 ($7,779) Accessory dwelling unit new 52.00 $1,722 $794 $2,516 ($2,516) $130,842 ($130,842) Environmental Impact Report (deposit for
staff time plus consultant actual cost plus
25% admim)
new $1,424 $656 $2,080 ($2,080)
Recording Fees (County and State) new
Planning Commission Tree Protection
Zone Exceptions (PTPZ) 18.00 $2,708 $1,248 $3,956 ($3,956) $71,214 ($71,214) Town Planner $203 $94 $297 ($297)
Sr. Planner $180 $83 $263 ($263)
Associate Planner $163 $75 $238 ($238)
Assistant Planner $128 $59 $187 ($187)
Admin $84 $39 $123 ($123)
$ -
Revenue at
Full Cost of
Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual
Surplus
(subsidy)
$ 1,204,283 $ 276,530 ($927,753)
Annual Revenue Impacts
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 75 of 89 ends

Engineering Fee Table

Page 76 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Engineering Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Encroachment Permits and Fees $ - $ - $ - $ -
Class A - One Inspection Required: Per app
Driveway Connection to Street: Per app 2.00 $274 $178 $451 $270 ($181) $903 $540 ($363) Additional Plan Check Per app $43 $28 $71 $60 ($11)
Additional Inspection Per app $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4)
Per app
Class B - Two Inspections Required: Per app
Driveway Connection to Street: Per app 4.80 $359 $233 $593 $360 ($233) $2,844 $1,728 ($1,116) Additional Plan Check Per app $43 $28 $71 $60 ($11)
Additional Inspection Per app 45.57 $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4) $4,320 $4,147 ($173) Per app
Class C - Three or More Inspections
Required: Per app
Driveway Connection to Street -
Asphalt/Pavers: Per app
Without Driveway Culvert (up to 3
inspections) Per app $445 $289 $734 ($734)
Additional Plan Check Per app $43 $28 $71 ($71)
Additional Inspection Per app $57 $37 $95 ($95)
Per app
With Driveway Culvert (up to 4
inspections) Per app 34.80 $530 $345 $875 $450 ($425) $30,439 $15,660 ($14,779) Additional Plan Check Per app $56 $37 $93 $60 ($33)
Additional Inspection Per app 118.09 $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4) $11,194 $10,746 ($448) Per app
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 1 of 7 ends

Page 77 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Engineering Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Driveway Connection to Street - Concrete: Per app
Without Driveway Culvert (up to 4
inspections) Per app $530 $345 $875 $560 ($315)
Additional Plan Check Per app $56 $37 $93 $80 ($13)
Additional Inspection Per app $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4)
Per app
With Driveway Culvert (up to 5
inspections) Per app $701 $456 $1,157 $650 ($507)
Additional Plan Check Per app $56 $37 $93 $80 ($13)
Additional Inspection Per app $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4)
Class D - Public Right of Way Per app
Right-of-Way Landscaping, Fence, Etc. -
Minor Construction (up to 2 inspections) Per app 45.60 $316 $206 $522 $362 ($160) $23,804 $16,507 ($7,297) Additional Plan Check Per app $85 $56 $141 $122 ($19)
Additional Inspection Per app $57 $37 $95 $123 $28
Per app
Right-of-Way Landscaping, Fence, Etc. -
Standard (up to 2 inspections) Per app 20.40 $359 $233 $593 $484 ($109) $12,088 $9,874 ($2,214) Additional Plan Check Per app $85 $56 $141 $123 ($18)
Additional Inspection Per app 49.78 $57 $37 $95 $123 $28 $4,719 $6,123 $1,404 Per app
Connection to Storm Drain or Atherton
Channel: Per app
a. In Pavement Per app 1.20 $615 $400 $1,016 $864 ($152) $1,219 $1,037 ($182) Additional Plan Check Per app $85 $56 $141 $266 $125
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 2 of 7 ends

Page 78 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Engineering Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Additional Inspection Per app $214 $139 $353 $133 ($220) Per app
b. Outside Pavement Per app 1.20 $530 $345 $875 $665 ($210) $1,050 $798 ($252) Additional Plan Check Per app $256 $167 $423 $266 ($157) Additional Inspection Per app 2.47 $57 $37 $95 $133 $38 $234 $329 $94 Per app
Utility - Minor (One Inspection Required): Per app 27.60 $274 $178 $451 $331 ($120) $12,461 $9,136 ($3,325) Additional Plan Check Per app $43 $28 $71 $61 ($10)
Additional Inspection Per app 63.94 $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4) $6,061 $5,819 ($243) Per app
Utility Connect/Disconnect: Per app
a. In Pavement Per app 118.80 $445 $289 $734 $450 ($284) $87,153 $53,460 ($33,693) Additional Plan Check Per app $43 $28 $71 $61 ($10)
Additional Inspection Per app 953.18 $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4) $90,357 $86,739 ($3,617) Per app
b. Outside Pavement Per app 15.60 $359 $233 $593 $259 ($334) $9,244 $4,040 ($5,203) Additional Plan Check Per app $43 $28 $71 $61 ($10)
Additional Inspection Per app 245.20 $57 $37 $95 $91 ($4) $23,244 $22,313 ($931) Per app
Utility Main (up to 100 LF) Per app
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 3 of 7 ends

Page 79 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Engineering Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
a. In Pavement Per app 56.40 $487 $317 $804 $602 ($202) $45,354 $33,953 ($11,401) Additional Plan Check per 100 LF Per app $85 $56 $141 $123 ($18) Additional Inspection per 100 LF Per app $171 $111 $282 $91 ($191) Per app
b. Outside Pavement (up to 100 LF) Per app $487 $317 $804 $511 ($293) Additional Plan Check per 100 LF Per app $85 $56 $141 $123 ($18) Additional Inspection per 100 LF Per app $85 $56 $141 $91 ($50) Per app
Wireless Telecommunication and Utilities
Installation Permit (25 LF or less): Per app
i. Without Trenching Per app 4.80 $1,462 $951 $2,412 $2,246 ($166) $11,580 $10,781 ($799) ii. With Trenching Per app 56.40 $1,720 $1,118 $2,838 $2,337 ($501) $160,063 $131,807 ($28,256) iii With Trenching > 25 LF (per 100 LF or
fraction thereof) Per app $342 $222 $564 $426 ($138)
Property Improvement Permits and
Reviews
Per app
Grading and Drainage: Per app
a. Without Detention or Treatment System Hourly/min $1,795 $1,167 $2,962 $1,625 ($1,337) b. With Detention System Hourly/min $2,393 $1,556 $3,950 $1,625 ($2,325) c. With Multiple Detention / treatment
Systems
Hourly/min $3,077 $2,001 $5,078 $2,167 ($2,911)
d. With Stormwater treatment system Hourly/min $2,393 $1,556 $3,950 ($3,950) Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 4 of 7 ends

Page 80 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Engineering Division
Fee Type Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Support and
Service Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Detention System Annual Report Filing Per app $684 $445 $1,129 $542 ($587) Detention System Annual Report -
Submittals Out of Compliance Per app $513 $334 $846 $542 ($304) StormWater Permit Compliance
Review/Inspection Deposit Hourly $639 $639
StormWater Permit Compliance
Review/Inspection Hourly
Stop Work Order (Penalty) 100% of
permit
Code Enforcement - Administrative
(Penalty) Hourly
Work without a permit (penalty) 100% of
pemit
Public Works application fee Per app 376.80 $94 $61 $155 $150 ($5) $58,483 $56,520 ($1,963) Oversized load permit (outside of right of
way) Per app $342 $222 $564 $426 ($138)
Technology Surcharge (upgrade and
maintain development technology) (2.37%
of fee)
Per app 2.37% $0
Additional work not reflected above - at
cost
Hourly
New Fees $ - $ - $ - $ -
Traffic Control Permit (includes plan check
& first week of inspection) Base $274 $178 $451 ($451)
Traffic Control Inspection
(each
additional
week)
$85 $56 $141 ($141)
Traffic Control Inspection (for longer term
projects)
Inspection
(per
month)
$256 $167 $423 ($423)
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 5 of 7 ends

Page 81 of 89 ends

15.04.045)
Storm water compliance review/inspection
/ month
$128 $83 $212 ($212)
Planning Review $ - $ - $ - $ -
Lot Line Adjustment $991.56 $644.82 $1,636.38 ($1,636.38) Tentative Parcel Map $1,572.30 $1,022.47 $2,594.77 ($2,594.77) Final Parcel Map $1,237.78 $804.94 $2,042.72 ($2,042.72) Street Easement Vacation (deposit) $3,507.05 $2,280.65 $5,787.71 ($5,787.71) Note: all plan reviews include two reviews.

Each additional will be at the applicable
hourly rate
Office Specialist (0.5) $102.62 $66.73 $169.36 ($169.36) Associate/Senior Engineer $170.96 $111.17 $282.13 ($282.13) PW Director/City Engineer $206.30 $134.16 $340.45 ($340.45) Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 6 of 7 ends

Page 82 of 89 ends

APPENDIX

Page 7 of 7 ends

Page 83 of 89 ends

Police Fee Table

Page 84 of 89 ends

Without Photos or digital media 737.84 $0.32 $0 $0.32 $236 $236 With Photos or digital media Hourly $250 $250 $64 ($186) Vehicle Releases 5.70 $108 $108 $83 ($25) $613 $473 ($140) Vehicle Repossession Fee $43 $43 $19 ($24)
Initial Alarm Registration fee 23.82 $108 $108 $100 ($8) $2,562 $2,382 ($180) Renewal Alarm Fee 967.00 $50 $50 $50 $48,350 $48,350
Alarm Alert Signs 32.00 $197 $197 $40 ($157) $6,292 $1,280 ($5,012) Garage Sale/Estate Sale Permits $36 $36 $27 ($9)
Fingerprints (plus DOJ processing of
$53) Delete $96 $96
Solicitor Permit (Valid for six months;
business license required)
$43 $43 $40 ($3)
After Hours Emergency Construction
Permits
$289 $289 $79 ($210)
Special Service Request 362.84 $31 $31 $27 ($4) $11,330 $9,797 ($1,534) Administrative Fee Delete
On-Site Personnel Fee Hourly (4 Hr
min) $684 $684 $332 ($352)
Police Department Clearance Letter $36 $36 $27 ($9)
Microfilmed Reports Delete $94 $94 $79 ($15)
Subpoena Acceptance fee (police
personnel)
Per day $275 $275
Code Enforcement - violation fee
(varies)
Fine
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 85 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Pollice Dept
Fee # Fee Type
Actual Work
Volume
Direct Unit
Cost
Other
external
costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee / Revenue
Unit Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
Unit Cost Summary Annual Cost Calculations
False Alarms: (first 3, warnings-no fee) $1,164 $1,164 ($1,164) False Alarm - 4th 40.50 $388 $291 $679 $200 ($479) $27,501 $8,100 ($19,401) False Alarm - 5th $388 $407 $795 $300 ($495)
False Alarm - 6th and above $388 $466 $854 $400 ($454)
Citation Sign Off Fee new $47 $47 ($47)
Sign (e.g. Real Estate Sign) Removal
Fee
new $36 $36 ($36)
Revenue at Full
Cost of Services
Projection of
Revenues at
Current Fees
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
$ 97,432 $ 70,618 ($26,814)
Annual Revenue Impacts
Capital Accounting Partners

APPENDIX

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 86 of 89 ends

Recreation Cost Recovery

Page 87 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Recreation Cost Recovery
Program Net Revenue
Calculations
Revenues
(2022-2023
Actual)
Expenses Net
Revenues
Net Ratio
(ratio of
revenues
to
expense)
Citywide
Admin
Net Revenue
(Program +
City Admin)
Net Ratio
(ratio of
revenues
to
expense)
Social Fees $ 85,487 $ 56,224 $ 29,263 $ 11,764 $ 17,499 Meeting Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Class Fees $ 8,278 $ 5,444 $ 2,833 $ 1,139 $ 1,694
Weddings $ 22,186 $ 14,592 $ 7,594 $ 3,053 $ 4,541
Park Day Use Fee $ 15,234 $ 10,019 $ 5,215 $ 2,096 $ 3,118 Catering Service Fee $ 34,839 $ 22,913 $ 11,926 $ 4,794 $ 7,131 Park Admin Fee 30%-NonResident $ 8,784 $ 5,777 $ 3,007 $ 1,209 $ 1,798 Park Admin Fee 15%-Resident $ 1,515 $ 996 $ 519 $ 209 $ 310 Subtotals $ 176,322 $ 115,966 $ 60,357 $ 36,092

PROPERTY RENTAL REVENUE
(PLAYSCHOOL) $ 53,420 $ 53,420 $ 7,351 $ 46,069
Tennis $ 50,615 $ 40,000 $ 10,615 $ 10,786 $ (171)
Totals $ 280,357 $ 155,966 $ 124,392 180% $ 42,402 $ 81,990 141%

Page 88 of 89 ends

Town of Atherton
Recreation Cost Recovery
Program Net Revenue
Calculations
Social Fees
Meeting Fees
Class Fees
Weddings
Park Day Use Fee
Catering Service Fee
Park Admin Fee 30%-NonResident
Park Admin Fee 15%-Resident
Subtotals

PROPERTY RENTAL REVENUE
(PLAYSCHOOL)
Tennis
Totals
General Parks
Maintenance
Allocation (10%)
Total Net
Revenue
Net Ratio (ratio
of revenues to
expense)
$ 22,275 $ (4,776)
$ - $ -
$ 2,157 $ (462)
$ 5,781 $ (1,240)
$ 3,969 $ (851)
$ 9,078 $ (1,946)
$ 2,289 $ (491)
$ 395 $ (85)
$ 13,919 $ 32,149
$ 13,188 $ (13,359)
$ 73,051 $ 8,939 103%

Page 89 of 89 ends

Atherton City CouncilDecember 6, 2023

Atherton City Council
December 6, 2023