Agenda packet — Belmont City Council, September 22, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. ITEMS BEFORE 7:00 PM - none

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION -
none

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT

ON THE AGENDA

8. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

9. CONSENT BUSINESS

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. GENERAL BUSINESS

12. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM

MEMBERS AND STAFF

13. MATTERS OF

INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

14. ADJOURNMENT
City Council
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, September 22, 2026 City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California
General order of Business City Council
Julia Mates, Mayor
Cathy Jordan, Vice Mayor
Robin Pang-Maganaris, Councilmember
Gina Latimerlo, Councilmember
Tom McCune, Councilmember
Anais Martinez Aquino, Administrative Service
Director
Staff
Afshin Oskoui, City Manager
Scott Rennie, City Attorney
Ken Stenquist, Police Chief
Grace Castaneda, Finance Director
Kevin Kobayashi, Parks and Recreation Director
Edric Kwan, Public Works Director
Jozi Plut, City Clerk
MEETING ATTENDANCE:

Council meetings, unless otherwise noted, are broadcast live to Belmont residents on

1. Comcast Cable Channel 27

2. Streamed live via the City's website at www.Belmont.gov

3. ZOOM https://belmont-gov.zoom.us/ Meeting ID: 95745673035

4. Attend the meeting in the Council Chambers, Belmont City Hall 2nd floor PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public in the Council Chamber present the Clerk a request to speak slip found at the table at the rear of the chamber.

If participating virtually use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak.

For dial- in comments, call *67 1-(669) 900-6833 (your phone number will appear on the live broadcast if *67 is not dialed prior to the phone number) enter Meeting ID: 95745673035, and press *9 to request to speak All public comments are subject to a 3-minute time limit unless otherwise determined by the Chair.

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 22, 2026
1 To submit a written public comment:

E-mail [email protected] before the Council discusses the item, noting the agenda topic or number in the subject line. Comments received up to three hours before the meeting will be distributed to the Council and included in the record but not read aloud during the meeting..

The Mayor has the authority to rule any speaker out of order, including speakers during the Public Comment period; If the subject raised is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, during a public hearing or a general business item if the speaker is not presenting testimony or evidence relevant to the matter or if the speaker becomes disruptive to the proceedings and conduct of the meeting.

The Mayor also has the authority to order any person who willfully interrupts the meeting to be removed. All persons are expected to always conduct themselves with civility and courtesy. All persons giving comments shall speak directly to the Council and address issues, not individuals. Personal attacks, cursing and outbursts from the audience in support or opposition to a speaker are not tolerated to foster an environment where everyone feels welcome to speak.

LEVINE ACT:

The Levine Act (California Government Code Section 84308) limits campaign contributions that may be made to elected or appointed City officials (including councilmembers and the mayor) and certain candidates for elective city offices. The Act prohibits an agent of a party from contributing any amount to councilmember while a proceeding for a contract valued at $50,000 or more, permit, license, or other entitlement for use is pending that does not solely involve purely ministerial decisions. The Act also prohibits parties and participants in the above entitlement proceedings from contributing more than $500 during the proceeding and for 12 months after the proceeding and requires disclosure of the prohibited contributions. The Act prohibits certain officials, including local elected officials, from taking part in an entitlement proceeding if the official has received a contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant in the proceeding within the preceding 12 months. An official is also prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant in the proceeding for 12 months after a final decision is rendered in such a proceeding. The law is complex, and this brief description is not legal advice. If you or an agent have made any campaign contributions to a councilmember in the 12 months before a proceeding in which you have an interest or you are contemplating making a contribution within the 12 months after such a proceeding, you are urged to review the Levine Act and consider consulting an attorney. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is responsible for administering the Levine Act. More information about the Act and its implementing regulations can be found on the FPPC’s website here:
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

ACCESSIBILITY
If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

AGENDA POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, and the City's website www.Belmont.gov Date: Time: /s/:

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 22, 2026
2 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. ITEMS BEFORE 7:00 PM - none

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION - none

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Girl Scout Troop 61541 Belmont Centennial Anniversary Bronze Award Presentation B. Proclamation Observing National Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15, 2026
C. Proclamation Designation Fire Prevention Week October 4 to October 10, 2026 D. Centennial Planning Update

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

8. COUNCILMEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

9. CONSENT BUSINESS
City of Belmont
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
September 22, 2026
City Council Chambers
City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, California

NOTICE REGARDING MEETING SCHEDULE
The City Council may meet prior to 7:00 PM for Study Sessions, Closed Sessions, or other Special Topics. All other business will commence at 7:00 PM as a time-certain agenda item.

A. CLOSED SESSION
B. STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to address the City Council concerning this item.

C. SPECIAL SESSION/OTHER TOPICS
ITEMS STARTING AT 7:00 PM
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Body on any City matter not on the agenda. The period for public comment at this point in the agenda is limited to 15 minutes, with a maximum of 3 minutes per speaker. Speakers who requested but did not receive an opportunity to speak during this comment period will be given an opportunity to address the Body later in the meeting. State law prohibits the Body from acting on non-agenda items.

Consent business items are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member or staf request specific items to be removed for separate action.

The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 22, 2026
3 A. Monthly Financials June-July 2026
B. 2026 Conflict of Interest Code Biannual Update
C. Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027

11. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Modernization and Comprehensive Update to City Fees
Attachments:

Monthly Financial Report for June 2026
Monthly Financial Report for July 2026
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution amending the Appendix of Designated Employees to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing 1) the City Manager to execute contracts for the acquisition of three Police patrol vehicles and associated equipment for a total amount not to exceed $199,338, and 2) authorizing a budget appropriation of $74,446 from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund for the purchase of replacement vehicles and associated equipment.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution stating the City of Belmont’s intent to revise the maximum rates that may be charged for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services effective January 1, 2027, and set a Public Hearing date for November 24, 2026.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Belmont Rate Application 2027
HDR Inc. Report
General Business items are considered separately, typically in the order listed. The chair will call for public comment on each item when the body considers the item.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving proposed revisions to various types of City fees and directing the City Manager to compile the revisions into the Master Revenue Schedule.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Presentation
Comprehensive User Fee Study Report
Proposed Master Revenue Schedule
Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 22, 2026
4 B. Citywide Naming and Donor Recognition Policy and Establish a Framework for Philanthropic Recognition
C. Amendments to the Employment Agreements between the City of Belmont and Afshin Oskoui, and the City of Belmont and Scott M. Rennie

12. BRIEF VERBAL REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF

13. MATTERS OF INTEREST/CLARIFICATION

14. ADJOURNMENT
Recommendation: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Citywide Naming and Donor Recognition Policy.

2. Authorize the City Manager to establish and maintain administrative procedures, naming opportunity schedules, recognition standards, and standard agreement templates consistent with the Policy.

3. Authorize the City Manager to work with qualified nonprofit or philanthropic partners, as appropriate, to support fundraising and donor stewardship for City capital projects and programs.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution
Donor Recognition Package
Naming Policy Presentation
Recommendation: Adopt resolutions establishing the compensation for the City Manager and City Attorney, updating the Master Employee Pay Schedule, and authorizing the Mayor to sign amendments to the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s employment agreements.

Attachments:

Staff Report
Resolution CM
Resolution CA
Master Pay Schedule 2026
Fourth Amendment to the Employment Agreement CM
Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement CA
A. Verbal report from Councilmembers on Intergovernmental (IGR) and Subcommittee Assignments
B. Verbal report from City Manager
Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staf only. However, Council/Board may take final action on an item if there is no need for additional staf analysis.

ADA Notice: If you require assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 595-7413 in advance so reasonable accommodations can be arranged.

Agenda Materials: Meeting materials are available at www.belmont.gov. Documents distributed to a majority of the City Council, District Board, or Commission regarding agenda items will be available at the City Clerk’s Of ice, One Twin Pines Lane, during normal business hours and at the meeting.

Belmont City Council Meeting Agenda September 22, 2026
5 FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JUNE 30, 2026

HIGHLIGHTS

PERFORMANCE

AT A GLANCE
REPORT
• General Fund balance increased
compared to prior YTD

FUND RECAP AT A GLANCE REPORT
Notable Fund Balance Increase compared to prior YTD:
•General Fund
•Belmont Fire Protection District
• Sewer Collection System
• Fleet & Equipment Management
Notable Fund Balance Decrease compared to prior YTD:
• Measure W

CASH DISBURSEMENTS &

PURCHASE ORDER ACTIVITY
REPORT
•Amounts equal to and above $50,000

BUDGET VARIANCE
REPORT
• Management Discussion & Analysis
• Tax Trends
This report contains financial information which has not been reviewed or audited by an independent auditor, does not reflect the application of generally accepted accounting principles in all instances and is subject to future revision. This report has not been prepared with a view to informing an investment decision in any of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations. Any projections, plans or other forward-looking statements included in this report are subject to a variety of uncertainties that could cause any actual plans or results to differ materially from any such statement. The information herein is not intended to be used by investors or potential investors in considering the purchase or sale of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations and investors and potential investors should rely only on information filed by the City on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System for municipal securities disclosures and website, maintained on the World Wide Web at https://emma.msrb.org/
These financial reports are designed to provide a general overview of the City of Belmont’s interim finances. Questions concerning any information provided in these reports should be addressed to [email protected] or for additional information regarding the City’s financial activities, including past award winning audited financial statements, transparency efforts and best practices please visit the City at www.belmont.gov.
6 City of Belmont
Performance at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended June 30, 2026
(000's)
6/30/2016 2016 $9,177 Audited
6/30/2017 2017 $11,128 Audited
6/30/2018 2018 $11,325 Audited
6/30/2019 2019 $14,846 Audited
6/30/2020 2020 $13,637 Audited
6/30/2021 2021 $13,398 Audited
6/30/2022 2022 $18,013 Audited
6/30/2023 2023 $26,586 Audited
6/30/2024 2024 $31,003 Audited
6/30/2025 2025 $34,416 Audited
6/30/2026 2026 $38,400 Unaudited
* excludes Measure I
\0
Fund Balance - YTD Fund Deficits
As shown on the Fund Recap at a Glance (page 3) Recreation Fund deficits was eliminated with the transfer from the General Fund as part of year-end closing activities.

The General Fund balance is $38.4 million, an increase of $4.0 million compared to the amount at the prior fiscal year end. The increase compared to the 6/30/25 balance was primarily due to the $1.2 million VLF backfill from FY 2023-24, one-time business license revenue collected from prior fiscal year after tax calculation review, and ongoing cost management on expenditures.

General Fund
General Fund Balance Trend*
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 $220
Budget
Expenditures
Operating
Expenditures
Budget
Revenues
Operating
Revenues
All Funds Revenues & Expenditures
YTD Comparison (in millions)
43%
46%
1%
5%
5%
Capital Improvement Plan
Streets
Sewer
Technology
Recreational Facilities
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
General Fund Balance Trend
(in thousands)
2 7
Audited Unaudited PY YTD
Fund Fund Balance YTD YTD PY YTD YTD YTD PY YTD Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Name 06/30/25 Budget Actual (Under) % Actual Budget Actual Under % Actual 06/30/26 6/30/2025 (1) (2) Over (3) (Over) (1)+(2)-(3)

GENERAL FUND
101 General 34,416 35,197 34,186 1,011 103% 32,549 34,589 31,213 3,376 90% 29,136 38,400 34,416 102 Measure I 3,599 2,504 2,541 37 101% 2,408 7,559 1,792 5,767 24% 3,273 4,348 3,599

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
205 Recreation 609 4,221 3,934 (286) 93% 4,109 4,284 3,986 298 93% 3,897 557 609 206 Library Maintenance & Operation 211 647 618 (29) 96% 343 610 523 87 86% 910 305 211 207 Athletic Field Maintenance 446 187 202 15 108% 210 344 138 206 40% 155 510 446 208 City Tree 230 15 13 (2) 90% 21 109 47 62 43% 43 197 230 209 Senior Services Donation 105 13 10 (4) 72% 14 16 2 14 11% 5 113 105 210 Development Services 2,814 6,735 6,276 (459) 93% 7,602 7,054 6,502 552 92% 6,808 2,589 2,814 212 General Plan Maintenance 854 1,257 1,281 24 102% 606 1,798 1,277 521 71% 1,243 858 854 223 Belmont Fire Protection District 31,502 20,023 19,879 (144) 99% 19,307 15,840 15,312 528 97% 13,687 36,069 31,502 225 Police Grants and Donations 35 1 1 (0) 87% 5 25 7 18 28% 5 30 35 227 Supplemental Law Enforcement 166 191 207 16 109% 199 216 207 9 96% 104 167 166 231 Street Maintenance 1,988 2,906 2,662 (244) 92% 2,977 3,050 2,745 305 90% 2,355 1,905 1,988 232 RMRA Street Project 798 756 807 51 107% 786 1,519 789 730 52% 486 816 798 233 Measure W 2,618 513 518 5 101% 510 3,100 2,600 500 84% 186 536 2,618234 Street Improvements 3,210 1,119 1,165 46 104% 1,114 3,412 359 3,053 11% 839 4,016 3,210237 Traffic Impact 511 164 202 38 123% 411 0 0 0 N/A 0 713 511 239 Public Art 438 47 270 224 577% 18 260 2 258 1% 0 706 438 275 Affordable Housing Successor 4,034 664 332 (332) 50% (684) 1,961 344 1,617 18% 1,339 4,022 4,034 277 Inclusionary Housing 3,541 42 166 124 392% 287 0 0 0 N/A 0 3,707 3,541 Total Special Revenue 54,111 39,500 38,543 (957) 98% 37,835 43,598 34,839 8,758 80% 32,061 57,815 54,111

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
308 General Facilities 581 24 21 (3) 88% 25 604 62 543 10% 65 540 581 310 Infrastructure 2,383 264 256 (8) 97% 96 2,475 830 1,645 34% 3 1,809 2,383312 Comcast PEG Program 364 64 82 19 129% 17 46 0 46 0% 74 446 364341 Planned Park 482 427 312 (115) 73% 70 695 668 27 96% 672 127 482 342 Park Impact 1,083 59 106 47 179% 423 1,091 321 770 29% 20 868 1,083 343 Open Space 54 4 2 (2) 56% 3 111 0 111 0% 53 57 54
399 Capital Improvement Projects 2,705 56,453 12,594 (43,859) 22% 11,143 60,191 13,485 46,706 22% 11,730 1,814 2,705 704 Special Assessment Districts 341 13 13 (0) 97% 14 0 0 N/A 0 354 341 Total Capital Projects 7,995 57,307 13,386 (43,922) 23% 11,792 65,214 15,365 49,849 24% 12,617 6,015 7,995

DEBT SERVICE & OTHER FUNDS
406 Library Bond Debt Service 346 714 705 (9) 99% 708 978 979 (1) 100% 682 71 346 501-505 Sewer Collection System 48,625 23,230 22,666 (564) 98% 24,418 38,876 15,945 22,932 41% 16,099 55,346 48,625 507 Sewer Treatment 30,304 6,547 6,557 10 100% 3,762 7,455 6,661 794 89% 2,292 30,200 30,304 525 Storm Drainage Enterprise 879 3,102 2,172 (930) 70% 1,837 3,321 2,541 780 77% 2,365 510 879 530 Solid Waste Management 2,370 776 790 15 102% 777 650 512 138 79% 517 2,648 2,370570 Worker's Compensation 1,940 1,149 1,131 (18) 98% 1,006 935 704 231 75% 902 2,367 1,940571 Liability Insurance 3,233 1,841 1,841 (0) 100% 955 1,440 1,389 52 96% 1,046 3,685 3,233573 Fleet & Equipment Management 9,239 5,817 5,942 125 102% 5,360 7,192 4,917 2,274 68% 4,362 10,263 9,239 574 Facilities Management 925 3,227 3,304 77 102% 3,162 3,987 2,686 1,301 67% 2,604 1,542 925575 Benefit Prefunding 1,627 1,602 1,502 (100) 94% 2,007 1,805 1,949 (145) 108% 1,692 1,180 1,627 Total Debt & Other 99,489 48,006 46,610 (1,396) 97% 43,993 66,638 38,284 25,355 57% 32,561 107,814 99,489Total All Funds $199,609 $181,503 $136,276 ($45,227) 75% $128,577 $217,597 $121,493 $93,105 56% $109,649 $214,392 $199,609Fund Types:

Variance
City of Belmont
Fund Recap at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended June 30, 2026
(000's)
General Fund - Used to account for and report all financial resources not accounted for and reported in another fund.Special Revenue Funds - Used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specific purposes other than debt service or capital projects.

Capital Projects Funds - Used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets.Debt Service & Other Funds - Includes funds used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for principal and interest; funds used to finance and account for special activities and services performed by a designated department for other departments in the City on a cost reimbursement basis; and funds to account for operations financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise with the intent that the cost of providing goods and services is primarily financed through user charges; and funds used to account for assets held by the City as an agent.

Variance
Revenues Expenditures
3 8
City of Belmont
Budget Variance Report
General Fund / All Other Funds
Results for the Period Ended June 30, 2026
(000's)
General Fund All Other Funds
Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual

REVENUES
Taxes 24,584 25,396 812 103% 24,584 23,630 23,742 23,738 (4) 100% 23,742 22,418 Licenses and permits 1,227 2,262 1,034 184% 1,227 1,164 2,839 3,137 298 111% 2,839 3,258 Intergovernmental 420 369 (51) 88% 420 434 12,917 2,911 (10,007) 23% c 2,991 12,917 Charge for services 4,714 4,579 (135) 97% a 4,276 4,714 41,360 41,755 395 101% 41,360 41,166 Fines and forfeits 93 101 9 109% 93 112 - - - N/A - -
2,104 1,934 171 109% 1,934 2,480 6,447 5,890 (558) 91% d 6,815 6,447 Miscellaneous 321 386 65 120% 321 453 1,825 1,602 (223) 88% e 1,025 1,825 Transfers in 894 - (894) 0% b - 894 58,187 22,040 (36,146) 38% b 19,372 58,187 Total Revenues 34,186 35,197 1,011 103% 34,186 32,549 147,317 101,079 (46,238) 69% 147,317 96,028

EXPENDITURES
General Government 8,359 7,688 (670) 92% 8,359 7,497 9,188 7,904 (1,284) 86% 9,188 7,368 Public Safety 17,425 16,660 (766) 96% 17,425 15,443 15,228 15,025 (203) 99% 15,228 13,609 Streets and Utilities - - - N/A 0 0 76,501 30,686 (45,816) 40% 76,501 23,514 Culture and Recreation 3,105 2,865 (240) 92% 3,105 2,796 11,828 7,715 (4,113) 65% 11,828 7,754 Urban Redevelopment - - - N/A 0 0 8,640 6,089 (2,551) 70% 8,640 7,730 Non Departmental - - - N/A 0 0 2,277 1,104 (1,174) 48% 2,277 759 Debt Service - - - N/A 0 0 5,965 3,718 (2,247) 62% 5,965 3,808 Transfers out 5,700 4,000 (1,700) 70% 5,700 3,400 53,381 18,040 (35,341) 34% 53,381 15,972 Total Expenditures 34,589 31,213 (3,376) 90% 34,589 29,136 183,009 90,280 (92,729) 49% 183,009 80,513 ($403) $3,984 ($403) $3,413 ($35,691) $10,799 ($35,691) $15,514 Management Discussion and Analysis
(Items with unfavorable budget variance more than $0.1 million) Revenues

EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER/
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
Use of money and property
Trends
a) Charges for Services - The budget variance is primarily due to lower fire prevention and public safety administration charges resulting from staff vacancies throughout the year. c) Intergovermental - Grant revenue related to Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects will be received as expenditures incurred and reported in a future reporting period. b) Transfers In - Transfer amount was budgeted based on full CIP commitments. Actual expenditures and CIP transfers are recorded as the project progresses, and any remaining budget will be carried forward to the next fiscal year or released back to the funding source upon project completion. d) Use of Money and Property - The variance is primarily due to a fair market value accounting adjustment made annually in July and yield activity in the City's investment portfolio. e) Miscellaneous - Contribution to Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects will be received as expenditures incurred and reported in a future reporting period. -$600
-$400
-$200
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Thousands
Sales Taxes & TOT - Monthly Comparison
Sales Taxes FY 25 Sales Taxes FY 26 TOT FY 25 TOT FY 26 $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 Thousands
Major General Fund Taxes - 10-year Trends
Prop Tax Sales Taxes TOT
4 9
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
ADP TAX PPE 06/06/26 ADP TAX PPE 06/06/26 6/11/26 DAJ000010646 117,470.37 ADP TAX PPE 06/20/26 ADP TAX PPE 06/20/26 6/25/26 DAJ000010650 124,817.00 ADP WAGE PPE 06/06/26 ADP WAGE PPE 06/06/26 6/11/26 DAJ000010643 510,450.54 ADP WAGE PPE 06/20/26 ADP WAGE PPE 06/20/26 6/25/26 DAJ000010647 561,511.08 BUILDCORP INC APRIL 2026 6/5/26 EFT00042486 262,371.00
CALPERS HEALTH PREMIUMS-JUNE 6/8/26 DAJ000010604 255,023.64 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 06/26/26 6/25/26 DAJ000010583 147,903.40 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 06/12/26 6/17/26 DAJ000010591 148,669.06 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 5/29/26 6/3/26 DAJ000010608 149,071.17 GHILOTTI BROS INC MAY 25 - MAY 26 6/5/26 EFT00042479 81,072.16 MISSION SQUARE ACCT#302442 6/15/26 DAJ000010594 57,670.41 MISSION SQUARE ACCT#302442 DEF COMP 6/1/26 DAJ000010609 57,215.26 MISSION SQUARE DEF COMP ACCT#302442 6/29/26 DAJ000010616 57,846.51 O'GRADY PAVING INC. FEB 2026 - JUNE 2026 6/5/26 EFT00042496 367,852.31 O'GRADY PAVING INC. 6/1/26 - 6/23/26 6/26/26 EFT00042740 141,831.93 REVERSE CHECKS DIT MAY 26 REVERSE CHECKS DIT MAY 26 6/1/26 IAJ000010630 58,668.91 SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER COB JULY CONTRIBUTION 6/5/26 EFT00042460 343,026.00 Total Disbursements in Excess of $50,000 3,442,470.75 $ Total Count 17
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
TANNER PACIFIC INC SAN JUAN PUMP ST & FORCE RE 6/9/26 26 00123 1,265,000.00 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC., INC. COB TRANSPORTATION MASTER P 6/25/26 27 00010 755,586.98 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC., INC. RALSTON AVE CORR IMPRV SEG 6/9/26 26 00125 250,978.00 SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING TO#1-A&E ISLAND PARK LEVEE 6/25/26 27 00005 208,787.00 GOOD CITY COMPANY TO# 16 - 815 BELMONT AVE 6/25/26 27 00007 57,240.00 Total Purchase Orders Issued in Excess of $50,000 2,537,591.98 $ Total Count 5
Disbursements Amounts Equal to $50,000 and Above
Purchase Order Amounts Equal to $50,000 and Above
City of Belmont
Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report
Results for the Period Ended June 30, 2026
5 10
Beginning Balance Ending Balance
May 31, 2026 Receipts Disbursements June 30, 2026
City of Belmont $147,926,883.51 $ 2,999,408.85 $ (4,385,011.49) $ 146,541,280.87 Belmont Fire Protection District 36,087,797.54 352,084.25 (369,532.94) $ 36,070,348.85 Total $ 184,014,681.05 $ 3,351,493.10 $ (4,754,544.43) $ 182,611,629.72 -
Deposit Investments Pool Total
City of Belmont & Belmont Fire Protection District $ 794,449.58 $ 181,817,180.14 $ 182,611,629.72 -
Respectfully Submitted,
s/b Grace Castaneda
Grace Castaneda
City Treasurer
I certify that this report accurately reflects all investments of City of Belmont and Belmont Fire Protection District, and is in conformance with the adopted Investment Policy mandated by Government Code 53646. Furthermore, I certify to the best of my knowledge, sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the Agency's budgeted expenditure requirement for the next six months.

CITY OF BELMONT

TREASURER'S REPORT
June 30, 2026
Balance Summary
Agency Receipts and Disbursements Summary
treasurer report 06-2026 updated

Page 1 of 2 ends

Outstanding check balance revised as of 08.31.2026
11 Investment Type
Issuer
Fund Documents Par Amount Current Market Value* Interest Total Maximum
Weighted
Average
Maturity/Life Rate
Deposit
General Account Wells Fargo $ 794,449.58 $ 794,449.58
Investments:**
L.A.I.F.-POOL https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/pmia/index.asp 139,691,404.52 139,533,885.98 444,218.67 18 months 3.816% L.G.I.P. -POOL https://www.calfitfund.com/document-center/ 42,125,775.62 42,120,960.29 132,696.19 90 days 3.780% Total $ 182,611,629.72 $ 182,449,295.85 $ 576,914.86
*Fair Market Value ratios for LAIF are based on a quarterly basis, while LGIP is on a monthly basis. **The LAIF-BOND account has withdrawn all of its funds as of the end of March 2026.

Investment Detail

CITY OF BELMONT

TREASURER'S REPORT
June 30, 2026
Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Jan-26 Feb-26 Mar-26 Apr-26 May-26 Jun-26 LAIF-POOL 148,630,223 149,987,206 149,987,206 148,501,206 148,016,791 147,848,791 142,558,791 141,908,237 141,908,237 140,152,237 138,874,405 137,019,405 139,691,405 LAIF-BOND 3,618,737 3,665,995 3,665,995 3,665,995 3,706,029 3,706,029 643,029 676,221 221 - - - - LGIP-POOL 25,203,753 40,307,924 41,784,521 42,125,776
INTEREST-LAIF 4.269% 4.258% 4.251% 4.212% 4.150% 4.096% 4.025% 3.931% 3.871% 3.826% 3.811% 3.810% 3.816% INTEREST-LGIP 3.760% 3.770% 3.760% 3.780%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
$160,000,000
City of Belmont Investment Portfolio Trends

Page 2 of 2 ends

12 FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JULY 31, 2026

HIGHLIGHTS

PERFORMANCE

AT A GLANCE
REPORT
• General Fund balance increased
compared to prior YTD

FUND RECAP AT A GLANCE REPORT
Notable Fund Balance Increase compared to prior YTD:
•General Fund
•Belmont Fire Protection District
• Street Improvements
• Sewer Collection System
Notable Fund Balance Decrease compared to prior YTD:
• Measure W
• Capital Improvement Projects

CASH DISBURSEMENTS &

PURCHASE ORDER ACTIVITY
REPORT
•Amounts equal to and above $50,000

BUDGET VARIANCE
REPORT
• Management Discussion & Analysis
• Tax Trends
This report contains financial information which has not been reviewed or audited by an independent auditor, does not reflect the application of generally accepted accounting principles in all instances and is subject to future revision. This report has not been prepared with a view to informing an investment decision in any of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations. Any projections, plans or other forward-looking statements included in this report are subject to a variety of uncertainties that could cause any actual plans or results to differ materially from any such statement. The information herein is not intended to be used by investors or potential investors in considering the purchase or sale of the City’s bonds, notes or other obligations and investors and potential investors should rely only on information filed by the City on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Market Access System for municipal securities disclosures and website, maintained on the World Wide Web at https://emma.msrb.org/
These financial reports are designed to provide a general overview of the City of Belmont’s interim finances. Questions concerning any information provided in these reports should be addressed to [email protected] or for additional information regarding the City’s financial activities, including past award winning audited financial statements, transparency efforts and best practices please visit the City at www.belmont.gov.
13 City of Belmont
Performance at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended July 31, 2026
(000's)
6/30/2017 2017 $11,128 Audited
6/30/2018 2018 $11,325 Audited
6/30/2019 2019 $14,846 Audited
6/30/2020 2020 $13,637 Audited
6/30/2021 2021 $13,398 Audited
6/30/2022 2022 $18,013 Audited
6/30/2023 2023 $26,586 Audited
6/30/2024 2024 $31,003 Audited
6/30/2025 2025 $34,416 Audited
6/30/2026 2026 $38,400 Unaudited
7/31/2026 2027 $36,051 Unaudited
* excludes Measure I
\0
Fund Balance - YTD Fund Deficits
As shown on the Fund Recap at a Glance (page 3) Library Bond Debt Service Fund has deficits and is expected to be eliminated in a future period.

The General Fund balance is $36.1 million, a decrease of $2.3 million compared to the amount at the prior fiscal year end primarily due to annual insurance premiums and pension contributions that were made in the beginning of the fiscal year.

General Fund
General Fund Balance Trend*
$0 $20
Budget
Expenditures
Operating
Expenditures
Budget
Revenues
Operating
Revenues
All Funds Revenues & Expenditures
YTD Comparison (in millions)
45%
50%
1% 3%1%
Capital Improvement Plan
Streets
Sewer
Technology
Recreational Facilities
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
General Fund Balance Trend
(in thousands)
2 14
Unaudited Unaudited PY YTD
Fund Fund Balance YTD YTD PY YTD YTD YTD PY YTD Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Name 06/30/26 Budget Actual (Under) % Actual Budget Actual Under % Actual 07/31/26 7/31/2025 (1) (2) Over (3) (Over) (1)+(2)-(3)

GENERAL FUND
101 General 38,400 27 2,969 (2,942) 1% (214) 3,019 2,375 643 79% 1,952 36,051 32,250 102 Measure I 4,348 214 (229) (443) -107% (215) 669 0 669 0% 0 4,119 3,384

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
205 Recreation 557 366 153 (213) 42% 106 364 514 (151) 141% 439 195 276 206 Library Maintenance & Operation 305 27 0 (27) 0% (2) 49 20 29 41% 17 286 192 207 Athletic Field Maintenance 510 15 27 12 184% 25 31 6 25 18% 7 531 464 208 City Tree 197 1 1 (1) 53% 1 4 3 1 81% 3 194 228
209 Senior Services Donation 113 1 1 0 148% 0 0 0 0 0% 0 114 105 210 Development Services 2,589 575 310 (265) 54% 505 587 430 158 73% 385 2,469 2,935212 General Plan Maintenance 858 82 22 (60) 27% 40 121 38 83 32% 46 841 849 223 Belmont Fire Protection District 36,069 1,755 85 (1,670) 5% (88) 1,343 5,277 (3,934) 393% 2,542 30,877 28,873225 Police Grants and Donations 30 0 0 (0) 0% (0) 2 0 2 0% 0 30 35 227 Supplemental Law Enforcement 167 17 0 (17) 0% (0) 18 17 1 95% 17 150 150 231 Street Maintenance 1,905 228 0 (228) 0% 5 275 230 45 84% 177 1,675 1,816 232 RMRA Street Project 816 68 0 (68) 0% (0) 123 0 123 0% 2 816 796233 Measure W 536 42 (49) (91) -116% (33) 86 0 86 0% 0 487 2,585 234 Street Improvements 4,016 96 747 651 782% (0) 406 3 403 1% 3 4,759 3,206 237 Traffic Impact 713 43 3 (40) 8% 5 11 0 11 0% 0 716 516239 Public Art 706 2 0 (2) 0% 110 36 0 36 0% 0 706 548 275 Affordable Housing Successor 4,022 276 1 (275) 0% 2 201 13 188 7% 15 4,010 4,020277 Inclusionary Housing 3,707 4 0 (4) 0% (0) 0 0 0 N/A 0 3,707 3,541 Total Special Revenue 57,815 3,597 1,301 (2,296) 36% 676 3,657 6,552 (2,895) 179% 3,653 52,564 51,132

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
308 General Facilities 540 2 0 (2) 0% (0) 47 0 47 0% 0 540 581 310 Infrastructure 1,809 7 0 (7) 0% (0) 170 0 170 0% 0 1,809 2,383312 Comcast PEG Program 446 7 (11) (18) -161% (0) 4 0 4 0% 0 435 364 341 Planned Park 127 60 0 (60) 0% (0) 56 0 56 0% 0 127 482 342 Park Impact 868 78 1,193 1,115 1520% 9 120 0 120 0% 0 2,062 1,092 343 Open Space 57 0 0 (0) 0% (0) 5 0 5 0% 0 57 55399 Capital Improvement Projects 1,814 4,433 0 (4,433) 0% (254) 4,726 (183) 4,909 -4% (557) 1,997 3,008704 Special Assessment Districts 354 1 0 (1) 0% (0) 0 0 N/A 0 354 342 Total Capital Projects 6,015 4,589 1,182 (3,406) 26% (245) 5,127 (183) 5,310 -4% (556) 7,381 8,306

DEBT SERVICE & OTHER FUNDS
406 Library Bond Debt Service 71 58 0 (58) 0% (0) 57 565 (508) 984% 553 (494) (208) 501-505 Sewer Collection System 55,346 1,717 0 (1,717) 0% 2,861 2,821 1,606 1,215 57% 4,572 53,740 46,302 507 Sewer Treatment 30,200 279 0 (279) 0% (0) 313 1,352 (1,039) 432% 1,315 28,849 28,560525 Storm Drainage Enterprise 510 205 0 (205) 0% 0 286 167 118 59% 163 343 716 530 Solid Waste Management 2,648 64 (22) (86) -34% (0) 50 41 9 82% 35 2,585 2,335570 Worker's Compensation 2,367 93 133 40 143% 128 83 849 (765) 1017% 769 1,652 1,300571 Liability Insurance 3,685 95 83 (11) 88% 732 128 959 (831) 747% 629 2,809 3,336573 Fleet & Equipment Management 10,263 497 470 (27) 95% 461 607 655 (47) 108% 536 10,079 9,164 574 Facilities Management 1,542 286 294 8 103% 205 341 359 (18) 105% 359 1,477 771575 Benefit Prefunding 1,180 134 113 (21) 84% 112 150 162 (12) 108% 126 1,130 1,613 Total Debt & Other 107,814 3,427 1,072 (2,355) 31% 4,499 4,838 6,715 (2,162) 139% 9,056 102,171 93,889Total All Funds $214,392 $14,795 $3,352 ($11,443) 23% $4,501 $17,309 $15,459 $1,565 89% $14,105 $202,285 $188,962Fund Types:

Variance
City of Belmont
Fund Recap at a Glance
Results for the Period Ended July 31, 2026
(000's)
General Fund - Used to account for and report all financial resources not accounted for and reported in another fund.Special Revenue Funds - Used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specific purposes other than debt service or capital projects.

Variance
Revenues Expenditures
3 15
City of Belmont
Budget Variance Report
General Fund / All Other Funds
Results for the Period Ended July 31, 2026
(000's)
General Fund All Other Funds
Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Year to Date (YTD) Annual PY YTD Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual Budget Actual Variance % Budget Actual

REVENUES
Taxes 2,024 (451) (2,475) -22% a (471) 24,290 2,066 (289) (2,355) -14% a (247) 24,789 Licenses and permits 133 - (133) 0% b 5 1,599 220 202 (18) 92% 2,642 271 Intergovernmental 54 17 (37) 31% 649 12 892 (20) (913) -2% e (363) 10,706 Charge for services 429 316 (113) 74% c 269 5,144 3,591 2,512 (1,078) 70% c 1,508 43,088 Fines and forfeits 8 (0) (9) -3% 100 2 - - - N/A - -
138 166 (27) 83% 1,988 (32) 538 126 (412) 23% f (65) 6,457 Miscellaneous 27 6 (21) 23% 322 1 43 795 752 1867% 511 707 Transfers in 128 - (128) 0% d - 1,538 4,244 - (4,244) 0% d 2,904 50,928 Total Revenues 2,969 27 (2,942) 1% 35,629 (214) 11,826 3,326 (8,500) 28% 141,908 4,715

EXPENDITURES
General Government 718 664 (54) 93% 8,616 523 787 2,576 1,789 327% g 9,445 2,049 Public Safety 1,533 1,482 (51) 97% 18,393 1,253 1,343 5,294 3,951 394% h 16,120 2,556 Streets and Utilities - - - N/A 0 0 5,874 828 (5,046) 14% 70,491 493 Culture and Recreation 265 207 (57) 78% 3,174 176 973 920 (52) 95% 11,672 837 Urban Redevelopment 24 21 (2) 90% 285 0 733 348 (385) 48% 8,794 331 Non Departmental - - - N/A 0 0 191 50 (141) 26% 2,295 12 Debt Service - - - N/A 0 0 497 3,066 2,570 617% i 2,970 5,963 Transfers out 480 - (480) 0% 5,755 0 3,893 - (3,893) 0% 46,710 2,904 Total Expenditures 3,019 2,375 (643) 79% 36,223 1,952 14,291 13,084 (1,207) 92% 171,491 12,153 ($49) ($2,348) ($594) ($2,166) ($2,465) ($9,759) ($29,583) ($7,438) Management Discussion and Analysis
(Items with unfavorable budget variance more than $0.1 million) Revenues
Expenditures

EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER/
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES
Use of money and property
Trends
c) Charges for Services - the budget variance is primarily due to the 1st quarter Public Safety and Wildfire Prevention revenue, which will be received in September. e) Intergovermental - Grant revenue will be received and reported in a future reporting period. d) Transfers In - Transfer amount was budgeted based on full CIP commitments. Actual expenditures and CIP transfers are recorded as the project progresses, and any remaining budget will be carried forward to the next fiscal year or released back to the funding source upon project completion. f) Use of Money and Property - The variance is primarily due to a fair market value accounting adjustment made annually in July. a) Taxes - The budget variance is primarily due to the timing of semi-annual property tax receipts received in December and April. In addition, the majority of Sales Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) received in July are related to June activities, which are subject to an accounting adjustment. g) General Government - The annual insurance premium and OPEB contributions were paid in July. i) Debt Service - Annual debt service on bonds were paid in July. h) Public Safety - The first quarter payments of $2.3M to BSCFD and $2.7M to San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department and annual insurance premium were made in July. b) Licenses and Permits - The budget variance is primarily due to the Business License Tax Revenue. All businesses' licensing periods (i.e., the “tax period”) have transitioned to January 1 to December 31 and majority of the revenues will be received at license renewal in December/January. -$600
-$400
-$200
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Thousands
Sales Taxes & TOT - Monthly Comparison
Sales Taxes FY 26 Sales Taxes FY 27 TOT FY 26 TOT FY 27 $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 Thousands
Major General Fund Taxes - 10-year Trends
Prop Tax Sales Taxes TOT
4 16
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
ADP PAYROLL 07/24/26 7/23/26 DAJ000010689 627,117.17
ADP TAX PPE 07/04/26 ADP TAX PPE 07/04/26 7/9/26 DAJ000010719 130,603.24 ADP TAX PPE 07/18/26 ADP TAX PPE 07/18/26 7/24/26 DAJ000010723 157,730.36 ADP WAGE PPE 07/04/26 ADP WAGE PPE 07/04/26 7/9/26 DAJ000010716 579,960.40 ADP WAGE PPE 07/18/26 ADP WAGE PPE 07/18/26 7/24/26 DAJ000010720 625,877.38 ADP WAGE PPE 07/18/26 ADJ ADP WAGE PPE 07/18/26 ADJ 7/24/26 IAJ000010737 627,117.17 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES FY27 CRIME INSURANCE 7/17/26 EFT00042900 251,650.71 APB GENERAL ENGINEERING 03/11/26 - 06/30/26 7/24/26 EFT00042945 196,070.50 AXON ENTERPRISES INC ANNUAL BWC EQUIP/TECH SERVICES 7/10/26 EFT00042860 107,309.92 BELMONT SAN CARLOS FIRE DEPT FY 26-27 PERS LEGACY COSTS 7/17/26 EFT00042899 2,277,057.00 BNY MELLON 2018 SEWER REVENUE 7/23/26 DAJ000010683 924,519.90 BNY MELLON 2019 SEWER REVENUE 7/23/26 DAJ000010685 728,928.62 BNY MELLON 2016 SEWER REFUNDING 7/23/26 DAJ000010686 671,334.13 BNY MELLON 2004A SERIES SPECIAL TAX 7/23/26 DAJ000010687 563,405.23 BNY MELLON 2016 SEWER REVENUE 7/23/26 DAJ000010688 360,178.11 CALPERS COB JULY HEALTH PREMIUM 7/7/26 DAJ000010673 250,235.20 CALPERS COB CONTRIBUTION PPE 07/10/26 7/9/26 DAJ000010674 148,954.33 CALPERS UAL PAYMENT 7/24/26 DAJ000010691 5,564,606.00
CAPITAL ONE 2022 SEWER REFUNDING 7/23/26 DAJ000010684 781,477.75 CRAYON SOFTWARE EXPERTS LLC YEAR 2 RENEWAL FY26-27 SVS 7/10/26 EFT00042866 104,057.73 EDD PAYROLL TAXES PPE 07/24/26 7/22/26 DAJ000010682 54,866.97 GRANICUS LLC FY 26-27 RENEWAL 7/2/26 EFT00042794 87,768.59 JARC, ASHLEY CLAIM BE-901 - A. JARC 7/17/26 1206628 81,608.88 MISSIONSQUARE DEF COMP ACCT#302442 7/13/26 DAJ000010680 57,961.79 MISSIONSQUARE DEF COMP ACCT#302442 7/27/26 DAJ000010694 57,262.11 MNS ENGINEERS INC 04/27/26 - 05/24/26 7/24/26 EFT00042926 60,243.01 PRISM FY27 PRIMARY WORKERS COMP 7/2/26 EFT00042800 824,521.00 PRISM FY27 GENERAL LIABILITY 7/10/26 EFT00042878 853,310.00 SAN MATEO CONSOLIDATED FIRE DEPARTMENT Q1 2026-27 SMC FIRE TRANSFER 7/10/26 EFT00042862 2,716,654.25 SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER AUGUST CONTRIBUTIONS 7/10/26 EFT00042855 343,026.00 VERTOSOFT LLC YEAR 1 FY26-27 SERVICES 7/10/26 EFT00042868 170,853.69 Total Disbursements in Excess of $50,000 20,986,267.14 $ Total Count 31
Vendor Description Date No. Amount
EATON & ASSOCIATES SERVER REPLACEMENT 7/20/26 27 00024 400,000.00 DUKE'S ROOT CONTROL, INC. ROOT FOAMING OF SEWER LINES 7/14/26 27 00023 59,203.32 PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC COB BIKE IMPROV PJT MNGMT 7/9/26 27 00022 59,720.00 Total Purchase Orders Issued in Excess of $50,000 518,923.32 $ Total Count 3
Disbursements Amounts Equal to $50,000 and Above
Purchase Order Amounts Equal to $50,000 and Above
City of Belmont
Disbursements & Purchase Order Activity Report
Results for the Period Ended July 31, 2026
5 17
18 19

Page 1 of 3 ends

2026 Conflict of Interest Code Biannual Update - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Jozi Plut, City Clerk, [email protected] Agenda Title: 2026 Conflict of Interest Code Biannual Update Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution amending the Appendix of Designated Employees to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The Political Reform Act (PRA) of 1974 requires local government agencies to adopt and maintain a Conflict-of-Interest Code. Like most cities, the City of Belmont has adopted the “model” Conflict-ofInterest Code prepared by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18730. The model code establishes requirements for the disclosure of financial interests and the disqualification of City employees and other officials from participating in decisions in which they may have a financial interest.

Cities that adopt the model code need only maintain an appendix identifying designated employees subject to the disclosure requirements and specifying the types of financial interests they must disclose. The PRA requires cities to review their Conflict-of-Interest Codes at least biennially, in each even-numbered year, to ensure the code reflects the organization’s current structure and staffing.

The City of Belmont first adopted its Conflict-of-Interest Code in 1979 and has periodically reviewed and revised it in accordance with the PRA. The City Council serves as the code-reviewing body for both the City of Belmont and the Belmont Fire Protection District. The City’s Conflict-of-Interest Code was last updated by the City Council on September 24, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-68.

Analysis
Under the PRA, the city must identify each employee position within the City of Belmont, including the Belmont Fire Protection District, which involves the making or participation in the making of governmental decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest of that employee. In addition, certain consultants to the city must also disclosure their financial interests because they make or participate in making governmental decisions on behalf of the local agency. The “Designated Employees” make these disclosures on a form known as “Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700”. 20

Page 2 of 3 ends

2026 Conflict of Interest Code Biannual Update - Staff Report Revisions to the appendix of Designated Employees are necessary to account for the addition of positions that make or participate in governmental decisions, the removal of positions that no longer perform those functions, and changes to position titles. The exhibit attached to the resolution included with this report reflects these changes.

For the Council’s information, the revised list of Designated Employees and officers excludes Council Members, Planning Commissioners, the City Manager, the Finance Director, and the City Attorney. These positions are not listed in the local Conflict-of-Interest Code because they are already required by state law (Government Code Section 87200) to disclose their financial interests. To maintain this distinction, these positions are identified as “Code Filers” at the bottom of the revised appendix.

Disclosure Categories
The PRA identifies four basic types of financial interests subject to reporting by Designated Employees:
(1) investments, (2) business positions, (3) sources of income, and (4) real property interests. Under the Act, the City’s Conflict-of-Interest Code must require Designated Employees to report financial interests that may foreseeably be materially affected by any decision made or participated in by the employee by virtue of their position.

The disclosure categories satisfy this requirement by matching each position with the types of reportable financial interests that may be affected by the employee’s duties. The City’s Conflict-of-Interest Code currently includes two disclosure categories:

Disclosure Category 1. Designated Employees in Category 1 are required to provide the fullest disclosure, including investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and business positions. This category is intended to cover employees who make or participate in making regulatory decisions. Employees in this group may also make or participate in making decisions affecting contracts.

Disclosure Category 2. Designated Employees in Category 2 are required to report investments, business positions, and sources of income from sources that provide the types of goods and services utilized by the City. This category covers Designated Employees who make or participate in making decisions pertaining to purchase contracts but do not make or participate in making regulatory decisions. Disclosure under this category is limited in scope to match the employee positions with the types of reportable financial interests that may be affected by the performance of their duties. No changes are proposed to the disclosure categories.

Alternatives

1. Modify the list of designated positions, disclosure categories, or assignment of employee positions to disclosure categories.

2. Refer to staff for further information.

Attachments
A. Resolution Amending the Appendix of Designated Employees B. Redline of changes to Appendix
21

Page 3 of 3 ends

2026 Conflict of Interest Code Biannual Update - Staff Report Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda 22

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT REVISING THE CITY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AND UPDATING THE APPENDIX OF

DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, under the California Political Reform Act, local government agencies must adopt a Conflict of Interest Code and designate the official and employee positions that must disclosure financial interests in conformance with the law; and, WHEREAS, the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) has adopted a regulation, Title 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730, which contains the terms of a model conflict of interest code which meets the requirements of the Political Reform Act; and, WHEREAS, under the Political Reform Act and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Fair Political Practices Commission of the State of California (FPPC), a newly established local entity is required to adopt a conflict of interest code; and, WHEREAS, the Belmont Fire Protection District is a subsidiary district of the City of Belmont, and the City Council is the code reviewing body for the Belmont Fire Protection District.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The terms of California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 18730 and any amendments duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commissions, together with the Appendix to the City of Belmont Conflict of Interest Code attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Belmont.

SECTION 2. Designated officials and employees must file statements of economic interest with the City Clerk for the City of Belmont who shall make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction in accordance with Government Code Section 81008 upon payment of the fees equal to the amount that the city is authorized therein to charge but not to exceed. The City Clerk shall retain statements for designated officials and employees.

SECTION 3. This resolution supersedes all previous resolutions adopting or amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code as of its adopted date. * * *
23

Page 2 of 2 ends

ADOPTED September 22, 2026 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
24

Page 1 of 3 ends

Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles - Staff Report.docx

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Dustin Moore, Public Works Fleet Management, (650) 595-7466, [email protected]; Sean Prevette, Management Analyst II, (650) 595-7465, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution authorizing 1) the City Manager to execute contracts for the acquisition of three Police patrol vehicles and associated equipment for a total amount not to exceed $199,338, and 2) authorizing a budget appropriation of $74,446 from the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund for the purchase of replacement vehicles and associated equipment.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The City of Belmont maintains an inventory of 96 assets, including vehicles, off-road equipment, and emergency generators. Public Works Fleet Management is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of these assets to ensure safe and reliable operations across City departments.

The City's vehicle replacement program is intended to proactively replace aging vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life due to age, mileage, condition, or increasing maintenance costs. Fleet management uses a variety of procurement methods to acquire and outfit replacement vehicles in the most cost-effective and efficient manner available.

The three vehicles proposed for replacement include Police Patrol Vehicle #115, Police Patrol Vehicle #108, and Police Patrol Vehicle #102. Fleet Management has evaluated each vehicle and determined replacement is necessary.

The replacement of Police Patrol Vehicles #108 and #115 was previously authorized by Council on May 26, 2026, through Resolution No. 2026-31, which had initially been funded as part of the FY 2025-26 budget. Staff have since identified a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing agreement that provides lower pricing for the replacement vehicles. Police Patrol Vehicle #102 is a separate replacement vehicle included in the adopted FY 2026-27 budget. Staff are now proposing to procure all three vehicles through the Sourcewell agreement to take advantage of the reduced pricing and streamline the procurement process. 25

Page 2 of 3 ends

Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles - Staff Report.docx
Analysis
Police Patrol Vehicle #115, a 2018 Ford Police Interceptor, has accumulated more than 102,000 miles and has experienced increasing maintenance and repair issues resulting in extended out-of-service time.

Replacement of this vehicle has been deferred since FY 2023. Funding for the replacement vehicle was not carried over from FY 2025-26 to the current FY 2026-27, and an authorization of a budget appropriation is needed for the purchase of the replacement vehicle and associated equipment in the amount of $71,446.

Police Patrol Vehicle #108, a 2021 Ford Police Interceptor, was involved in a collision and was deemed a total loss. Approximately 90% of the vehicle's outfitting equipment was recovered and can be reused in the replacement vehicle, significantly reducing replacement outfitting costs. Funding for the replacement vehicle was carried over from FY 2025-26 to the current FY 2026-27, but an additional budget appropriation in the amount of $3,000 is needed to complete the installation of the associated vehicle equipment.

Police Patrol Vehicle #102, a 2018 Ford Police Interceptor, has accumulated more than 95,000 miles and has experienced increasing maintenance and repair issues resulting in extended out-of-service time. The funding for the replacement vehicle purchase was included in the FY 2026-27 budget, and no additional budget appropriation is needed.

Fleet Management works collaboratively with each department to develop vehicle specificationsthat meet their operational needs while improving fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As part of the replacement process, Fleet Management evaluates vehicles that provide the best available net reduction in fleet emissions while considering operational, economic, and environmental factors.

Procurement
Police Patrol Vehicles #102, #108, and #115 will be replaced with 2027 Ford Police Interceptor Hybrid vehicles for use by the Police Department. The hybrid powertrain allows the vehicles to operate more efficiently on electric power during patrol and while idling at incident scenes, resulting in improved fuel economy, reduced GHG emissions, lower fuel costs, and reduced maintenance costs. The vehicles also support the City's effort to increase the number of alternative fuel vehicles within the fleet.

These vehicles will be procured using a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing agreement. Sourcewell competitively solicits, evaluates, and awards contracts on behalf of public agencies nationwide, allowing participating agencies to procure vehicles and equipment at competitively established pricing. Cooperative purchasing agreements provide procurement flexibility and can reduce administrative and purchasing costs while expediting vehicle acquisition timelines. These procurement methods satisfy the City's competitive purchasing requirements, and Belmont has successfully utilized them for prior vehicle acquisitions. For the purchase of the three 2027 Ford Police Interceptor Hybrid vehicles, staff will utilize Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement #032824 with Olathe Fleet. The associated Request for Proposals was published in March 2024, with the formal agreement executed between Olathe Fleet and Sourcewell in July 2024. This agreement remains in effect until July 2028. Use of the Sourcewell agreement results in a lower overall purchase cost for the three replacement vehicles. 26

Page 3 of 3 ends

Purchase of Police Patrol Vehicles - Staff Report.docx
Once the replacement vehicles are placed into service, the existing vehicles will be removed from service and may be traded in, donated for training purposes such as the Police Academy, or sold at auction, as appropriate.

Approval of the proposed resolution will authorize the procurement of the replacement vehicles and associated equipment in an amount not to exceed $199,338. Funding for vehicle replacement is accumulated over the useful life of fleet assets through the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund.

An appropriation of $74,446 is required in addition to the $124,892 that has been carried over and included in the FY 2026-27 budget for the purchase of replacement vehicles and associated equipment.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action

2. Refer back to staff for more information
Attachments
A. Resolution
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Budget appropriation of $74,446 in the current FY 2026-27 is required in the Fleet and Equipment Management Fund
(Account No. 573-0-000-9041 Vehicles) for the purchase of the replacement vehicles and associated equipment. The remaining amount of $124,892 has been carried over and budgeted in the FY 2026-27 Fleet and Equipment Management Fund (Account No. 573-0-000-9041).

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
27

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF THREE POLICE PATROL VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $199,338

AND APPROPRIATING EXPENDITURES IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2026-27 BUDGET RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF THE POLICE PATROL REPLACEMENT VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.

WHEREAS, Police Patrol Vehicles #102, #108, and #115 were evaluated by Fleet Management and determined to have reached the end of their useful life or otherwise require replacement; and,
WHEREAS, Police Patrol Vehicles #102 and #115 have experienced increasing maintenance and repair issues resulting in extended out-of-service time, and Police Patrol Vehicle #108 was involved in a collision and declared a total loss; and, WHEREAS, funding for the purchase of Police Patrol Vehicle #102 and associated equipment was included in the FY 2026-27 budget (Account 573-0-000-9041/Vehicles); and,
WHEREAS, The FY 2026-27 budget does not include funding for all Police Patrol Vehicles #108 and #115 and related equipment purchase and related expenditures, pending Council approval of the budget appropriation.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement purchasing three Police vehicles and associated equipment using competitive bid solicitations, piggyback contracts, cooperative purchasing agreements, or other authorized procurement methods, for a total amount not to exceed: $199,338.

SECTION 2. The Council amends the FY 2026-27 budget by appropriating funds of $74,446 to the Vehicles Expenditure account #573-0-000-9041. The remaining amount of $124,892 has been carried over and budgeted in the FY 2026-27 Fleet and Equipment Management Fund (Account No. 573-0-000-9041).
* * *
ADOPTED September 22, 2026 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
28

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
29

Page 1 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027 - Staff Report Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Edric Kwan, Public Works Dept., (650) 595-7459, [email protected] Sean Prevette, Public Works Dept., (650) 595-7465, [email protected] Agenda Title: Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution stating the City of Belmont’s intent to revise the maximum rates that may be charged for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services effective January 1, 2027, and set a Public Hearing date for November 24, 2026.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
On August 28, 2018, the Council authorized the City Manager to finalize and execute an Amended and Restated Franchise Agreement (Agreement) with Recology of San Mateo County (Recology) for recyclable materials, organic materials, and solid waste collection from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2035. The Agreement provides for an annual review of the maximum rates that Recology may charge Belmont residential and commercial customers for regular and unscheduled services. Each year, Recology proposes, City staff analyzes, and the City Council adopts solid waste rates that do not exceed Recology’s maximum rates.

On July 31, 2026, Recology provided the City their 2027 rate application and detailed worksheet outlining their calculation of the maximum rates. Also in July, as part of the City’s review process, the City retained the services of HDR, Inc. (HDR) to confirm that the rates proposed by Recology were calculated in accordance with the Agreement and associated amendments. HDR and City staff have reviewed and confirmed that the rate adjustment application and the accompanying maximum rate schedules submitted by Recology seeking a

6.09% increase in 2027 over 2026 rates meets the terms of the Agreement.

This report is the first step in the City’s process to approve the maximum rates that may be charged for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services. In November, the City will hold a public hearing following the procedures of Proposition 218 to adopt the calendar year 2027 solid waste rates.

Analysis
Recology is proposing total contractor compensation of $10,696,784 for 2027. The percentage change between the 2027 total target revenue of $10,696,784 and the 2026 target revenue of $10,082,879 30

Page 2 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027 - Staff Report results in the adjustment multiplier rate of 6.09%, which is consistent with methodology of the Agreement.

The adjustment multiplier rate of 6.09% is the proposed 2027 rate increase to the residential and commercial carts and bins and it accounts for CPI cost increases such as labor costs, fuel, general expenses, SB 1383 program implementation, depreciation, interests, incentives and disincentives, direct costs components, and agency payments.

Table 1 is a summary of the changes in total target revenue from 2026 to 2027.

Base Contractor Compensation
Direct Labor Related $2,510,958 $2,587,836 $76,878 3.06% Direct Fuel Costs 290,254 351,073 60,818 20.95%
General Expense Direct & Indirect 1,464,651 1,520,271 55,620 3.80% Depreciation 281,317 302,335 21,018 7.47%
Profit 477,328 499,828 22,500 4.71%
Interest 73,679 110,789 37,110 50.37%
Total Base Compensation $5,098,188 $5,372,131 $273,944 5.37% Performance (Inc.) / Dis. (5,776) (4,794) 982 -17.00%
Total Pass-Through Costs
Disposal Projected Cost (i) $2,455,449 $2,563,021 $107,572 4.38% Disposal Actual Prior Year Cost (ii) 2,347,997 2,440,711 92,714 3.95% Disposal Prior Projected Cost (iii) (2,434,527) (2,455,449) (20,922) 0.86% Agency Payments 2,621,548 2,781,164 159,616 6.45%
Total Pass-Through Costs $4,990,467 $5,329,447 $338,980 6.79% Total Target Revenue $10,082,879 $10,696,784 $613,906 6.09% Table 2 shows the present monthly rates, the proposed monthly rates with the 6.09% rate increase, and the monthly change (for illustrative purposes) for residential customers. %
Difference
$
Difference
2027
Target
Revenue
2026
Target
Cost Component Revenue
Table 1
Summary of Changes in Total Target Revenue from 2026 to 2027 31

Page 3 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027 - Staff Report Table 2
Summary of the Present, Proposed, and Monthly Change
Schedule Schedule Description
Present
Monthly
Rate
Proposed
2027
Rates
$/Month
Change
R20G Residential Waste - 20 Gallons $41.62 $44.15 $2.53 R32G Residential Waste - 32 Gallons 49.66 52.68 3.02
R64G Residential Waste - 64 Gallons 97.76 103.71 5.95
R96G Residential Waste - 96 Gallons 144.64 155.57 8.93
Commercial customers have similar service to residential customers, but they have the option to adjust the number of pickups per week. In 2027, it is estimated that the commercial rates will increase by 6.09% for all cart sizes. Table 3 is a summary of the calculated maximum commercial solid waste rates by cart size. Some minor rounding of the rates may occur for purposes of ease of administration.

Table 3
Summary of Calculated Maximum Commercial Solid Waste
32

Page 4 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027 - Staff Report

Some commercial customers have larger bins which range in size from 1 yard to 6 yards. Commercial waste customers also have the option of different levels of service and can select the number of pick-ups per week.

Table 4 is a summary of the calculated maximum commercial solid waste rates for 2027 for the larger bin sizes.

It is estimated that the rates will increase by 6.09% for all bin sizes.

Table 4
Summary of Calculated Maximum Commercial Solid Waste
33

Page 5 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027 - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Additional Services
Recology also provides several services that are not considered regularly scheduled services. Those miscellaneous additional services charges are itemized in Exhibit A of the Resolution. In summary, an overall rate increase of 3.80% is being proposed.

Proposition 218
The City is committed to promoting public participation in City activities. Towards this end, it has been the City’s practice to notice and conduct protest hearing proceedings with respect to solid waste maximum rates in the manner set forth in Article XIII D, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution and Section 53755 of the Government Code. That process requires that a notice be mailed to solid waste customers not less than forty-five days prior to any public hearing affecting any rate.

Customers and property owners have the right to submit written protests against the proposed maximum rates and may do so by mail or in person to the City Clerk no later than the conclusion of the public hearing. If written protests against the charges are presented by owners of a majority of the affected parcels, the City Council may not impose the charges.

The attached resolution authorizes the initiation of the Proposition 218 process based on the maximum rates in accordance with the Guidelines for the Submission and Tabulation of Protests in Exhibit B and sets a public hearing for November 24, 2026.

Alternatives

1. Take no action

2. Adjust rates differently while meeting the requirements of the Agreement.

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Recology 2027 Rate Application
C. HDR Inc. Report – Solid Waste Rate Analysis
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
34

Page 6 of 6 ends

Review Solid Waste Rate Application and Revise Maximum Rates for Collection Services for 2027 - Staff Report ☒ Funding Source Confirmed: The recommended rate increases will cover the solid waste program’s revenue requirements.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Statutory/Contractual Requirement Posting of Agenda

Page 1 of 12 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT STATING

ITS INTENT TO ADJUST THE MAXIMUM RATES THAT MAY BE CHARGED FOR

SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND ORGANIC MATERIALS COLLECTION SERVICES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2027 AND SETTING A PUBLIC

HEARING
WHEREAS, solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services are provided in the City of Belmont by Recology San Mateo County (Recology) pursuant to a franchise agreement with the City; and,
WHEREAS, the franchise agreement with Recology provides for an annual review of the maximum rates that Recology may charge Belmont residential and commercial customers; and, WHEREAS, Recology provided the City a letter and detailed worksheet outlining their calculation of the maximum rates for Rate Year 2027 which include a proposed 6.09% increase; and,
WHEREAS, , the City is contractually obligated to set maximum rates and desires to conduct a proceeding to adjust the schedule of charges as itemized in Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. Proposes rate revisions and methodology generally described in Exhibits “A” and “B” to this Resolution, which are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. On November 24, 2026, at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as may be practicable in the City Council Chambers located at One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, CA, or online via Zoom (https://belmont-gov.zoom.us), the City Council will hold a public hearing in accordance with the procedures in California Constitution Article XIIID with respect to the proposed rates. At this hearing, all interested persons will be permitted to present oral and written testimony with respect to the proposed rates and methodology.

SECTION 3. Direct staff to give notice of the hearing in the manner required by law.

SECTION 4. The City will accept and tabulate protests against the proposed rate revision following the procedures set forth in Exhibit “B” to this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference.
* * *
ADOPTED September 22, 2026 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:
36

Page 2 of 12 ends

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
37

Page 3 of 12 ends

Exhibit A to Resolution
38 Page
4 of 12
39 Page
5 of 12
40 Page
6 of 12
41 Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)

Page 7 of 12 ends

42 Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)

Page 8 of 12 ends

43 Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)

Page 9 of 12 ends

44 Schedule Q
Additional Services (Continued)

Page 10 of 12 ends

Page 11 of 12 ends

Exhibit B to Resolution

GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION AND TABULATION OF PROTESTS

SOLID WASTE FEES
Submission of Protests

1. Any property owner or solid waste customer may submit a written protest to the City Clerk, either by delivery to the office of the City Clerk or by submitting the protest at the public hearing. Protests must be received by the end of the public hearing. No postmarks will be accepted.

2. Each protest must identify the affected property (by assessor’s parcel number or street address) and include the signature of the record property owner or solid waste customer. Email protests cannot be accepted. Although oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as a formal protest unless accompanied by a writing, the City Council welcomes input from the community during the public hearing on the proposed fees.

3. If a parcel served by the City is owned by more than a single record owner or customer, each owner or customer may submit a protest, but only one protest will be counted per parcel and any one protest submitted in accordance with these rules will be sufficient to count as a protest for that property.

4. In order to be valid a protest must bear the original signature of the record owner or customer with respect to the property identified on the protest.

Protests not bearing the original signature of a record owner or customer shall not be counted.

5. Any person who submits a protest may withdraw it by submitting to the City Clerk a writing request that the protest be withdrawn. The withdrawal of a protest shall contain sufficient information to identify the affected parcel and the name of the record owner or record customer who submitted both the protest and the request that it be withdrawn.

6. A fee protest proceeding is not an election.

7. To ensure transparency and accountability in the fee protest tabulation, protests shall constitute disclosable public records from and after the time they are received.

Tabulation of Protests.

1. The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all protests. The City Clerk shall not accept as valid any protest if the City Clerk determines that any of the following conditions exist:
46

Page 12 of 12 ends

a. The protest does not identify a property served by the City. b. The protest does not bear an original signature of a record owner of the parcel identified on the protest or of the customer on the parcel. c. The protest does not state its opposition to the proposed fees. d. The protest was not received by the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on the proposed fees.
e. A request to withdraw the protest is received prior to the close of the public hearing on the proposed fees.

3. The City Clerk’s decision that a protest is not valid or does not apply to a specific fee shall constitute a final action of the City and shall not be subject to any internal appeal.

4. A majority protest exists if written protests are timely submitted and not withdrawn by the record owners of a majority of the properties subject to the proposed fee.

5. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Clerk shall complete the tabulation of all protests received, including those received during the public hearing and shall report the results of the tabulation to the City Council upon completion. If review of the protests received demonstrates that the number received is manifestly less than one- half of the parcels served by the City with respect to the fee which is the subject of the protest, then the Clerk may advise the City Council of the absence of a majority protest without determining the validity of all protests.
47 48
49 RethinkWaste RethinkWaste RethinkWaste RethinkWaste Adjusted Adjusted Approved Adjusted Depreciation April 2020 April 2026 2027 2021 SB 1383 2021 Plus & Interest CPI CPI Rate Year
Cost Description Basis for Adjustment Values Costs SB 1383 Adjustment Index Index Compensation Direct Labor Related
Wages for CBA's CPI-W: CWURS49BSA0 1,310,584 1,310,584 290.304 363.533 1,641,178Benefits for CBA's CPI-W-Medical: CUUR0000SAM 608,287 608,287 517.053 591.661 696,060Payroll Taxes Effective Rate: 8.1% 109,005 109,005 na na 132,935Workers Compensation CPI-W: CWURS49BSA0 93,961 93,961 290.304 363.533 117,663 Direct Fuel Costs CPI-U-Motor Fuel: CUURS49BSETB 169,992 169,992 209.994 433.686 351,073 General Expenses Direct CPI-U: CUURS49BSA0 191,163 191,163 298.074 369.215 236,788 General Expenses Indirect CPI-U: CUURS49BSA0 1,020,220 1,020,220 298.074 369.215 1,263,715 RethinkWaste Approved SB 1383 Costs CPI-U: CUURS49BSA0 - 18,124 18,124 338.496 369.215 19,769 (1) General Expenses Depreciation Fixed 281,317 281,317 21,018 na na 302,335 Profit Calculation Operating Ratio of 90.5% 397,271 397,271 na na 499,828 Interest Fixed 73,679 73,679 37,110 na na 110,789
Performance Incentives Based on Annual Report - - na na -Performance Disincentives Based on Annual Report - - na na (4,794)Base Contractor's Compensation 4,255,47 18,12 8 4,273,60 4 58,128 2 5,367,337 Disposal Cost Component (i) Projected Next Rate Year 1,732,663 2,563,021Disposal Cost Component (ii) Actual Prior Year 2,440,711 Disposal Cost Component (iii) Less Projected Prior Year (2,455,449)Agency Payments 2,051,120 2,781,164Total Contractor Compensation 8,039,261 8,057,38 10,696,78 5 4 (1) Note: The SB 1383 cost of $18,124 is added to base costs starting in rate year 2024 and is subject to CPI-U adjustment beginning in rate year 2025 using the beginning CPI Index from April 2023 rather than April 2020. 2027
Total Contractor Compensation 10,696,784
Cap Carry Forward 11.11 -
Total Target Revenue 10,696,784
2026 Target Revenue 10,082,879
Adjustment Multiplier 6.09%
5% Cap Calculation 11.11Adjusted Contractor's Compensation 2027 5,372,131Adjusted Contractor's Compensation 2026 5,098,188 difference 273,9435 % of Adjusted Contractor's Compensation 2026 254,909Potential Cap Carry Forward 19,034 Recology San Mateo County
City of Belmont
Refuse Rate Index Calculation
50 Recology San Mateo County
City of BelmontActual Disposal Calculation (Apr 2025 - Mar 2026)Rate Year 2027

BELMONT CITY VEHICLES
Solid Bulky Solid Each
Waste Green/Org Items Waste Green/Org Dirt C&D Asphalt Refrigerators APR 556.11 431.57 0.50 37.22 7.18 63.75 20.78 9.98 -
MAY 587.15 431.05 2.66 39.07 2.41 21.41 0.31 19.25 -
JUN 591.75 398.43 1.17 21.13 1.73 44.34 - - -
JUL 620.15 429.26 1.78 56.99 6.73 71.20 0.17 19.48 -
AUG 585.94 400.87 2.42 41.60 30.54 35.49 - 16.42 -
SEP 604.43 413.38 0.83 43.30 0.35 8.11 0.60 - -
OCT 623.84 438.42 0.78 46.94 3.48 15.32 - - -
NOV 567.15 397.74 0.98 40.03 1.42 13.04 - - -
DEC 693.98 466.82 4.51 15.27 2.01 12.37 - 13.90 -
subtotal Apr - Dec 2025 5,430.50 3,807.54 15.63 341.55 55.85 285.03 21.86 79.03 - JAN 612.64 488.55 - 31.94 6.89 17.20 - 2.04 1
FEB 555.58 362.14 2.21 47.72 4.21 4.33 - 9.84 -
MAR 614.24 418.56 1.23 45.74 7.92 28.17 - - -
subtotal Jan - Mar 2026 1,782.46 1,269.25 3.44 125.40 19.02 49.70 - 11.88 1.00 RethinWaste Total 7,212.96 5,076.79 19.07 466.95 74.87 334.73 21.86 90.91 1.00 Rate Apr 2025 - Dec 2025 $176.55 $190.46 $176.55 $176.55 $190.46 $150.00 $176.55 $178.50 $60.00Rate Jan 2026 - Mar 2026 $185.38 $199.98 $185.38 $185.38 $199.98 $164.03 $185.38 $184.93 $60.00 Per Item Cost $1,289,187.21 $979,008.68 $3,397.18 $83,547.30 $14,440.81 $50,906.79 $3,859.38 $16,303.82 $60.00Total Disposal $2,440,711.19 51 Recology San Mateo County
City of BelmontProjected Disposal Calculation (Apr 2026 - Mar 2027)Rate Year 2027

BELMONT CITY VEHICLES
Solid Bulky Solid Each
Waste Green/Org Items Waste Green/Org Dirt C&D Asphalt Refrigerator APR (Actual) 615.03 437.74 1.39 41.03 3.16 24.50 - 8.79 - MAY (Actual) 575.49 394.17 1.53 41.92 1.84 12.28 - 7.88 - JUN (Actual) 613.32 383.19 1.24 45.45 1.78 50.18 0.33 18.27 - JUL 620.15 429.26 1.78 56.99 6.73 71.20 0.17 19.48 -
AUG 585.94 400.87 2.42 41.60 30.54 35.49 - 16.42 -
SEP 604.43 413.38 0.83 43.30 0.35 8.11 0.60 - -
OCT 623.84 438.42 0.78 46.94 3.48 15.32 - - -
NOV 567.15 397.74 0.98 40.03 1.42 13.04 - - -
DEC 693.98 466.82 4.51 15.27 2.01 12.37 - 13.90 -
subtotal Apr - Dec 5,499.33 3,761.59 15.46 372.53 51.31 242.49 1.10 84.74 - JAN 612.64 488.55 - 31.94 6.89 17.20 - 2.04 1
FEB 555.58 362.14 2.21 47.72 4.21 4.33 - 9.84 -MAR 614.24 418.56 1.23 45.74 7.92 28.17 - - - subtotal Jan - Mar 1,782.46 1,269.25 3.44 125.40 19.02 49.70 - 11.88 1RethinWaste Total 7,281.79 5,030.84 18.90 497.93 70.33 292.19 1.10 96.62 1 Rates Apr 2026 - Dec 2026 $185.38 $199.98 $185.38 $185.38 $199.98 $164.03 $185.38 $184.93 $60.00Rates Jan 2027 - Mar 2027 $194.65 $209.98 $194.65 $194.65 $209.98 $172.23 $194.65 $194.18 $63.00Per Item Cost $ 1,018,759.88 1,366,421.63 $ 3,535.57 $ 93,468.72 $ 14,254.79 $ 48,335.47 $ 203.92 $ 17,977.83 $ 63.00 $ Total Disposal $ 2,563,020.81 52 Recology San Mateo County
Incentives and Disincentives
Year 2025
Member Agency
SFD and
Commercial
Missed P/U
Events
Average
Speed of
Answer
90 Second
Max Hold
Time
Diversion
Maximum
Incentives and
Disincentives1
Belmont $231 $4,551 $2,907 $6,709 $4,794
Burlingame $173 $10,171 $6,497 $14,994 $10,371
East Palo Alto $231 $7,256 $4,635 $10,697 $7,506
Foster City $58 $6,316 $4,034 $9,311 $6,390
Hillsborough $404 $1,700 $1,085 $2,505 $2,108
Menlo Park $288 $9,621 $6,145 $14,183 $9,935
North Fair Oaks $173 $3,732 $2,384 $5,502 $3,915
Redwood City $634 $21,839 $13,949 $32,194 $22,531
San Carlos $231 $7,435 $4,749 $10,961 $7,686
San Mateo $577 $23,687 $15,129 $34,919 $24,326
County Franchised Area $231 $2,416 $1,543 $3,562 $2,653 WBSD $173 $1,012 $646 $1,491 $1,187
Total $3,402 $99,738 $63,703 $147,027 $103,402
1 In accordance with Attachment I, the maximum annual incentive or disincentive, except for Single-Family and Commercial Missed Pick-up Events is $100,000 or ($100,000).

Performance Incentives and Disincentives
Negative number in parenthesis denotes Incentive payment due to Recology.

Performance Incentive/Disincentive Payments 2025
53 Adjustment Multiplier 6.09%

RESIDENTIAL RATES
R20G RES WASTE 20G 44.15R32G RES WASTE 32 GAL 52.68R64G RES WASTE 64 GAL 103.71R96G RES WASTE 96 GAL 155.57COMMERCIAL/MULTI FAMILY RATES Times Per Week 123 4 5 6 7
C1YG COMML WASTE 1 YD 293.40 597.36 906.51 1,219.28 1,534.55 1,915.20 2,259.70C1YO COMML ORGANICS 1 YD 205.40 418.13 634.55 853.49 1,074.19 1,340.65 1,581.80C15CG COMML WASTE 1.5 YD COMPACTOR 1,068.86 2,137.72 3,206.58 4,275.45 5,344.30 6,413.17 7,482.03C15CO COMML ORGANICS 1.5 YD COMPACTOR 748.21 1,496.41 2,244.61 2,992.81 3,741.02 4,489.22 5,237.43 C20G COMML WASTE 20 GALLON 56.34 115.90 172.57 236.91 299.75 375.05 456.88C2YG1 COMML WASTE 2 YD 590.19 1,190.08 1,795.62 2,405.57 3,024.14 3,570.18 4,228.26C2YO COMML ORGANICS 2 YD 413.15 833.03 1,256.94 1,683.89 2,116.87 2,499.12 2,959.79C32G COMML WASTE 32 GALLON 62.55 128.79 191.70 263.23 333.03 416.70 507.62C32O COMML ORGANICS 32 GAL 43.82 90.14 134.19 184.28 233.12 291.73 355.36C3CG COMML WASTE 3 YD COMPACTOR 2,137.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00C3YG COMML WASTE 3 YD 890.11 1,790.96 2,697.09 3,605.92 4,517.91 5,484.53 6,457.91C3YO COMML ORGANICS 3 YD 623.06 1,253.71 1,887.98 2,524.16 3,162.52 3,839.17 4,520.54C4YG1 COMML WASTE 4 YD 1,215.08 2,451.16 3,687.27 4,937.44 6,192.88 7,500.40 8,835.29C4YO COMML ORGANICS 4 YD 850.57 1,715.81 2,581.07 3,456.21 4,335.00 5,250.33 6,184.71C64G COMML WASTE 64 GALLON 120.97 244.10 370.38 498.01 633.03 771.41 903.06C64O COMML ORGANICS 64 GAL 84.70 170.87 259.25 348.63 443.13 539.95 632.14C6YG1 COMML WASTE 6 YD 1,868.71 3,790.02 5,697.04 7,587.85 9,505.59 11,491.42 13,459.15C6YO COMML ORGANICS 6 YD 1,308.10 2,653.02 3,987.92 5,311.50 6,653.92 8,043.98 9,421.40C96G COMML WASTE 96 GALLON 174.86 358.17 543.54 735.25 929.54 1,170.09 1,365.09C96O COMML ORGANICS 96 GAL 122.40 250.71 380.48 514.65 650.68 819.05 955.56SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR RATE PER YARD 164.44 Rate Year 2027
Recology San Mateo County
City of Belmont
Attachment L
54 Series Id:

Series Title:Area:Item:Base Period:Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 257.141 259.386 261.017 262.326 264.026 263.222 260.830 258.715 262.9462017 265.569 268.896 269.508 269.827 271.272 271.342 268.990 267.426 270.5552018 275.699 278.039 280.219 281.536 283.183 283.278 279.572 277.035 282.1102019 284.758 288.266 288.581 288.514 291.707 289.456 288.192 286.615 289.7702020 292.010 290.304 292.420 293.062 294.442 295.687 292.601 291.297 293.9062021 297.170 302.294 304.971 307.423 309.656 312.019 304.602 300.275 308.9282022 316.463 322.021 328.137 325.932 329.331 326.465 323.900 320.408 327.3912023 331.875 333.478 335.725 336.663 337.698 335.597 334.662 332.718 336.6052024 341.595 346.671 345.789 344.633 345.472 342.582 343.886 343.520 344.2532025 350.836 352.077 352.456 353.869 353.216 351.630 350.453 353.0432026 356.964 363.533 364.483 360.260 Series Id:Series Title:Area:Item:Base Period:Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec HALF1 HALF2 2016 454.175 458.295 458.620 459.994 461.230 462.075 464.164 468.379 469.154 469.230 469.333 469.447 459.065 468.2852017 471.700 474.546 474.561 473.582 473.512 474.360 476.126 476.869 476.485 477.121 477.198 477.802 473.710 476.9342018 481.060 482.897 483.984 484.034 484.853 486.019 485.193 484.172 484.708 485.269 486.886 487.409 483.808 485.6062019 490.204 491.227 492.306 493.331 494.928 495.563 497.687 500.916 501.468 506.100 507.541 509.689 492.927 503.9002020 512.149 513.923 515.605 517.053 519.194 520.734 522.686 523.295 522.528 520.725 519.848 518.766 516.443 521.3082021 522.133 524.207 524.734 524.585 523.918 522.989 524.219 525.247 524.818 527.564 528.877 530.026 523.761 526.7922022 535.048 536.932 539.739 541.515 543.488 546.717 549.562 553.429 556.323 554.043 550.844 551.002 540.573 552.5342023 551.422 549.487 547.805 547.219 547.420 547.432 546.698 548.082 548.431 549.762 551.769 553.485 548.464 549.7052024 557.215 557.236 559.935 561.612 564.249 565.301 564.039 564.407 566.266 567.870 568.773 569.189 560.925 566.7572025 571.899 573.320 574.739 576.988 578.250 580.978 583.856 583.875 584.858 585.213 587.144 576.029 584.9892026 590.169 592.593 592.286 591.661 593.239 592.750 592.116 1982-84=1002016 to 2026Medical careSan Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CAAll items1982-84=1002016 to 2026 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)Original Data Value CUUR0000SAM
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Medical care in U.S. city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjustedU.S. city averageAll items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, urban wage earners and clerical workers, not seasonally adjusted CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)Original Data Value CWURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
55 Series Id:

Series Title:Area:Item:Base Period:Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 195.010 178.296 191.074 202.420 208.843 213.139 209.663 197.818 204.532 207.138 200.994 200.151 200.757 198.130 203.3832017 208.379 212.552 223.591 224.219 229.642 227.099 218.805 221.035 233.253 227.464 236.297 232.445 224.565 220.914 228.2172018 239.938 248.958 254.538 264.816 276.100 277.231 275.852 273.651 274.578 284.833 278.051 264.929 267.790 260.264 275.3162019 255.355 251.375 259.552 290.028 297.662 280.364 272.104 263.865 268.181 300.258 286.954 261.728 273.952 272.389 275.5152020 254.945 251.171 235.263 209.994 208.040 220.382 229.239 236.785 239.082 236.633 236.201 237.489 232.935 229.966 235.9052021 246.145 253.600 277.844 289.079 301.702 310.278 315.657 322.785 321.903 330.112 343.726 342.260 304.591 279.775 329.4072022 340.187 343.538 408.338 414.030 435.497 464.377 428.878 391.441 401.663 435.974 383.334 325.704 397.747 400.995 394.4992023 323.764 340.659 354.292 354.844 349.579 350.034 351.675 370.944 398.486 401.688 366.097 340.105 358.514 345.529 371.4992024 335.924 331.815 359.973 397.919 386.142 359.602 345.396 339.116 357.154 348.189 329.737 315.722 350.557 361.896 339.2192025 321.299 349.590 346.761 358.556 362.740 346.571 333.679 333.317 337.081 329.945 313.472 339.365 347.586 329.4992026 307.939 335.457 399.922 433.686 450.251 419.800 391.176 Series Id:Series Title:Area:Item:Base Period:Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.7772017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.5422018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.4352019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.8592020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.0592021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.7182022 320.195 324.878 330.539 328.871 332.062 331.222 327.060 323.408 330.7112023 337.173 338.496 340.056 340.094 341.219 339.915 339.050 337.689 340.4112024 345.151 351.247 351.064 349.290 349.370 348.001 348.417 347.857 348.9772025 354.432 355.707 356.460 357.992 358.568 356.005 354.522 357.7862026 363.211 369.215 369.913 365.906 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CAAll items1982-84=1002016 to 2026 CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted2016 to 2026 CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)Original Data Value
CUURS49BSETB
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Motor fuel in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjustedSan Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CAMotor fuel1982-84=100 56 ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 1 of 5 ends

For Rate Years Eleven (2021) through the remaining Rate Years in the Term, the Maximum Rate for additional services specified in Attachment Q shall be adjusted annually in accordance with Section 11.05. For Rate Year 2027, the current effective Maximum Rates are multiplied by the April 2026 CPI-U-General value of 369.215 and divided by the April 2025 CPI-U-General value of 355.707.

The Maximum Rate for additional services for Rate Year Ten (2020) shall be the Maximum Rates for Rate Year Ten (2020) as determined under the 2009 Franchise Agreement. These amounts will be adjusted as provided in Section 11.05 of this Agreement to determine the Maximum Rates for Rate Year Eleven (2021).

Two additional services are included in this Attachment Q there were not in Attachment Q of the 2009 Franchise Agreement. The two new services are Container Relocation Service and AgencySpecific Reporting for Abandoned Waste Collections. Maximum Rates for these services are presented in the table below.

Charges for Additional Services may not exceed the Maximum Rates approved by the City for the respective Rate Year.

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
Additional Services for Customers
1 Single-Family Dwelling
Backyard Collection
Service
Section

5.02.A
See Maximum
Rate in the table at
the end of this
Attachment
See Maximum Rate in the table
at the end of this Attachment
2 Long Distance Service for
MFD, Mixed Use, and
Commercial Accounts
(Note: only applicable to
Containers with wheels)
Sections

5.02.B,

5.02.C; and

8.02.B
A – No more than
10% of base
monthly Maximum
Rate of the
Collection Rate for
each Container
requiring Long
Distance Service
B – 25% of base
monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate
for each Container
requiring Long
Distance Service
A – Distance greater than 50 feet
and less than or equal to 100
feet
B – Distance greater than 100
feet
Distance shall be measured from
the face of the curb, or from the
edge of the roadway nearest the
closest edge of the Container, if
there is no curb.
57 ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 2 of 5 ends

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
3 Container Relocation
Service
Sections

5.02B and

8.02B
A – 12% of base
monthly rate of the
Collection Rate for
each Container
requiring Container
Relocation Service
B – 27% of base
monthly Rate of
the Collection Rate
for each Container
requiring Container
Relocation Service
A – Distance greater than 50 feet
and less than or equal to 100
feet
B – Distance greater than 100
feet
Distance shall be measured from
the face of the curb, or from the
edge of the roadway nearest the
closest edge of the Container, if
there is no curb.
4 On-Call Pick-up for SFD,
MFD, Mixed Use, and
Commercial Customers
Sections

5.02.A,

5.02.B, and

5.02.C
25% of the base
monthly Rate for
the size of
Container
Collected once per
week
Per Collection event per
Container for Collection
requested by Customer
5 Return Trip (SFD, MFD,
Mixed Use, or
Commercial)
Sections

5.02.A, B, C;

5.03.A, B, C;

5.04.A, B, C
$21.99 for SFD
$21.99 for
Commercial, Mixed
Use, and MFD
Per Collection event (i.e.,
request to return and provide
Collection service after the
Customer failed to properly set
out their Container(s) for
regularly scheduled Collection)
6 Additional Targeted
Recyclable Materials or
Organic Materials Cart
Service for SFD
Sections

5.03.A and

5.04.A
$1.44 per
Recycling Cart
$4.37 per Organic
Materials Cart
Per Cart per month (any Cart
size). Six-month minimum
charge required. Includes onetime Cart delivery upon start of service and removal of Cart
when service is discontinued by
Customer.
7 Additional On-Call Bulky
Item Collection
Sections

5.05, 5.06
$119.55 Per Bulky Item Collection event
(in addition to the events
provided at no charge to
Customer pursuant to Section

5.12)
58 ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 3 of 5 ends

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
8 Collect Contaminated
Targeted Recyclable
Materials or Organic
Materials Container
Section

6.03.A and

8.02.F
25% of the base
monthly Solid
Waste Rate for the
size of Container
Collected once per
week
plus
Return Trip Fee if
applicable
Per Collection event for
Container with Contamination
Level greater than the maximum
level pursuant to Table 1 in
Section 6.02.B
9 Lock Service (Key
Service)
Section

8.02.B
A – $12.46 per
usage
B – $13.92 per
usage
Monthly cost:

A – Residential Customers
B – Commercial Customers
10 Lock Purchase Section

8.02.B
$24.92 per lock Per lock
11 Overage Service Section

8.02.G
100% of the base
monthly Solid
Waste Collection
Rate
Per Collection event (after the
first two events)
12 Overage Bags Cost Section

8.02.G
50% of the base
monthly Solid
Waste Collection
Rate or $11.71
minimum
Per bag
13 Container Cleaning
Service
Section

8.05.D
A – $73.30
B – $124.61
A – per Cart
B – per Bin or Drop-Box
Charge only applies to cleaning
or Container exchange in
addition to the service to be
provided at no charge to the
Customer pursuant to Section

8.05.D
59 ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 4 of 5 ends

Service Reference
AgencyApproved
Maximum Rate
Description
14 Dirty Cart Replacement
(Exchange) Service
Section

8.05.D
A – $95.29
B – $109.95
C – $124.61
A – per 32 gallon Cart
B – per 64 gallon Cart
C – per 96 gallon Cart
Charge only applies to cleaning
or Container exchange in
addition to the service to be
provided at no charge to the
Customer pursuant to Section

8.05.D
Additional Services for Agency
15 Additional Confidential
Document Destruction
Service Event
Section 5.07 $1,759.08 Per event
16 Additional Compost
Material Delivery
Section 5.11 A – $183.22 per
delivery
B – $366.49 per
delivery
A – “one-way” only delivery by
Contractor where Contractor
delivers to and unloads compost
at an Agency-approved location
B – “Round-trip” delivery by
Contractor where Contractor
delivers compost in a Drop Box
to an Agency-approved location
and returns at a later time or
date to pick up the Drop Box and
any remaining compost (charge
includes the delivery of and later
pick-up of the Drop Box)
17 Community Drop-Off
Events
Section 5.13 $29,904.55 per
event or day
Per event or day targeting 5,000
households. Does not include
disposal or public education
expenses.
18 Collection for AgencySponsored and NonAgency sponsored Community Events
Section 5.08 A – $4,397.71
B – $7,329.54
C – $10,994.32
A – One day event with a
projected 2,500 or fewer
attendees
B – One (1) or two (2) day
events with a projected 2,501 to
7,500 attendees per day
C – One (1) or two (2) day
events with a projected 7,501 to
10,000 attendees per day
60 ATTACHMENT Q
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTOR’S MAXIMUM RATES

FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Collection Services Franchise Agreement with Recology San Mateo County Attachment Q City of Belmont Additional Services

Page 5 of 5 ends

Backyard Collection Service Charge
for Single-Family Dwellings*
(Section 5.02.A)
Distance from Curb**
Backyard
Charge for
Customers
with One (1)
Solid Waste
Cart
Backyard
Charge for
Customers with
Two (2) Solid
Waste Carts
Backyard
Charge for
Customers with
Three (3) Solid
Waste Carts
Backyard
Charge for
Customers with
Four (4) Solid
Waste Carts
Distance <= 50 feet $26.36 $42.08 $84.22 $126.30
50 < Distance <= 100 feet $30.79 $46.51 $88.60 $130.71
100 < Distance <= 150 feet $35.16 $50.89 $92.97 $135.10 150 < Distance <= 200 feet $39.59 $55.30 $97.38 $139.52 200 < Distance <= 250 feet $43.97 $59.68 $101.80 $143.92 250 < Distance <= 300 feet $48.37 $64.07 $106.20 $148.29 300 < Distance <= 350 feet $52.78 $68.48 $110.61 $152.68 Each additional 50 foot
increment over 350 feet
Amount equals the difference
between the Charge for 250 to 300 feet and 300 to 350 feet * Backyard Collection Service Charges are charges added to the base monthly Rate for Single-Family Collection service, and cover the provision of Backyard Collection Service for all of Customer’s Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Materials Carts.
** Distance shall be measured from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the roadway nearest the closest edge of the Cart, if there is no curb. 61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102

Page 1 of 5 ends

Comprehensive Fee Schedule Modernization - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Grace Castaneda, Finance Director, [email protected]; Karen Clark, Senior Management Analyst, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Modernization and Comprehensive Update to City Fees Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving proposed revisions to various types of City fees and directing the City Manager to compile the revisions into the Master Revenue Schedule.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The City of Belmont last conducted a comprehensive fee study in 2015 and has since updated the majority of its fees each fiscal year based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Now, there has been over a decade of changes in staffing, operations, and technology that have not been adequately reflected in the Master Revenue Schedule.

California law places specific requirements on how cities set fees for services. Proposition 26, approved by voters in 2010, requires that a fee be directly related to the service it pays for and that it does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing that service. Government Code Section 50076 confirms that properly calculated service fees are not special taxes and do not require voter approval. Government Code Section 65104 authorizes cities to charge planning and zoning fees to recover the cost of processing those requests.

Recreation and facility rental fees are treated differently under Proposition 26: because they involve the voluntary use of City property, they may be set at market rate rather than strictly the cost of service.

To bring the Master Revenue Schedule up to date and reevaluate the underlying costs behind its fees, in late-2025, the City contracted with Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to conduct a citywide fee study.

Over the past nine months, 42 staff members from every City department have taken part in a combined 57 meetings with the consultant to review and validate 402 individual fee line items. These fees primarily covered services provided by building, engineering, planning, parks and recreation, and police, as well as a new fee for electric vehicle (EV) charging.

The study used a standard “bottom-up” method to calculate the cost of each fee, made up of two parts.

First, City staff estimated the average time spent on each fee-related task, based on the specific job classification typically responsible for it, rather than a general department-wide average. Second, a fully burdened hourly rate was calculated for each position, including salary, benefits, productive hours (after 103

Page 2 of 5 ends

Comprehensive Fee Schedule Modernization - Staff Report subtracting time for vacation, sick leave, holidays, and training), and a share of departmental and Citywide overhead costs based on the City's cost allocation plan. Calculating rates at the individual classification level, rather than applying one blanket rate departmentwide, allowed the study to be more precise in tying each fee to the actual cost of the staff involved. Multiplying the time estimates by the fully burdened hourly rates produced the ultimate full cost of the service.

Analysis
The attached study provides a valuable tool for understanding current service levels and the full cost of delivering those services. The calculated costs identify the maximum justifiable amount that may be charged for each service in accordance with State requirements, providing a framework for staff and the City Council to evaluate and establish appropriate cost-recovery levels.

In general, the proposed fees target full cost recovery, with a limited number of intentional exceptions proposed below full cost to support specific community services or needs. Ultimately, the level of cost recovery for each fee is a policy decision for the City Council, informed by the study’s findings, service priorities, fiscal responsibility, and community considerations.

Citywide Results
The attached study provides a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with delivering the City’s current services and serves as a foundation for developing a thoughtful and informed fee structure. In developing its recommendations, the City has sought to balance the goal of recovering the costs of providing services with consideration for market conditions and the community we serve. Accordingly, the proposed fees generally target full cost recovery, while facility rental fees are proposed at market rates, as permitted by Proposition 26.

The study also includes a comparison of fees across six peer jurisdictions: Burlingame, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo. This benchmarking provides helpful context regarding local rates for comparable services and informs the City’s review. However, it is best used as a secondary decision-making tool because it does not provide sufficient insight into how other jurisdictions’ costs relate to their fees.

Overall, the peer comparison indicates that Belmont’s current fees generally fall within the middle to higher range among peer jurisdictions, while some fees remain below the peer average. These findings provide additional context for the City’s recommendations and support a balanced approach to maintaining fiscal responsibility, promoting cost transparency, and ensuring fees remain reasonable and consistent with the services provided.

The following sections provide several examples of the proposed fee changes.

Example: Modernizing Building Permit Fees
Since the last comprehensive fee study, the industry standard for calculating certain building permit fees has changed. For example, the previous method for calculating electrical, plumbing, and mechanical permit fees required staff to go through each sheet of the plans and count individual fixtures, an approach that is now considered outdated. The proposed Master Revenue Schedule replaces this practice with a 104

Page 3 of 5 ends

Comprehensive Fee Schedule Modernization - Staff Report single fee based on square footage. This new method is simpler for both City staff and permit applicants to calculate, and it is more consistent with how other jurisdictions structure these fees.

Example: Right-Sizing Planning Fees
The proposed Master Revenue Schedule reflects staff’s effort to apply best practices and improve internal workflows to establish a more efficient and equitable fee structure. Planning fees have been recalibrated to reflect the time and effort required for each service, based on specific position classifications and updated fully burdened hourly rates. Staff also refined the fee structure by introducing separate fees for small and large project categories in areas such as geologic review, historic evaluations, and small subdivision actions. These changes are intended to better align fees with the actual level of service required, improve transparency, and promote greater efficiency in project processing.

In addition, an upcoming Zoning Code Amendment for single-family design review, directed by the City Council, is intended to further streamline the review process and help mitigate fee increases for smaller projects. If adopted, the Amendment would move certain projects from Tier 3 to Tier 2, reducing the proposed fee for eligible additions from $10,166 to $4,783 by eliminating the need for Planning Commission review. This approach demonstrates the City’s broader effort to pair updated fees with improved workflows and regulatory efficiencies that can reduce costs for applicants while maintaining appropriate service levels.

Example: Planning and Engineering Permit Fees for Complex Projects Over the past several years, the City’s Planning and Engineering divisions have processed a number of complex, large-scale projects and used the fee study to evaluate the associated review processes and fee structure. Complex Projects generally refer to larger projects involving multiple entitlements and require a deposit against which staff and consultant costs are charged based on work performed.

As part of this review, staff are establishing improved internal practices to track staff time and account for administrative overhead more consistently. The updated approach is intended to better reflect the varying levels of effort and costs associated with Complex Projects, which can differ significantly in scope and complexity. These changes will improve cost transparency, support more consistent cost recovery, and establish a more reliable framework for managing future projects.

Example: Modernizing Facility Rental Fees
As permitted under Proposition 26, recreation and facility rental fees may be set at market rate rather than strictly at the cost of the service, because they involve the voluntary use of City property. The proposed rates have been adjusted to remain in the mid-range compared to peer jurisdictions. The rental fee structure is also being simplified: currently, renters pay a deposit, a processing fee, a setup fee (for non-profits), and an hourly rate. Under the new structure, the processing and setup costs are folded into the hourly rate, so renters pay only a refundable deposit plus an hourly rate.

New Fees
In addition to adjusting and simplifying existing fees, the study identifies services the City currently provides that are not reflected in the existing Master Revenue Schedule. Since the last fee study, permitting requirements and other City services have evolved, creating a need to update the fee structure to better 105

Page 4 of 5 ends

Comprehensive Fee Schedule Modernization - Staff Report reflect current operations.

The proposed Master Revenue Schedule addresses these gaps by introducing fees for previously unaccounted-for service areas including affordable housing requirements, missed inspection appointments, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Compliance Report reviews, and electric vehicle (EV) charging. The new EV charging fee reflects the City’s ongoing installation of 12 new EV charging stations, along with 10 make-ready installations, across three City sites.

These additions help ensure that the City’s fee structure keeps pace with evolving services, improves transparency, and supports more consistent cost recovery. All proposed new fees are identified in the attached Master Revenue Schedule with “New” in the “Current Fee” column.

Policy Consideration: Fees Proposed Below Full Cost Recovery While full cost recovery is generally the goal, maintaining certain fees below full cost recovery is a deliberate policy choice. This approach is consistent with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) guidance, which recognizes that there may be legitimate reasons to subsidize certain services, including encouraging compliance, preserving access to services, or supporting outcomes that provide a broader benefit to the community.

The fees proposed below full cost recovery are:
• False alarm fees, for the 1st through 4th incidents
• The fee for a victim's first requested copy of a police report • The fee for first-incident e-bike storage and release • The fee for outside-agency ticket sign-off
• Fees for temporary street closures
• Fees for temporary banner permits on Ralston Ave.
• Tree removal permits associated with general property maintenance • Master sign permits
• Appeals of planning review decisions
The tree removal permit fee associated with general property maintenance is proposed lower, similar to peer jurisdictions; to encourage compliance so residents obtain a permit and replant rather than remove trees without the City's knowledge.

Other fees proposed below full cost recovery include master sign permits, to remain small-business friendly, and appeals of planning review decisions, consistent with our prior approach and in line with the practice of peer jurisdictions
Implementation and Monitoring
If the City Council approves the proposed fee revisions, staff will:
• Update internal processes, such as time-tracking, to support the new fee structure • Update the City's permit and reservation systems so new fees are applied correctly • Continue to adjust fees annually based on factors such as time and effort updates or an economic 106

Page 5 of 5 ends

Comprehensive Fee Schedule Modernization - Staff Report indicator, such as the Consumer Price Index
• Target a comprehensive fee study every five to seven years • Monitor the financial impact of the new fees
• Monitor major operational changes, such as the potential Harbor Industrial Area (HIA) annexation, that could affect staffing levels and the cost of providing City services Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the proposed fee revisions and directing the City Manager to compile the revisions into the Master Revenue Schedule.

Alternatives

1. Refer back to staff for more information

2. Take no action and maintain the current fee schedule Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Presentation
C. Comprehensive User Fee Study Report
D. Proposed Master Revenue Schedule
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

Overall, the proposed fees are targeted at recovering the cost of providing the services related to each fee, with exceptions on certain fees as described above that are proposed below full cost to encourage compliance, preserve access, or reflect a benefit to the community.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Other*
*In addition to the posting of the agenda, staff placed two newspaper notices prior to the meeting.

107

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT

APPROVING REVISIONS TO VARIOUS TYPES OF CITY FEES AND DIRECTING

THE CITY MANAGER TO COMPILE THE REVISIONS INTO THE MASTER

REVENUE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City of Belmont last conducted a comprehensive fee study in 2015, and has since updated the majority of its fees each fiscal year based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) without a full reevaluation of the underlying cost of providing each service; and,
WHEREAS, California Proposition 26 requires that a fee charged by a local government be directly related to the service it pays for and that the fee not exceed the reasonable cost of providing that service, with the exception of recreation and facility rental fees, which are voluntary and therefore may be set at market rate; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 50076 confirms that properly calculated service fees are not special taxes and do not require voter approval; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65104 authorizes cities to charge planning and zoning fees to recover the cost of processing those requests; and, WHEREAS, the City contracted with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a citywide fee study to review and validate fees for services provided by building, engineering, planning, parks and recreation, and police, as well as a new electric vehicle (EV) charging fee; and, WHEREAS, the total costs set forth in the Comprehensive User Fee Study Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, represent the maximum justifiable, legally defensible cost of providing each service, with the final adopted rate for each fee remaining within the City Council's discretion; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed fees, attached hereto as Exhibit B, generally target cost recovery, though certain fees are proposed below full cost as a deliberate policy choice, consistent with best practices from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), which recognizes legitimate reasons for keeping certain fees below cost, such as encouraging compliance, preserving access, or reflecting a benefit to the community; and, WHEREAS, GFOA best practices recommend that governments regularly review and update charges and fees, updating them annually using an economic indicator such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or another cost-based escalator to keep fees in step with inflation between comprehensive studies; and,
WHEREAS GFOA best practices recommend that governments conduct periodic comprehensive fee study analyses to reassess the underlying assumptions used to calculate the cost of service, including staffing involvement, service delivery practices, processing steps, technology changes, and service levels, with the report provided as Exhibit A recommending 108

Page 2 of 3 ends

this practice every five to seven years.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 additions and amendments to the existing City of Belmont fees, rates, fines, and other charges shown on Exhibit B are adopted.

SECTION 2. All new and adjusted fees will take effect 60 days after adoption, with the exception of the following fees, to take effect immediately: temporary street closures, Ralston Ave. banner permit, outside agency ticket signoffs, and EV charging fees.

SECTION 3. If a City of Belmont fee does not approximate actual cost incurred, the Finance Director has the authority to charge actual cost incurred including time, material, and overhead.

SECTION 4. The Finance Director has the authority to establish procedures for evaluation of hardship requests for certain fees.

SECTION 5. The City Manager is authorized and directed to compile the new and adjusted fees into the Master Revenue Schedule and make such organizational and formatting changes reasonably necessary to reflect the current fees, rates, and other charges previously approved and to incorporate the amendments to specific fees and new fees adopted herein.

SECTION 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to include in the Master Revenue Schedule such fees, rates, fines, and other charges as may be adopted by the Belmont Fire Protection District.
109

Page 3 of 3 ends

* * *
ADOPTED September 22, 2026 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
110
9/18/2026
1 Modernization and Comprehensive Update to City Fees
September 22, 2026
Tonight's Agenda
• Project Purpose & Process: Why, How, and What
• Examples: Updated Methodologies, New Fees, and Cost Recovery • Next Steps: Implementation and Recommendation
1 2
111
9/18/2026
2 Project Purpose & Process
Project Scope & Effort
57 meetings
9 months
42 staff
402
fees
3 4
112
9/18/2026
3 Why We're Modernizing
Updated Baseline
Determine direct and
indirect costs. Ensure
fees capture current
operations and specific
positions involved.

Legal Compliance
Ensure fees are
reasonable and justified.

Policy Framework
Full-cost results provide
the Council a clear tool
to confirm cost-recovery
levels.

Fee Calculation Methodology

TIME ESTIMATE
Average staff time
spent per permit,
application, or fee
activity
×

FULLY BURDENED

HOURLY RATE
Salaries, benefits,
productive hours,
supplies, and
overhead
=

FULL COST
Maximum
justifiable fee that
may be assessed*
*Recreation & facility rental fees are the exception and may be set at market rate. 5 6
113
9/18/2026
4 Citywide Results Summary
402
fees reviewed
including building,
planning, engineering,
parks and recreation,
and police
• Worked with City staff to modernize, applying
industry best practices
• Proposed fees target full cost recovery
• Comparative survey looked at fees from:

Key takeaway: Proposed fees are grounded in the actual cost of service and consistent with regional norms.
• Burlingame
• Foster City
• Menlo Park
• San Carlos
• San Mateo
• Redwood City
Examples
7 8
114
9/18/2026
5 Example: Modernizing Building Permit Fees
Outdated methodology counted individual electrical, plumbing, and mechanical fixtures.

FROM
Counting
individual
fixtures
TO
A fee → per sq. ft.

Key takeaway: The proposed per-square-foot method is more modern and in line with industry standards.

KC1
Example: Right-Sizing Planning Fees
• Many Planning fees are proposed to go up to reflect level of effort and achieve cost recovery
• Staff identified areas where projects need the same type of entitlement but may be more or less complex, depending on project details • Created small and large categories
• Better target cost recovery
• Upcoming Zoning Code Amendment for single-family design review • Moves certain projects from Tier 3 to Tier 2
• Fees for these projects would go from $10,166 to $4,783 since they would not have to go to the Planning Commission
Key takeaway: The proposed changes increase fees for projects that are more complex and reduce select fees for projects that require less time. 9 10
115
9/18/2026
6 Example: Permit Fees for Complex Projects
• Complex Projects are those with multiple entitlements; size can vary dramatically
• Updating system based on experience the last few years • Collect a deposit from the applicant
• Revised approach:
• Consultant costs – charge 15% administrative fee
• Applicant pays direct cost of consultants plus the 15% • Staff time tracked and charged against deposit
Key takeaway: The proposed changes will better account for the wide range of complex projects, increase transparency and improve consistency.

Example: Modernizing Facility Rental Fees
• Set at market rate (Prop 26 exception)
• Proposed rates rise slightly, remaining mid-range vs. peer jurisdictions • Simplified rental pricing structure
FROM
Deposit + processing fee +
setup fee + hourly rate
TO
→ Deposit + hourly rate*
*Processing and staffing costs are incorporated into the base hourly rate. 11 12
116
9/18/2026
7 New Fees
• Several new fees reflect evolving regulatory and service responsibilities. • Examples:
• Affordable housing-related fees
• Inspection no shows
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Compliance Report Reviews • EV charging fees
Policy Consideration: Fees Below Full Cost Recovery
• Recommendations seek to balance cost recovery with consideration for market conditions and the community we serve
• Proposed fees generally target full cost recovery
• Limited exceptions support specific community services or needs • Ultimately, cost recovery levels are a policy decision of the City Council 13 14
117
9/18/2026
8 Policy Consideration: Fees Below Full Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Fee
Police Report
Victim Requested First Copy Each $0 $47 $0
Each $27 $47 $47
Non-Victim Requested / Subsequent Victim
Requested Copies
E-Bike Storage & Release
1st Incident Each $50 $362 $150
2nd or more incidents Each $50 $362 $362
Ticket Sign-off (outside agency) Per Vehicle $27 $70 $20 False Alarm Fees (per calendar year)
1st and 2nd incident Each $0 $315 $0
3rd incident Each $125 $315 $150
4th incident Each $225 $315 $275
5th or more incident Each $525 $315 $315
Policy Consideration: Fees Below Full Cost Recovery
Proposed
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Fee
Planning Appeals
Appeal of Planning Action to City Council Each $1,683 $9,484 $5,000 Each $259 $9,484 $3,000
Appeal of Administrative Action to Planning
Commission
Appeal of tree permit Each $523 $3,622 $2,000
Master Sign Program Each $2,382 $8,113 $4,000
Temporary Street Closure Permit
Community Events (30 days min notice) Each $414 $771 $150 Community Events (less than 30 days notice) Each $414 $996 $200 Banner Permit (Ralston Ave) Each $456 $534 $100
Per Permit $92 $372 $139
Tree Removal Permit Associated with General
Property Maintenance
15 16
118
9/18/2026
9 Next Steps
Implementation & Monitoring
Update staff processes, such as time-tracking
Update permit/reservation systems to reflect new fees
Update fees annually: economic indicator, time and effort updates Target comprehensive fee study analysis every 5–7 years Monitor financial impact and major operational changes
(e.g., HIA annexation)
1 2
3 4
5 1
2 3
4 5
17 18
119
9/18/2026
10 Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving proposed fee revisions to various types of City fees, directing the City Manager to compile the revisions into the Master Revenue Schedule.

Thank you!
belmont.gov
19 20
120

BELMONT, CA

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE USER

FEE STUDY REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2026
121
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4
USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 7
RESULTS OVERVIEW 10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING 11
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING 16
PARKS & RECREATION 20
POLICE 25
PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 27
ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING FEES 34
GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE 36
COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS 38
APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS
122

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The draft report that follows presents the results of the Comprehensive User Fee study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Belmont, California.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Belmont last conducted a comprehensive fee study in 2015 and has since updated the majority of its fees each fiscal year based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Given that more than 10 years have passed since the prior study, the City contracted with Matrix Consulting Group to reevaluate its fees and ensure they reflect current service costs, staffing practices, and operational processes. The analysis outlined in the report evaluates and determines the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of fee-based City services based on the existing organizational structure and processes. This analysis evaluated the cost-of-service relationships among fee-for-service activities in the following areas: Building, Engineering, Planning, Parks & Recreation, Police, and EV Charging.

The results of this study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services. The total costs calculated in this study are not recommendations. Rather, they identify the maximum justifiable cost that may be charged for each service in alignment with state mandates and provide a framework for the City Council and stakeholders to evaluate cost-recovery levels. The level of cost recovery ultimately remains a policy decision for the City Council.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed by Matrix Consulting Group uses a widely accepted “bottom-up” cost-ofservice approach that estimates the cost of each service based on the staff time and resources required to deliver it. Under this approach, services are organized by Department or Program, and the staff time required to perform each fee-related activity is identified. Once the time required for each activity is determined, applicable direct and indirect cost components are applied to establish the full cost of providing the service. The following table provides an overview of the cost components used to calculate the full cost of services provided by the City.

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF COST COMPONENTS
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures.

Indirect Division, departmental, administrative, and Citywide support.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
123

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing a service, regardless of whether a fee is charged. The analysis conducted by Matrix Consulting Group involved the following key steps:
• Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department/program staff about their needs to clarify the structure of existing fee items or add new fee items. • Data Collection: The team collected data for each permit/service, including time estimates. In addition, Matrix Consulting Group entered all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 into its analytical software model.
• Cost Analysis: The analysis established the full cost of providing each service. • Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results.

Subsequent chapters of this report provide a more detailed description of the user fee methodology and the legal and policy considerations.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The detailed documentation of this study shows over-collection on some fees (per unit) and undercollection on others. The results of this analysis provide the Departments and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of providing that service. The cost recovery figures displayed in this report are intended to provide a basis for policy development discussions among Councilmembers and City staff and do not represent a recommendation on where or how the Council should act. The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council with input from City staff and the community.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES
The following recommendations are based on the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees. Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the results of this study to support its ongoing fee administration practices, including adopting or continuing a formal cost recovery policy, conducting periodic comprehensive fee studies, and updating fees annually based on an appropriate economic indicator.

FORMAL COST RECOVERY POLICY
GFOA best practices recommend that governments establish a user fee policy that clearly defines the purpose and strategy for setting fees. A formal cost recovery policy provides a consistent framework for determining the extent to which the City intends to recover the full cost of providing fee-related services, as well as when lower levels of cost recovery may be appropriate due to broader community benefit, access, or policy considerations. The City already has an established cost recovery policy and complies with this industry best practice. The City should ensure it uses that adopted policy as the basis for fee recommendations.
124

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3

UPDATE FEES ANNUALLY BASED ON AN ECONOMIC INDICATOR
GFOA best practices recommend that governments regularly review and update charges and fees. As part of this practice, agencies often update adopted fees annually using an appropriate economic indicator, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or another cost-based escalator, to help keep fees in step with inflation between comprehensive studies. This practice supplements fiscal sustainability between periodic comprehensive fee studies.

CONDUCT PERIODIC COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY ANALYSIS
GFOA best practices recommend that governments regularly review and update user fee policies and fee levels. While annual updates help maintain fee levels over time, they do not reassess the underlying assumptions used to calculate the cost of service, including staffing involvement, service delivery practices, processing steps, technology changes, and service levels.

RECOMMENDATION #1
The City already has an adopted cost recovery policy; as such the City should continue to use and periodically update the policy to ensure it remains aligned with current service priorities, legal requirements, and cost recovery objectives.

RECOMMENDATION #3
The City should continue its practice of conducting comprehensive analyses but do so at a 5-7 year interval instead of 10 years. Doing so ensures fees are periodically evaluated against current costs, processes, and policy objectives.

RECOMMENDATION #2
The City should continue updating fees annually based on an appropriate economic indicator. 125

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
This section of the report provides an overview of the legal rules and regulations governing what constitutes a fee-for-service, how those fees can be calculated, and the general principles, philosophies, and policy considerations for setting fees for service.

LEGAL OVERVIEW
A “user fee” is a charge for a service provided by a governmental agency to a citizen or a group of the public. California has several Government Codes and Propositions that regulate fees for service, with the purpose of ensuring that fees are reasonable and justified. The most prominent and relevant of these include:
• Proposition 26 (2010): Defines the distinction between a fee and a tax and dictates that fees must be directly related to a service and cannot exceed the reasonable cost of that service. • Government Code § 50076: clarifies that fees for service costs are not special taxes and do not need voter approval.
• Government Code § 65104: authorizes local governments to charge planning and zoning fees to recover processing costs.

When determining fees for service, it is important to ensure there is a direct benefit – the service is provided directly to the payer, and that it is cost-based and does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
While Proposition 26 defines what constitutes a user fee and how those fees can be determined, it also provides a key exception for fees charged for facility, property rentals, or recreation programming. This exception states that fees for the use of government property (e.g., renting public buildings, parks, or event spaces) or for recreation and programming services are voluntary transactions. Therefore, governments can charge market-based rental fees for these services.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments provide many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some are globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more direct benefits to specific groups or individuals. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received:

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
126

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
TABLE 2: SERVICES IN RELATION TO BENEFIT RECEIVED
Funding for local government is obtained from multiple revenue sources, such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, and user fees. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for community services, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have drawn increased attention to user-fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. As outlined in the table above, services in the “global community benefit” section are primarily funded through voter-approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fees, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual/group benefit” section of the table are the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.

The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
• Fees should be assessed based on the degree of individual or private benefit derived from the services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in a monetary gain for the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are essential to the safety of the community at large.
• A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California law requires that service charges be directly proportional to the costs of providing those services.

Once a charge for a service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing it, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.

Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are set at a level sufficient to recover, at most, the cost of providing the particular service.

GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES
In many cases, programs, circumstances, and services justify a subsidy from a tax-based or alternative revenue source. However, jurisdictions must prioritize allocating revenue sources for service provision based on the continuum of benefits received.

Among the services typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group identifies several reasons why City staff or the City Council may not advocate for full cost recovery. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
"Global" Community Benefit
•Police
•Park Maintenance
•Fire Suppression
"Global" Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit
•Recreation Programming
Individual or Group Benefit
•Development Services
•Facility Rentals
•Special Events
127

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit on the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee. Examples include time spent copying and retrieving public documents and/or transportation permits. • Encourage compliance or influence user behavior. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit to replace a water heater in a residential home exceeds the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid applying for the permit.
• The benefits received by the service user and the community at large are mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events.

The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining service costs and to ensure that the City complies with State law.

SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level not more than the full cost. The City Council makes this decision, which often involves balancing service levels and funding sources. Placing a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and, at times, fall into a “grey area.” However, with the resulting cost-of-services information from a User Fee Study, the City Council can be assured that the adopted fee-for-service is reasonable, fair, and legal. 128

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a commonly known and accepted cost allocation methodology, referred to as the “bottom-up” approach, to establish User Fees. Through this methodology, several cost components are calculated for each fee-for-service. These components then build on one another to comprise the total cost of providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:

The following sections describe the two primary components of the full cost calculation.

TIME ESTIMATION
The use of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand the City's service levels and processes developed these estimates. The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Unusually complex or atypically simple projects are excluded from the analysis.
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position(s) that typically perform the service. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies.
• Estimates were not based on time-in-motion studies because they are impractical given the scope of services and the time frame for this project.
• Estimates match current or proposed staffing levels to ensure no over-allocation of staff resources between fee- and non-fee-related activities.

While time estimates are not without limitations, they represent the most practical and defensible approach for establishing a standardized level of service upon which to base user fees and meet California legal requirements.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to as billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or very large and complex projects, Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach is not cost-effective or reasonable for the following reasons:

TIME ASSUMPTION
(by position)

FULLY BURDENED
HOURLY RATE Total Cost

USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY
129

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden of tracking, billing, and collecting for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with the administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services before applying for permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.

Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrant time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate.

FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES
The fully burdened hourly rates calculated through this study include the following components:
• Salaries: FY25-26 Budgeted salaries were utilized and consolidated at the positional level. • Benefits: FY25-26 Budgeted benefits were utilized and consolidated at the positional level. • Productive Hours: Based on Belmont’s current personnel system rules, working or productive hours were calculated. This means taking the starting total working hours and reducing the hours by vacation, sick, holidays, trainings, and administrative leave based on each bargaining unit • Departmental / Divisional Overhead: This covers internal service charges and operating supply costs, such as vehicle and supply expenses. Additionally, this component includes the cost of support from the Director, Administrative, and Analytical staff who do not directly work on fees. • Citywide Overhead: This captures support provided by the City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance, and Human Resources. The costs are based on the City’s Cost Allocation Plan (provided under separate cover).

Together, these components generate fully burdened hourly rates by position/classification and/or department/division. These rates were multiplied by the time assumptions to calculate the full cost of services noted in this report.

PARK AND RECREATION SPECIFIC
In addition to staff time and fully burdened hourly rates, Parks and Recreation fees may include additional cost components related to materials and facility use, as outlined in the following chart. 130

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
Material costs reflect the use of equipment, supplies, and space necessary to deliver programs and activities. Participation and utilization also play a significant role in determining per-unit costs.

While direct and material costs establish the total cost of a program or activity, program-based services are influenced by enrollment levels, where higher participation reduces the cost per participant. Similarly, rental and facility-based services are driven by estimated hours of use, with utilization directly impacting per-unit costs. As a result, variations in participation and utilization may contribute to differences in cost recovery across services.

DIRECT
(Salaries, Benefits,
Productive Hours,
Overhead, etc.)

MATERIAL COST
(Cost of Space, Licensing
or Contract Cost, etc.)
Total Cost
131

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The purpose of a cost-of-service (user fee) analysis is to enable the City Council and Department staff to maintain service levels that are both effective and responsive to community needs, while retaining control over policy and service-delivery decisions.

The results presented in this report are not intended to represent a precise measurement. In general, a cost-of-service analysis represents a “snapshot in time,” based on a single fiscal year’s financial and operational data. Changes to fee structures, combined with time estimates, yield reasonable projections of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, City Council and Department staff should rely on these estimates as a planning tool to understand the potential impacts of implementation.

The discussion of results in the following chapters is intended to summarize the extensive cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each user fee, including the following:

Fee Schedule
Modifications
Summarizes proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees, wording or unit changes, expansion or consolidation of fees, etc.

Detailed Results
Shows the per unit results calculated and compares the total cost of providing each service to the current fee (where applicable).
“New” is used to denote if no current fee exists.
“Modified” is used to denote if a current recovery mechanism does exist but through this analysis the unit for charging the fee was adjusted.

The full analytical results were provided to City staff separately from this summary report.

RESULTS OVERVIEW
132

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
The Building Division, part of the Community Development Department, is responsible for reviewing and issuing permits associated with all building-related activities within the City limits. The fees examined in this study include commercial and residential building permits (including valuation-based and flat-fee permit types), plan check services, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits, solar photovoltaic system permits, and other administrative fees. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
The project team worked with City staff to review and augment the current fee schedule. Various fees were added and modified to reflect the current fee-based services offered. The following modifications were proposed to the fee schedule:

NEW FEES
Six (6) fees were added to the fee schedule to capture new service areas:
• Under residential ‘Building Permits’, a ‘Per 10 LF’ fee was added to account for walls longer than 50 linear feet.
• ‘Alternate Materials Request’
• ‘Unreasonable Hardship Request’
• ‘Temporary Certificate of Occupancy’
• ‘Permit Re-Activation Not Under Construction Time Limits’ • ‘Address Change Requests’
These additions expand the scope of the fee schedule to reflect the City’s evolving regulatory and service responsibilities.

MODIFIED FEES
Various fees were revised to better reflect the City’s current processes for providing these services:
• Within the valuation tier structure of the 'Building Permit Fee' section, the lowest tier, '$1 - $500', was consolidated into the existing '$501 - $2,000' tier to create a new ‘$1-$2,000’ tier to better reflect the current value of projects.
• Several fees that were previously valuation-based were created into flat fees such as EV Chargers. • Rather than counting fixtures, the administration of residential and commercial Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical ‘New, Additions, Alterations’ permits was modified to ‘per sq. ft.’

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING
133

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
The noted modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services provided by Building staff and is in alignment with industry trends and standards. .

DETAILED RESULTS
The Building Division collects fees for commercial and residential building permits (including valuationbased and flat-fee permit types), plan check services, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits, solar photovoltaic system permits, and other administrative fees. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and indirect Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Only fees reviewed in this analysis appear in the table; fines/penalties, actual costs, etc., were omitted because the project team did not calculate total costs for these service types.

TABLE 3: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Building Permit Fee
$1 - $2,000
First $1 $42.65 $424.35 ($381.70)
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000 $4.92 $3.80 $1.12
$2,001 - $25,000
First $2,000 $125.63 $500.25 ($374.62)
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000 $22.68 $19.80 $2.88
$25,001 - $50,000
First $25,000 $841.45 $955.65 ($114.20)
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000 $16.36 $46.44 ($30.08)
$50,001 - $100,000
First $50,000 $1,774.48 $2,116.58 ($342.10)
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $100,000 $11.35 $93.05 ($81.70)
$100,001 - $500,000
First $100,000 $6,612.37 $6,768.92 ($156.55)
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000 $9.07 $11.12 ($2.05)
$500,001 - $1,000,000
First $500,000 $10,931.92 $11,215.98 ($284.06)
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000 $7.69 $16.05 ($8.36)
$1,000,001 - $10,000,000
First $1,000,000 $15,242.85 $19,239.79 ($3,996.94)
For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $5.91 $3.66 $2.25 $10,000,001 - $50,000,000
First $10,000,000 $68,432.85 $52,141.63 $16,291.22
For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $5.91 $1.82 $4.09 $50,000,001 and Above
First $50,000,000 $304,832.85 $124,748.76 $180,084.09
For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $5.91 $0.91 $5.00 134

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Building Support Fees
Plan Check – Building Review 65% 65% 0%
Building Permits
Residential
Bathroom $793 $946 ($153)
Cellular Antenna $1,191 $1,246 ($55)
Deck $993 $1,355 ($362)
Drainage System $993 $1,141 ($148)
Fireplace Insert $595 $642 ($47)
Kitchen Remodel $793 $946 ($153)
Pergola $1,191 $1,160 $31
Re-Roofs Valuation $534 N/A
Retaining Wall
Linear Foot to 50 $1,389 $1,550 ($161)
Linear Foot Per 10LF New $318 N/A
Siding/Stucco $1,191 $849 $342
Spa/Hot Tub/Sauna
Alteration Valuation $989 N/A
New Valuation $989 N/A
Swimming Pool
Alteration $1,389 $989 $400
New $1,389 $1,378 $11
Voluntary
Foundation Upgrade $1,191 $1,160 $31
Seismic Upgrade $993 $1,008 ($15)
Windows
Up to 5 $993 $600 $393
More than 5 $993 $1,055 ($62)
Commercial
Swimming Pool
New $1,389 $1,898 ($509)
Alteration $1,389 $1,203 $186
Spa/Hot Tub/Sauna
Alteration Valuation $1,203 N/A
New Valuation $1,496 N/A
Spray Booth $1,191 $1,291 ($100)
Electrical Permits
Residential
New, Additions, Alterations $0.17 $0.40 ($0)
Electrical permit $203 $382 ($179)
Temp Power $187 $303 ($116)
Subpanel $203 $303 ($100)
Service Panel
Up to 200A $203 $303 ($100)
201-1000 $203 $303 ($100)
Over 1000 $406 $303 $103
Rewire $203 $400 ($197)
EV Charger
Single Family/Duplex $203 $303 ($100)
135

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Level I or II $203 $303 ($100)
Commercial
New, Additions, Alterations $0.17 $0.30 ($0)
Electrical permit $203 $401 ($198)
Temp Power $187 $401 ($214)
Subpanel $203 $401 ($198)
Service Panel
Up to 200A $203 $401 ($198)
201-1000 $203 $401 ($198)
Over 1000 $406 $401 $5
Rewire $203 $651 ($448)
EV Charger
Level I or II Valuation $857 N/A
Level 3 Valuation $1,550 N/A
Solar
Residential
Solar Energy $450 $633 ($183)
Per kW above 15 kW $15 $15 $0
Solar Thermal $450 $633 ($183)
Per kW above 15 kW $15 $15 $0
Battery Storage New $481 N/A
Commercial
Solar Energy $1,000 $1,659 ($659)
Per kW above 50 kW to 250 kW $7 $7 $0
Per kW above 250 kW $5 $5 $0
Solar Thermal $1,000 $1,659 ($659)
Per kW above 50 kW to 250 kW $7 $7 $0
Per kW above 250 kW $5 $5 $0
Battery Storage New $1,355 N/A
Plumbing Permits
Residential
New, Additions, Alterations Modified $0.40 N/A
Plumbing Permit $206 $382 ($176)
Sewer Lateral $286 $362 ($76)
Water Repipe $220 $362 ($142)
Gas Lines
1 - 5 $190 $382 ($192)
Over 5 $206 $382 ($176)
Drain, Waste, Vents DWV $206 $382 ($176)
Fixtures in Trap $206 $230 ($24)
Water Heater
Gas tank $206 $329 ($123)
Tankless $206 $329 ($123)
Heat Pump Water Heater $206 $329 ($123)
Backflow Valuation $382 N/A
Commercial
New, Additions, Alterations Modified $0.30 N/A
Plumbing Permit $206 $401 ($195)
Sewer Lateral Valuation $401 N/A
136

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Water Repipe Valuation $553 N/A
Gas Lines
1 - 5 $190 $401 ($211)
Over 5 $206 $553 ($347)
Drain, Waste, Vents DWV $206 $401 ($195)
Fixtures in Trap $206 $401 ($195)
Water Heater
Gas tank $206 $401 ($195)
Tankless $206 $401 ($195)
Heat Pump Water Heater $206 $553 ($347)
Backflow Valuation $553 N/A
Mechanical Permits
Residential
New, Additions, Alterations Modified $0.40 N/A
Mechanical Permit $207 $382 ($175)
Furnace only $207 $329 ($122)
HVAC system $207 $329 ($122)
Heat Pump HVAC $207 $329 ($122)
Commercial
New, Additions, Alterations Modified $0.30 N/A
Mechanical Permit $207 $401 ($194)
HVAC $207 $596 ($389)
Furnace Only $207 $596 ($389)
Heat Pump $207 $748 ($541)
Air Handler/Air Condition
To 10 Tons $26 $748 ($722)
Over 10 Tons $57 $1,203 ($1,146)
Other Admin Fees
Alternate Materials Request New $1,596 N/A
Unreasonable Hardship Request New $1,469 N/A
Research Services Actual Cost $131 N/A
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy New $1,336 N/A
Permit Re-Activation Not Under Construction Time
Limits New $595 N/A
Address Change Requests New $786 N/A
Inspection outside of normal business hours $397 $336 $94 Reinspection $397 $303 $94
Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated $397 $303 $94 Additional plan review or plan review for which no fee
is indicated $397 $389 $8
Plan Check – Planning Review 35% 35% 0%
Building services generally under-recovers for its services. For smaller, standard, and typical projects such as flat fees or single-family additions or remodels, the City currently under-recovers. For larger projects, the City over-recovers. Right-sizing these fees will allow the City to achieve fairer, more equitable, and more consistent cost recovery.
137

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
The Planning Division, part of the Community Development Department, is responsible for implementing the City’s land use and zoning plans and ensuring compliance with the associated requirements. The fees examined within this study relate to design review, conditional use permits, variances, FAR exceptions, appeals, geologic and environmental reviews, general plan and zoning amendments, complex projects, tree removal permits, public notice fees, subdivision processing, sign reviews, housing development reviews, wireless communication facility applications, temporary use permits, and other miscellaneous planning activities. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for Planning's fee-related services.

NEW FEES
Several new fee categories were added to the fee schedule to better capture the services being provided, including services such as Pre-Application reviews, Affordable Housing-related fees, Wireless Communication Facility Applications, and Temporary Use permits.

MODIFIED FEES
Various fees were revised to better reflect the City’s current processes for providing these services:
• In an effort to streamline the fee schedule the following fees were consolidated:
o The 'Combination Projects - Development Fee' section was consolidated. The individual combination permit type fees (‘Development Fee’, ‘Legal Review Fee’, 'DR + CUP - new bldg const', 'DR + VAR + CUP - new const', 'DR + VAR - new bldg const', 'DR + VAR + CUP', 'DR + VAR', and 'DR + CUP') are now enveloped under 'Permit - Planning Commission Review' fee.
o The 'Lot Line Adjustment' fee was consolidated with the 'Lot Merger' fee into a single 'Lot Merger/Lot Line Adjustment' fee.
• Several fee categories were broken out into small and large project categories to better reflect the level of effort.
• The 'Appeal of tree permit' fee was moved from the Tree section to the Appeals section for improved organizational clarity. Additionally, ‘Appeal of Planning Action to City Council’ and ‘Appeal of Administrative Action to Planning Commission’ were moved to the Planning fee schedule from the General Government section of the City’s fee schedule.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING
138

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17
• Various fee name changes were made to improve the transparency of what each fee line item encompasses:
o ‘New Building Construction’ was renamed ‘New Building Construction – Commercial’ o ‘Additions’ was renamed ‘Additions – Commercial’
o ‘ZA hearing’ was renamed ‘ZA hearing (Difference of Cost)’ o ‘Planning Commission Review’ was renamed ‘Planning Commission Review - Addition (Fee)’
o ‘New Homes’ was renamed ‘Planning Commission Review - New Homes’ o ‘Administrative Permit’ was renamed ‘Administrative Permit - Community Development Director’
o ‘Permit’ was renamed ‘Permit - Planning Commission Review’ o ‘General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, or Zoning Ordinance Amendment’ was renamed ‘General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning, or Zoning Ordinance Amendment’
o ‘Historic Building Alteration, Planning Commission Review’ was renamed ‘Historic Building Alteration, City Council Review’
o ‘Trees 10" DBH or greater, excluding trees determined by the City Arborist to be dead, diseased or damaging property’ was renamed ‘Protected Trees Removal Permit with Development Trees’
These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services that Planning provides.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Planning Division collects fees for design review, conditional use permits, variances, FAR exceptions, geologic and environmental reviews, general plan and zoning amendments, temporary use permits, and other planning activities. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and indirect Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Deposit-based fees are indicated in the table with a (D). As deposits are either refunded if unused or replenished as costs are incurred, the difference does not represent a true deficit or subsidy; rather, it reflects whether current deposit thresholds are sufficient to cover the anticipated cost of providing services.

TABLE 4: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Appeals
Appeal of Planning Action to City Council $1,683 $9,484 ($7,801) 139

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Appeal of Administrative Action to Planning
Commission $259 $9,484 ($9,225)
Appeal of tree permit $523 $3,622 ($3,099)
Design Review
New Building Construction - Commercial $13,992 $13,251 $741 Additions - Commercial $13,198 $10,998 $2,200
Administrative Design Review - exterior modifications $3,771 $3,926 ($155) Single‐Family Design Review Tier 2 – Zoning
Administrator Review without Hearing $3,969 $4,783 ($814) Single‐Family Design Review Tier 3
Planning Commission Review - Addition $11,572 $10,166 $1,406 Planning Commission Review - New Homes (D) $11,572 $13,000 ($1,428) Conditional Use Permit
Administrative Permit - Community Development
Director $3,771 $4,683 ($912)
Permit - Planning Commission Review $13,198 $10,431 $2,767 Variance $3,771 $11,499 ($7,728)
FAR Exception
Administrative Permit - Community Development
Director $5,954 $4,419 $1,535
Permit - Planning Commission Review $5,954 $10,267 ($4,313) Geologic Review
Small Geologic Review (D) $4,692 $3,500 $1,192
Large Geologic Review (D) $4,692 $5,000 ($308)
Map Modification or Exception (D) $4,692 $8,500 ($3,808) Environmental Fees
Minor Categorical Exemption - Community Development
Director $397 $336 $61
Environmental Analysis (D) $43,341 Actual Cost N/A
Additional Fees
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, or Zoning Ordinance Amendment (D) $20,640 $40,500 ($19,860) Historic Building Alteration, Community Development
Director $13,496 $3,345 $10,151
Historic Building Alteration, City Council Review $13,496 $9,980 $3,516 Grading Plan, Planning Commission Review $11,908 $8,113 $3,795 Extension of Permits $1,191 $1,995 ($804)
Property Profile Report $1,588 $1,234 $354
Fiscal Impact Analysis Review (D) New $3,500 N/A
Complex Project (D) $31,754 $30,000 $1,754
Tree Removal Permit - With Development
Protected Trees Removal Permit with Development $92 $985 ($893) Public Notice Fee $358 $684 ($326)
Subdivisions
Tentative Map $15,878 $6,500 $9,378
Tentative Parcel Map $15,878 $5,000 $10,878
Lot Merger / Lot Line Adjustment $3,771 $3,747 $24
Certificate of Compliance $3,771 $2,926 $845
Complex Certificate of Compliance (D) New $5,500 N/A
140

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Signage
Administrative Sign Review $1,191 $1,149 $42
Banner/Temporary Sign Review $397 $657 ($260)
Master Sign Program $2,382 $8,113 ($5,731)
Legal Review (D) $9,689 $10,000 ($311)
SB-9 Application - Lot Split (D) New $5,000 N/A
Pre-Application Review
Small Pre-Application New $2,373 N/A
Large Pre-Application New $5,908 N/A
Housing Development
Affordable Housing Plan New $1,601 N/A
Affordable Housing Monitoring
Up to 100 Units New $83 N/A
Over 100 Units (D) New $7,500 N/A
SB-330 - Housing Preliminary Application
150 Units or Less New $5,437 N/A
Greater Than 150 Units (D) New $8,000 N/A
Affordable Housing Agreement New $2,401 N/A
Wireless Communication Facility Application
6409 Application (D) New $6,000 N/A
Other (D) New $10,000 N/A
Temporary Use Permit New $1,149 N/A
Development Agreement or Conditional Use Permit
Monitoring New $955 N/A
For services requested of City Staff for which no
fee/deposit is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the
appropriate fee/deposit based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service. New $345 N/A
Planning fees show a mixed pattern of cost recovery. Many fee categories show under-recovery, while others show some over-recovery. The purpose of these fee modifications, including the addition of new fees, was to better reflect the current streamlined processes for planning applications. 141

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
The Parks & Recreation Department is responsible for operating and maintaining the City’s parks, community centers, sports facilities, and open spaces, and for providing a broad range of community programs and recreational services. The fees examined within this study relate to indoor and outdoor facility rentals, athletic field use, community garden plots, photography and filming permits, Manor Art Studio rentals, and tree removal permits.

Programming-related fees differ from rental or access-based fees and are typically calculated based on enrollment levels, staffing requirements, and direct program costs. As a result, this analysis did not assess all program-based fees.

The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for Parks & Recreation's fee-related services.

NEW FEES
Three (3) fees were added to the fee schedule to capture services already being provided or new services the City would like to formalize:
• 'Outdoor Game Rentals – Volleyball’
• 'Outdoor Game Rentals – Horseshoes'
• 'Arborist Report Review'

ELIMINATED FEE
The Barrett Community Center Multi-purpose room rentals were eliminated / removed from the schedule as that room is no longer available to the public for rental purposes.

MODIFIED FEES
Various fees were revised to better reflect the City’s current processes for providing these services:
• The processing fee, staff setup, and hourly rental were combined into a single hourly rate to align with industry standards and to streamline rental-related fees. As such, under “current fees,” hourly rates are

PARKS & RECREATION
142

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
listed as “modified”, as currently the processing fee is a flat rate per rental, but staff setup and rental fees are hourly.
• Belmont Non-Profit and Non-Belmont Non-Profits were consolidated into a singular non-profit category for rental services.
• Athletic Field rental fees were broken out between use of full fields and use of shared fields to accommodate the cost differential associated with those groups that share fields with other groups and don’t have exclusive use of the field.
• The fee name ‘Tree Removal Permit’ was modified to ‘Tree Removal Permit Associated with General Property Maintenance’ to better reflect the nature of the fee and differentiate from tree removals associated with development projects.
• All Athletic Field rental fees within the ‘Youth Activity / Camp’ and ‘Adult Activity’ categories were consolidated into a single category.

These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services that Parks & Recreation provides.

DETAILED RESULTS
Parks & Recreation collects fees for indoor and outdoor facility rentals, athletic field use, community garden plots, photography and filming permits, Manor Art Studio rentals, and tree removal permits. Unlike other fee areas, the cost calculated for Parks and Recreation is referred to as the ‘baseline cost’. This cost reflects certain baseline assumptions regarding the utilization of rental spaces, participation, etc.

The ‘baseline costs’ incorporate staff and support costs, as well as direct material and use-of-space costs. Deposits were not included in the table below as those can be refunded and are not cost-based.

The following table details, for each fee-based service, the fee name, the current fee, the calculated baseline cost, and the associated difference.

TABLE 5: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PARKS & RECREATION Fee Name Current Fee
Baseline
Cost Difference
Indoor Facility Rental Fees
Change in Date Fee (Facilities) $75 $99 ($24)
Facility Staffing Fee $30-$50 $36 N/A
Custodial Fee $122 $110 $12
Technology Access Fee (Optional) $75 $85 ($10)
Barrett Community Center - Classroom
Resident
Rental Modified $165 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $165 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $165 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $165 N/A
Twin Pines Cottage (Max Capacity: 35)
143

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Fee Name Current Fee
Baseline
Cost Difference
Resident
Rental Modified $107 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $107 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $107 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $107 N/A
Twin Pines Lodge (Entire Facility) (Max Capacity: 125)
Resident
Rental Modified $209 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $209 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $209 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $209 N/A
Twin Pines Lodge (Meeting Room 4 Only)
Resident
Rental Modified $166 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $166 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $166 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $166 N/A
Twin Pines Manor (Max Capacity: 70)
Resident
Rental Modified $141 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $141 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $141 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $141 N/A
Sports Complex Conference Center (Max Capacity: 170)
Resident
Rental Modified $177 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $177 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $177 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $177 N/A
TP Sr. & Community Center (Entire Facility) (Max Capacity: 250) Resident
Rental Modified $253 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $253 N/A
Non-Profit
144

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
Fee Name Current Fee
Baseline
Cost Difference
Rental Modified $253 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $253 N/A
TP Sr. & Community Center (Craft Room Only)
Resident
Rental Modified $157 N/A
Non-Resident
Rental Modified $157 N/A
Non-Profit
Rental Modified $157 N/A
Commercial
Rental Modified $157 N/A
Photography & Filming Fees
Photography Daily Fee $100 $142 ($42)
Filming Daily Fee $1,200 $1,807 ($607)
Outdoor Facility Rental Fees
Change in Date Fee (Picnic) $25 $99 ($74)
Festival Service Fee $200 $236 ($36)
Outdoor Game Rentals
Volleyball New $52 N/A
Horseshoes New $45 N/A
Picnic Rentals
<100 People
Resident $146 $194 ($48)
Non-Resident $197 $194 $3
Non-Profit $146 $194 ($48)
Commercial $234 $194 $40
100+ People
Resident $196 $194 $2
Non-Resident $265 $194 $71
Non-Profit $196 $194 $2
Commercial $314 $194 $120
Group Park and Open Space Use
Resident $25 $55 ($30)
Non-Resident $30 $55 ($25)
Non-Profit $80 $55 $25
Commercial $68 $55 $13
Community Garden Fees
Full Plot $122 $194 ($72)
Half Plot $86 $167 ($81)
Athletic Field Rental (2 Hour Minimum)
Belmont Sports Complex North Field (Full Field)
Resident $192 $189 $3
Non-Resident $259 $189 $70
Non-Profit $115 $189 ($74)
Commercial $303 $189 $114
Belmont Sports Complex North Field (Shared Field)
Resident $96 $95 $1
Non-Resident $130 $95 $35
145

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
Fee Name Current Fee
Baseline
Cost Difference
Non-Profit $58 $95 ($37)
Commercial $152 $95 $57
Belmont Sports Complex South Field (Full Field)
Resident $172 $105 $67
Non-Resident $232 $105 $127
Non-Profit $103 $105 ($2)
Commercial $275 $105 $170
Belmont Sports Complex South Field (Shared Field)
Resident $86 $53 $33
Non-Resident $116 $53 $63
Non-Profit $52 $53 ($1)
Commercial $138 $53 $85
All Other Fields (Full Field)
Resident $86 $165 ($79)
Non-Resident $116 $165 ($49)
Non-Profit $52 $165 ($113)
Commercial $138 $165 ($27)
All Other Fields (Shared Field)
Resident $43 $83 ($40)
Non-Resident $58 $83 ($25)
Non-Profit $26 $83 ($57)
Commercial $69 $83 ($14)
Lights
Belmont Sports Complex (North Field) $22 $24 ($2)
Tree Removals
Tree Removal Permit Associated with General Property
Maintenance $92 $372 ($280)
Arborist Report Review New $182 N/A
The baseline costs calculated for Parks and Recreation reflect various over- and under-recoveries. This is typical for these types of services, as they are market- driven. Services such as tree permits tend to be heavily subsidized, while premium rentals may show some higher cost recovery. It is important to note that these fees are not subject to the same rules and regulations and, therefore, can be set at a rate the market can bear.
146

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
The Police Department provides law enforcement and public safety services to the Belmont community.

Fee-related services include fingerprinting, background check processing, police report and records services, reproduction of photos/audio/video, solicitor permits, vehicle and bicycle releases, false alarm response administration, alarm permit processing, massage establishment permitting, cannabis business permitting, and firearm and ammunition storage. The following subsections discuss feeschedule modifications and detailed per-unit results, for fee-related services provided by the Police Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
The project team worked with City staff to review and augment the current fee schedule. The following modifications were proposed to the current Police fee schedule:

MODIFIED FEES
Various fees were revised to better reflect the City’s current processes for providing these services:
• In an effort to more accurately describe the service offered, the following fee name changes were made:
o ‘Digital 8½ x 11’ was renamed ‘Photo Review and Release (includes printing)’ o ‘Video Review and Release’ was renamed ‘Audio / Video Review and Release’ o ‘CD Rom’ was renamed ‘Electronic Media’
o ‘Storage’ was renamed ‘E-Bike Storage & Release’ and expanded into 1st incident and 2nd and subsequent incidents.
• In an effort to streamline the fee schedule, the following fees were consolidated:
o Fees associated with ‘Incident Print‐out’, ‘Accident Report Fee’, and ‘Crime Report Fee’ were consolidated into two flat fees: ‘Victim Requested First Copy’ and ‘Non-Victim Requested / Subsequent Victim Requested Copies’.
o ‘Smart System’ and ‘All Other’ fees within the Alarm Permit Fee section were consolidated into a single unified annual fee per address.
o Fees associated with ‘Firearm, Ammunition, Ammunition Feeding Devices Storage’ were consolidated into two ‘per item per year’ fees: ‘Intake & First Year Storage’ and ‘Annual Storage Beyond 1st Year’.

These modifications ensure the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services provided by Police staff.

POLICE
147

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26

DETAILED RESULTS
The Police Department collects fees for fingerprinting, background checks, police records and report services, alarm-related permits and fees, regulatory permits, photo/audio/video reproduction, etc. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and indirect Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. The table includes only fees reviewed in this analysis; fines/penalties, actual costs, etc., were omitted as those are not based on cost.

TABLE 6: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – POLICE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Fingerprint Fee $107 $102 $5
Background Check Processing Fee $500 $1,441 ($941)
Report Fee
Victim Requested First Copy $0 $47 ($47)
Non-Victim Requested / Subsequent Victim Requested Copies $27 $47 ($20) Records Search/Print‐out $320 $189 $131
Local Clearance Letter $53 $31 $22
Reproduction of Photos, Audio, Video
Photo Review & Release (includes printing) $27 $55 ($28) Audio / Video Review and Release $320 $265 $55
Electronic Media $53 Actual Cost N/A
Solicitors Permit $320 $773 ($453)
Vehicle / Bike Release
Release Fee $107 $110 ($3)
E-Bike Storage & Release
1st Incident $50 $362 ($312)
2nd or More Incidents $50 $362 ($312)
Lost Citations $27 $15 $12
Ticket Sign‐off (outside agency) $27 $70 ($43)
False Alarm Fees
1st and 2nd incident $0 $315 ($315)
3rd incident $125 $315 ($190)
4th incident $225 $315 ($90)
5th incident or more $525 $315 $210
Alarm Permit Fee $30 $42 ($12)
Massage Permits
Biannual Permit Processing Fee $2,500 $3,466 ($966)
Annual Inspection Fee $150 $1,115 ($965)
Cannabis Business Permit
Permit Processing Fee $2,500 $3,629 ($1,129)
Inspection Fee $1,500 $1,115 $385
Firearm, Ammunition, Ammunition Feeding Devices Storage (per item per year) Intake & First Year Storage $140 $671 ($531)
Annual Storage Beyond 1st Year $35 $182 ($147)
Police fees generally under-recover for their services. Some key exceptions relate to streamlined processes.
148

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
The Engineering Division, part of the Public Works Department, is responsible for inspecting construction projects, monitoring erosion control, managing use of the City’s right-of-way and public utilities, ensuring compliance with stormwater requirements, and providing storm drain and sanitary sewer services. The fees examined in this study include grading, public improvements, engineering plan check and inspections, final maps, stormwater reviews, easement and right-of-use, miscellaneous storm drain and sanitary sewer fees, and various fee-related services. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Engineering Division.

NEW FEES
Several new fee categories were proposed to be added, including Transportation Demand Management Compliance Report Review, Permit Extensions, New Roadways, Inspection No Shows, and Inspections outside of normal business hours. These fees were added to capture services provided but not codified on the fee schedule.

MODIFIED FEES
Various fees were revised to better reflect the City’s current processes for providing these services:
• The Grading Permit section was restructured and reworded to clarify the applicable refundable deposit and fee based on grading volume and project type. • The NPDES C.3 and C.4 inspections were consolidated into per inspection fees depending on C3 or C4 inspection needed.
• The Encroachment Permit section was restructured and reworded to more accurately reflect the services provided. For example, Permanent Encroachment were parsed into Utility Temporary (UTE) - All Projects - Public Utility, Major (PE) - All Projects, per BCC Section 22, and Major (PE) - All Projects - Public Utility; ‘Driveway Approach’ was renamed ‘Concrete Frontage Improvements (100 sqft or less) or Driveway Approach’; ‘Scope Change/Revision to active/under review Temporary Encroachment Permit’ was covered under deposit but is now called out as a flat fee; various fees were pulled into a new section titled Street Improvement Permit (SIP) - Complex & San Juan Hills Area Plan Projects; etc.

PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
149

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
• A new Miscellaneous - All Projects section was created to house fees that are assessed regardless of project type, including ‘Per hour in excess of initial review (engineering)’, ‘Work without Permit / Stop Work Notice’, ‘Inspection No Show’, etc.

These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services that Engineering provides.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Engineering Division collects fees for subdivision map processing, building permit plan checks, hauling and grading permits, NPDES stormwater and FOG compliance inspections, transportation demand management reviews, encroachment and street improvement permits, right-of-way and easement processing, and other miscellaneous engineering services. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and indirect Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following tables detail the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

Only fees reviewed in this analysis appear in the table; fines/penalties, actual costs, etc., were omitted because the project team did not calculate total costs for these service types.

TABLE 7: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – ENGINEERING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Subdivision Maps
Parcel Map: Deposit (D) $12,481 $12,000 $481
Final Maps: Deposit (D) $19,502 $24,000 ($4,498)
Hourly rate in excess of deposit $390 $290 $100
Building Permit Plan Check
Estimated Project cost under $4,000
Initial $390 $247 $143
Per Hour $390 $247 $143
Estimated Project cost $4,001-$10,000
Initial $780 $494 $286
Per Hour $390 $247 $143
Estimated Project cost $10,001-$50,000
Initial $1,365 $864 $501
Per Hour $390 $247 $143
Estimated Project cost $50,001-$100,000
Initial $1,950 $1,235 $715
Per Hour $390 $247 $143
Estimated Project cost $100,001-$250,000
Initial $2,730 $1,729 $1,001
Per Hour $390 $247 $143
150

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Estimated Project cost over $250,000
Initial (D) $5,851 $6,500 ($649)
Per Hour $390 $247 $143
Consultant Management (20 hours initial
deposit) (D) Modified $6,000 N/A
Hauling Permit
0-50 CY $390 $369 $21
Each Additional CY Over 50 CY $3.00 $4.08 ($1.08)
Grading Permit Fees
Refundable Deposit
0-50 CY (D) $600 $1,000 ($400)
Each additional CY over 50 CY up to 499
CY $60 $65 ($5)
Complex Geotechnical Condition (500+
CY, landslide, creek improvement, San
Juan Area Plan project, Bay mud, or as
determined by City Engineer) $90 $109 ($19)
0 to 500 CY
0-500 CY $1,170 $1,755 ($585)
Each additional CY over 50 CY up to 499
CY $3.00 $3.65 ($0.65)
Complex Geotechnical Condition (500+ CY,
landslide, creek improvement, San Juan Area
Plan project, Bay mud, or as determined by
City Engineer) Modified 5% N/A
Grading Moratorium Exception (5 business
days) Modified $818 N/A
NPDES C.3 Development/Redevelopment
Stormwater Inspection Fee Modified $413 N/A
NPDES C.4 Business Stormwater Inspection $390 $261 $261 NPDES C.6 Construction Inspection (6
inspections for one rainy season) (D) Modified $500 N/A FOG Inspection Fees
Initial Inspection $1,170 $261 $909
Additional Inspection $585 $261 $324
Transportation Demand Management
Compliance Report Review New $1,117 N/A
Encroachment Permit
Sidewalk Policy
Deferment or Exception Review Request to
Sidewalk Installation Policy Modified $850 N/A
Executed Deferred Improvement
Agreement with San Mateo County $1,037 $267 $770
Exception Approval Letter Modified $140 N/A
Temporary (TE) - Small Projects
Scope Change/Revision to active/under
review Temporary Encroachment Permit Modified $859 N/A
Debris Bin (per 14 days) $195 $338 ($143)
Storage Pod (per 7 days) Modified $234 N/A
Concrete Frontage Improvements (100
sq. ft. or less) or Driveway Approach $1,755 $926 $829
151

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Concrete Frontage Improvements (101
sq. ft. or more) $1,560 $1,800 ($240)
Utility Trenching (storm/sewer/water) $1,268 $1,225 $43 Pavement Restoration Modified $2,625 N/A
Sewer Lateral Video Review Inspection
(Report & Certificate) Modified $370 N/A
Sewer Lateral Certificate (only) $150 $107 $43
Permit Extension (per 5 days) Modified $169 N/A
Utility Temporary (UTE) - All Projects - Public
Utility
Application Review and Permit (i.e. utility
lid adjustments, grade adjustments, and
minor in-kind modifications to existing
facilities) $3,120 $2,757 $363
Permit Extension (per 5 days) Modified $169 N/A
Major (PE) - All Projects, per BCC Section 22
Application Review Modified $2,063 N/A
Administrative Permanent Encroachment
Agreement (does not require council
approval) $659 $688 ($29)
Permanent Encroachment Agreement
(requires Council approval) Modified $1,820 N/A
Inspection Modified $382 N/A
Major (PE) - All Projects - Public Utility
Application Review (i.e. poles, wires, guy
anchors, hydrants, aboveground cabinets
for housing splices, transformers or
switches) $3,120 $3,356 ($236)
Administrative Permanent Encroachment
Agreement (does not require council
approval) $659 $688 ($29)
Permanent Encroachment Agreement
(requires Council approval) Modified $1,820 N/A
Per hour in excess of initial review
(engineering) $390 $265 $125
Per hour in excess of initial review
(inspection) $390 $261 $129
Complex Street Improvement Permit (SIP)
Construction (applicable improvement(s) may be included under a single SIP, per project. Review falls under Building Permit. Consultant Services Fee may be required.) Concrete Frontage Improvements (100
sq. ft. or less) or Driveway Approach Modified $523 N/A Concrete Frontage Improvements (101
sq. ft. or more) Modified $1,046 N/A
Poles and/or Street Signs $683 $261 $422
Sewer Lateral in Easement on Private
Property $683 $523 $160
Sewer Lateral in right-of-way $1,268 $784 $484
Trenching in the right-of-way or
easement $780 $523 $257
Pavement Restoration Modified $3,547 N/A
New Roadway Modified $5,030 N/A
Miscellaneous Improvement $780 $784 ($4)
152

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Miscellaneous - All Projects
Per hour in excess of initial review
(engineering) $390 $265 $125
Permit Extension for Delayed Pavement
Restoration (per 5 days) Modified $365 N/A
Paving Moratorium Exception Modified $711 N/A
Inspection No Show New $130 N/A
Inspection Outside of Normal Business Hours New $261 N/A Right-of-Way and Easements
Easement Vacation $7,021 $5,021 $2,000
Summary Easement Vacation $7,021 $2,437 $4,584
Easement or Street Dedication $7,021 $1,468 $5,553
Review per hour in excess of initial fee
(engineering) $390 $273 $117
Miscellaneous
Engineering and inspection services not
covered by any of the above $390 $261 $129
Annual Transportation Demand Management
Compliance Report Review New $607 N/A
Waste Water Discharge Fee
Processing Fee $1,560 $938 $622
No Parking Sign $3 $3 $0
Consultant Management (5 hours initial
deposit) (D) Modified $1,500 N/A
Hourly rate in excess of deposit $390 $265 $125
Work Performed by PW Maintenance Staff
Labor $390 $219 $171
Temporary Street Closure Permit
Community Events (30 days min notice) $414 $771 ($357)
Community Events (< 30 days’ notice) $414 $996 ($582)
Banner Permit (Ralston Ave) $456 $534 ($78)
Temporary Street Light Pole Banner Permit
Group of 5 banners $100 $534 ($434)
Each additional group of 5 (or less) $50 $267 ($217)
Transportation (Oversize / Overweight)
Permit – Caltrans Permit Required1
Annual $90 $90 $0
Per Trip $16 $16 $0
Engineering fees reflect a mixed pattern of cost recovery across the Division’s permitting and review services.

In addition to Engineering-specific services, the Engineering Division provides technical support to the Planning Division for design reviews, conditional use permits, geologic reviews, and subdivision processing. The results of the Engineering staff’s support for planning applications are detailed below.

The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and indirect Departmental, 1 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 21, § 1411.3(a)
153

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following tables detail the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

The table indicates deposit-based fees with a (D). As deposits are either refunded if unused or replenished as costs are incurred, the difference does not represent a true deficit or subsidy; rather, it reflects whether current deposit thresholds are sufficient to cover the anticipated cost of providing services.

TABLE 8: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – ENGINEERING SUPPORT TO PLANNING Fee Name
Current
Fee Total Cost Difference
Design Review
New Building Construction – Commercial $5,851 $5,820 $31 Additions – Commercial $0 $4,195 ($4,195)
Single‐Family Design Review Tier 2 – Zoning
Administrator Review without hearing $1,170 $1,651 ($481) Single‐Family Design Review Tier 3
Planning Commission Review - Addition $6,228 $4,039 $2,189 Planning Commission Review - New Homes (D) $6,228 $5,500 $728 Conditional Use Permit
Administrative Permit - Community Development Director $2,354 $968 $1,386 Permit - Planning Commission Review $2,354 $1,453 $901
Geologic Review
Small Geologic Review (D) $3,120 $0 $3,120
Large Geologic Review (D) $3,120 $0 $3,120
Map Modification or Exception (D) $3,120 $0 $3,120
Additional Fees
Grading Plan, Planning Commission Review $4,290 $3,342 $948 Complex Project (D) $0 $6,000 ($6,000)
Subdivisions
Tentative Map (D) $0 $15,000 ($15,000)
Tentative Parcel Map (D) $15,602 $12,000 $3,602
Lot Merger / Lot Line Adjustment $3,510 $3,633 ($123)
Certificate of Compliance $0 $628 ($628)
Complex Certificate of Compliance (D) $0 $1,500 ($1,500) SB-9 Application
SB-9 Application - Lot Split (D) $0 $8,000 ($8,000)
Pre-Application Review
Small Pre-Application $0 $494 ($494)
Large Pre-Application $0 $4,893 ($4,893)
If Engineering has a specific fee that it assesses for these reviews that has been shown in the current fee, anything with a $0 in the current fee, means that Engineering does not currently collect a separate fee for that review component. This could mean that Engineering time is directly captured on the depositbased component. 154

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
Alternatively, any line item with a $0 in the total cost refers to services that Engineering currently has a fee for in support of Planning, but based on staff discussion, do not currently provide any support, or that support has been directly captured in other areas on the planning fee schedule and thus does not need to be represented separately.
155

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
The City of Belmont is installing 12 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging stations. The City would like to establish a fee to offset the costs associated with the station’s installation, electricity use, and general oversight. The proposed fee would be charged per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to recover the costs associated with EV Charging Station operations.

The project team worked with City staff to identify the total operating costs associated with the charging stations, including the following cost components:
• Preventive Maintenance: Reflects the total cost of regular upkeep and maintenance of the charging stations, annualized over a 5-year period.
• On-Call Maintenance: Reflects the total costs associated with ChargePoint on-call services, annualized over a 5-year timeframe.
• Installation / Replacement: Reflects the cost to fund the replacement and installation of EV stations, annualized over a 5-year timeframe.
• Annual Electricity Cost: Reflects the total annual electricity charges assessed to the City based on estimated charging station usage.

The following table breaks out the total annual cost for EV Charging Stations by the previously discussed cost components:

Cost Category Total Cost
Annual Preventive Costs $844
Annual Electricity Costs2 $103,679
Annual On-Call Maintenance Costs $1,571
Total Annual Cost $5,200
Total Direct and Indirect Costs $111,294
The $111,294 is divided by the total kWh to calculate the cost per kWh. The following graphic shows this calculation:
$111,294 total cost = $0.45 per kWh 246,8553 kWH annually Based on the calculation, the full cost of a charging station is $0.45 per kWh.

Since EV Charging Station rates are considered similar to parking meter rates, they are not subject to user fee regulations. However, the state of California does require all EV Charging Stations (public and 2 The annual electricity cost was estimated based on the average rate of $0.42 per kWh and estimating the number of kilowatts used for the charging stations based on the hours of operation for the facility. 3 The estimated kWh utilization is based on the 12 units of EV Charging Station with an average annual utilization of 20,571 kWh per unit, provided by City staff based on neighboring jurisdictions.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING FEES
156

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
private) to be charged based on hourly utilization4. As such, the calculated full cost rate ($0.45 per kWh) is per kWh and is compliant with this new state regulation.

The City would assess this fee on top of any parking lot fees at the locations of the EV charging stations.

This practice is consistent with other private and public entities, which charge for both the use of the parking space and the EV charging station.
4 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, §§ 4001–4002.11
157

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
The City of Belmont currently charges a General Plan Maintenance fee as 0.75% of the total building permit valuation. This is a fairly common and standard fee charged by many jurisdictions. he General Plan Maintenance Fee is governed by Government Code Section 66014(b), which states that fees “may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and recommendations.” This code states that fees may be charged for zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, and application filing.

More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure any development project that gets to that phase makes enough of an impact to require the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. It is recommended that this fee be applied only to major building permits (i.e., new construction or remodel/tenant improvements), as these permits impact the General Plan, whereas standalone permits (i.e., water heaters, electrical outlets, etc.) do not.

The project team used the FY26 direct and indirect budgeted costs, divided by the years between updates, to calculate the total annual cost. The table below shows the cost category and the resulting annual cost.

TABLE 9: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE COST COMPONENTS
Cost Category Annual Cost
Direct Costs $784,322
Citywide Overhead $137,447
Total Annual Cost $921,769
The annual cost to the City for updating its general plan is roughly $922,000. To assess this fee based on valuation, the project team took the annual cost associated with general plan upkeep and divided it by the total project valuation associated with commercial, multi-family, and single-family residential construction for building permits submitted in the prior year. The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 10: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
Category Valuation
Total Annual Cost $921,769
General Plan Fee Basis – Building Valuation $119,083,256 General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.77%
The full cost of the General Plan Maintenance Fee is 0.77% of Building Valuation. The fee calculated as part of this study is the maximum justifiable fee that the City can assess to help recover for its general plan maintenance-related costs.

The following table compares the City’s current fee to the full cost calculated through this study:

GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
158

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
TABLE 11: COST PER UNIT RESULTS – GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.75% 0.77% (0.02%)
The full cost is 0.02 percentage points higher than the City’s current fee. This means the City can raise its General Plan fee by approximately 0.02%.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the General Plan Maintenance Fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 12: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY Jurisdiction Fee Basis
Burlingame 0.20% of Valuation
Foster City 0.50% of Valuation
Menlo Park 3% of Permit Fee
Redwood City 0.39% of Valuation
San Carlos 0.74% of Valuation
San Mateo 0.59% of Valuation
The majority of the jurisdictions charge the General Plan Fee as a percentage of the construction valuation similar to Belmont. The city’s current and full cost fee would be higher than all surveyed jurisdictions.

It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance surcharges in a specific fund.

The City of Belmont already follows this best practice and should continue to do so to ensure compliance with funding requirements, enable the appropriate allocation of funds to general plan-related activities, and mitigate potential issues with the commingling of funds. 159

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
The following sections provide guidance on how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost-recovery policies and procedures.

FEE ADJUSTMENTS
This study documents and outlines, on a fee-by-fee basis, where the City is under- and over-collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees in accordance with the Department's and City’s philosophies and policies. The following graphic outlines the major options the Town has in adjusting its fees:
▼
REDUCE
▲

FULL COST
▶

PHASE IN
Fees above cost must be reduced to
match actual cost of service to be in
compliance.

Fees below cost can be increased
immediately to full recovery.

Large gaps can be closed gradually
over a set period.

The City will need to review the fee study results and associated cost-recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are straightforward, the Town can choose to either adopt fees at full cost immediately or phase in any large increases.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS
Conducting an annual comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general recommendation is to conduct a comprehensive fee analysis every 5 to 7 years. This allows jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes, such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. The following graphic provides insight into two options.

COLA / Personnel Cost Factor
Annual salary adjustments to offset rising cost of living.

Not tied to merit or seniority.

CPI / ECI Factor
Regional cost indicators calculated by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Released at various intervals, specific to states and regions.

The City of Belmont should continue its practice of implementing annual fee increases.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This study identified areas where the City is under-collecting the costs of providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources. The City should review and implement the results of this analysis, in line with its existing cost recovery policies, to ensure that current and future decision-makers understand how and why fees were determined and set.

COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS
160

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Belmont, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified six (6) municipalities to be included in the comparative survey for fees: Burlingame, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo. The project team then reviewed public documents (e.g., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances) and/or contacted jurisdictions to obtain comparative information.

While this full report provides the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to benchmark themselves against other comparable jurisdictions to understand the local “rates” for comparable services. This type of comparative analysis allows the City to assess the types of fee-level changes its community can bear. However, benchmarking does not provide adequate information on the relationship between other jurisdictions’ costs and their fees (e.g., policy decisions to subsidize, cost-recovery goals, etc.). To contextualize this portion of the analysis, the project team provided economic and recency factors for the comparable jurisdictions.

The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City.

ECONOMIC FACTORS
To provide additional context for the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic data for the included jurisdictions. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can affect how and when fees are administered: a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose not to charge a fee, and a smaller workforce may limit its ability to administer a fee. The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:

TABLE 13: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY POPULATION
Jurisdiction Population5
Belmont 28,129
San Carlos 29,249
Foster City 32,364
Burlingame 32,438
Menlo Park 33,785
Redwood City 81,809
San Mateo 104,020
5 California Department of Finance estimates as of 1/1/2026 were used to determine each jurisdiction’s population.

APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY
161

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
TABLE 14: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY CITYWIDE TOTAL BUDGET Jurisdiction FY25-26 Budget
Belmont $80,811,030
San Carlos $129,090,000
Burlingame $162,152,166
Foster City $204,710,215
Menlo Park $129,521,531
Redwood City $200,900,000
San Mateo $271,974,917
TABLE 15: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY FTE
Jurisdiction FY25-26 FTE
San Carlos 104
Belmont 145
Foster City 181
Burlingame 235
Menlo Park 296
San Mateo 633
Redwood City 634
Compared with the surveyed jurisdictions, the City of Belmont ranks towards the bottom in terms of population, budget, and staffing.

RECENCY FACTOR
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when comparing Belmont’s fees with those of surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider include when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even when jurisdictions have conducted recent fee studies, their fees are not always set at full cost recovery. The comparative results show only the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost of the comparable service.

The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule:

TABLE 16: LAST FEE STUDY
Jurisdiction Response
San Mateo 2020
Redwood City 2023
Burlingame 2025
San Carlos 2023
Foster City 2023
162

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
Jurisdiction Response
Menlo Park Currently ongoing6
TABLE 17: LAST FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Jurisdiction Response
Menlo Park 2025
San Carlos 2025
Burlingame 2025
Foster City 2025
Redwood City 2025
San Mateo 2025
San Mateo, Redwood City, and Burlingame have all conducted a fee study within the last five to six years.

All comparable jurisdictions have updated their fee schedule within the last year.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service:
• Cost Recovery Factors: Each jurisdiction and its fees differ, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services, as various policy decisions may subsidize them. • Fee Variance Factors: A fee with the same name may encompass different types of services or activities across jurisdictions. Variability may stem from differences in service delivery models (e.g., in-house vs. contracted), the scope of work included under the fee, and staffing configurations, all of which can influence how indirect and overhead costs are allocated.

In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also risk creating an excess of confusing data that obscures rather than clarifies policy issues. Since each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than the primary method for determining an acceptable price point for services.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESULTS
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey comparing the City’s current user fees and calculated full costs with those of other identified jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative overview of several fee-related services offered by the City and the surveyed jurisdictions.

WATER HEATER
Currently, the Building Division charges a fee of $206 for a water heater permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $329. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions. 6 Fees reflected in the comparative survey only reflect the published fee schedule not the results of the ongoing fee study. 163

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
Belmont's current fee of $206 is below the jurisdictional average of $227 and is most closely aligned with Redwood City at $204. The full cost of $329 is above the average. San Mateo charges the highest fee in the survey at $507, while San Carlos charges the lowest at $115.

SWIMMING POOL PERMIT VALUED AT $75,000
Currently, the Building Division charges a $1,389 fee for a swimming pool permit valued at $75,000. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $1,898. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $1,389 and full cost of $1,898 are both significantly below the jurisdictional average of $4,224. Burlingame charges the highest fee in the survey at $5,922, while Menlo Park charges the lowest at $443. Belmont's current fee is the second lowest among all surveyed jurisdictions. 164

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43

BATHROOM REMODEL OR REPAIR (W/O STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION) Currently, the Building Division charges a $793 fee for a bathroom remodel or repair without structural modification. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $946. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare with those of the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $793 and full cost of $946 are both below the jurisdictional average of $1,084.

San Carlos charges the highest fee in the survey at $1,798, while Foster City charges the lowest at $394.

Belmont's current fee is most closely aligned with San Mateo at $720.

RESIDENTIAL REROOF
Currently, the Building Division charges a fee of $1,389 for a residential reroof. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $534. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions. 165

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44
Belmont’s current fee is among higher other than San Carlos. It’s full cost fee at $494 is below the jurisdictional average of $644 for residential reroofs.

NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 2,812 SQ. FT. - VALUED AT $413,282 Currently, the Building Division charges a fee of $9,454 for plan review and inspection of a new 2,812 square foot single-family residence valued at $413,282. To be consistent with other jurisdictions only the building inspection and building plan review components were included. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $10,253. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $9,454 and full cost of $10,253 are both below the jurisdictional average of $14,920. Menlo Park charges the highest fee in the survey at $18,010, while Burlingame charges the lowest at $13,475. Belmont's current fee and full cost are the lowest among all surveyed jurisdictions.

NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT - 730 SQ. FT. - VALUED AT $58,400 Currently, the Building Division charges a fee of $1,870 for a new 730-square-foot accessory dwelling unit valued at $58,400. To be consistent with other jurisdictions only the building inspection and building plan review components were included. In this study, the project team calculated the total plan check and inspection cost at $2,898. The following graph compares the division's current fee and full cost with the surveyed jurisdictions.
166

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
Belmont's current fee of $1,870 and full cost of $2,898 are both below the jurisdictional average of $4,519. San Carlos charges the highest fee in the survey at $7,857, while San Mateo charges the lowest at $2,832. Belmont's current fee is the lowest among all surveyed jurisdictions, and the full cost is most closely aligned with Menlo Park at $2,900 and San Mateo at $2,832.

COMMERCIAL TI - 812 SQ. FT. - VALUED AT $50,943
Currently, the Building Division charges a fee of $1,785 for plan review and inspection of an 812-squarefoot commercial tenant improvement valued at $50,943. To be consistent with other jurisdictions only the building inspection and building plan review components were included. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $2,204. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $1,785 and full cost of $2,204 are both significantly below the jurisdictional average of $4,028. San Carlos charges the highest fee in the survey at $5,102, while Menlo Park charges the lowest at $2,500. Belmont's current fee is the lowest among all surveyed jurisdictions.

CONCRETE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (100 SQFT OR LESS) OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH Currently, the Engineering Division charges a fee of $1,755 for concrete frontage improvements of 100 square feet or less or a driveway approach. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $926. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.
167

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46
Belmont's current fee of $1,755 is the highest among all surveyed jurisdictions and is well above the jurisdictional average of $603. The full cost of $884 is also above the average. San Mateo has the next highest fee at $712, while San Carlos charges the lowest at $477.

EASEMENT VACATION
Currently, the Engineering Division charges a $7,021 fee for an easement vacation. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $5,021. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare with those of the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $7,021 is the highest among all surveyed jurisdictions and above the jurisdictional average of $4,831. The full cost of $5,021 is just below the average and closely aligned with San Mateo's fee of $6,468 — the highest among peer jurisdictions — and Burlingame's fee of $6,408.

Menlo Park charges the lowest fee in the survey at $2,320. Note that Foster City and Redwood City do not charge a fee for this service and are excluded from the graph.

TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT: DEBRIS BIN
This is a new fee for Belmont; the city currently charges $195 for temporary encroachment debris bins. In this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service at $338 per 14-day period. The following graph shows how the proposed full cost compares to the surveyed jurisdictions. 168

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
The jurisdictional average for this service is $263, which is above Belmont’s current fee. Belmont's full cost of $338 is above the average and closely aligned with Burlingame's fee of $336, the highest in the survey. San Mateo charges $564, which is an outlier well above the rest of the survey. Foster City charges the lowest fee at $68.

GRADING PERMIT (0 TO 500 CY): 500 CY
Currently, the Engineering Division charges a fee of $2,220 for a grading permit covering up to 500 cubic yards. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,755. The following graph compares the division's current fee and full cost with those of the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee and full cost are both below the jurisdictional average of $2,796. San Mateo charges the highest fee in the survey at $3,834, while San Carlos charges the lowest at $2,117.

UTILITY TRENCHING / UTILITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Currently, the Engineering Division charges a fee of $1,268 for utility trenching. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $1,225. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions. 169

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
Belmont's current fee of $1,268 and full cost of $1,169 are both near the jurisdictional average of $1,288.04. San Mateo charges the highest fee in the survey at $2,825, while Burlingame charges the lowest at $616. Belmont's current fee is most closely aligned with Redwood City at $1,535.

ENGINEERING HOURLY RATE
Currently, the Engineering Division charges an hourly rate of $390. In this study, the project team calculated the full-cost hourly rate to be $261. The following graph shows how the division's current rate and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current hourly rate of $390 is the highest among all surveyed jurisdictions and above the jurisdictional average of $267. The full cost of $261 is just below the average. Burlingame's rate of $374 is the next highest after Belmont. Note that Foster City, Menlo Park, and Redwood City do not charge a published hourly rate for this service and are excluded from the graph.

TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
This is a new fee for Belmont; the city does not currently charge for temporary use permits. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,149. The following graph shows how the proposed full cost compares to the surveyed jurisdictions. 170

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
The jurisdictional average for this service is $1,667. Belmont's full cost of $1,149 is below the average and most all surveyed jurisdictions. San Mateo has the highest fee in the survey at $6,000, followed by Menlo Park at $3,000. Note that San Mateo and Menlo Park fees are indicative of initial deposits and are not calculated as part of the average. Foster City charges the lowest fee at $300. Note that Foster City's fee of $300 is structured as actual cost with a minimum and is noted as such in the survey.

ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN REVIEW
Currently, the Planning Division charges a fee of $1,191 for an administrative sign review. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,149. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $1,191 is well above the jurisdictional average of $515 and is the second-highest among all surveyed jurisdictions. The full cost of $1,149 is above the peer average, only slightly lower than the current fee. San Carlos charges the highest fee in the survey at $1,328, while Burlingame charges the lowest at $217. Note that San Mateo’s fee of $289 is structured as a variable cost with a minimum and is noted as such in the survey.
171

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50

VARIANCES
Currently, the Planning Division charges a $3,771 fee for a variance. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $11,499. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $3,771 is below the jurisdictional average of $6,003, while the full cost of $11,499 is well above the average and the highest among all jurisdictions in the survey. San Carlos charges the highest fee among peer jurisdictions at $13,284, while Burlingame charges the lowest at $1,112. Note that Foster City's fee of $2,000, Menlo Park's fee of $3,000, and San Mateo’s fee of $6,000 are structured as minimum deposits and, therefore, are not included in the average calculation.

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
Currently, the Planning Division charges a $92 fee for a tree removal permit associated with development activity. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $985. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee charged by Planning of $92 is below the jurisdictional average of $215 and among the lowest in the survey, most closely aligned with San Carlos and San Mateo, both of which charge 172

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
$100. The full cost of $985 significantly exceeds both the current fee and the survey average. Burlingame charges the highest fee at $451. It is important to note that many jurisdictions subsidize this service.

APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Currently, the Planning Division charges a fee of $259 for an appeal of an administrative action to the Planning Commission. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $9,484. The following graph shows how the division's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $259 is well below the jurisdictional average of $965 and the lowest among all surveyed jurisdictions. The full cost of $9,484 is dramatically above both the current fee and the peer average, indicating a significant subsidy to appellants under the current fee structure. San Carlos charges the highest fee in the survey at $2,217, while Menlo Park charges the lowest at $110. Note that Foster City's fee of $1,000 is structured as actual cost with a minimum deposit and is not included in the average calculation. This type of service is typically subsidized.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PERMIT - PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Currently, the Planning Division charges a fee of $13,198 for a conditional use permit requiring Planning Commission review. In this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service at $10,431. The following graph compares the division's current fee and full cost with those of the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $13,198 is the highest among all surveyed jurisdictions and significantly above the jurisdictional average of $5,520. The full cost of $10,431 is also above the average. San Carlos has 173

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
the next highest fee at $9,963, while Burlingame charges the lowest at $2,031. Foster City ($5,000), Menlo Park ($3,000), and San Mateo ($6,000) charge initial deposits for this type of entitlement application and were not included in the graphic or average fee calculation.

FINGERPRINT FEE
Currently, the Police Department charges a fee of $107 for fingerprinting services. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $102. The following graph shows how the department's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee is the highest among all jurisdictions in the survey and is above the jurisdictional average of $47. The full cost of $102 is also above the average.

REPORT FEE
Currently, the Police Department charges a $27 fee for an 8-page report. In this study, the project team calculated the total cost of this service at $47. The following graph shows how the department's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $27 and full cost of $47 are both above the jurisdictional average of $9. The wide spread in fees across the survey reflects varying methodologies — some jurisdictions, such as 174

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
Burlingame and Menlo Park, charge as little as $2 per report, while Redwood City charges $32. Belmont's full cost of $47 exceeds all surveyed jurisdictions.

REPRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA
Currently, the Police Department charges a fee of $53 for the reproduction of electronic media. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $8. The following graph shows how the department's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $53 is slightly above the jurisdictional average of $49 and is lower than the highest fee of $118 charged by Burlingame. The full cost of $8 is well below the average. Note that San Carlos charges for this service at cost and is excluded from the graph.

VEHICLE RELEASE
Currently, the Police Department charges a $107 fee for a vehicle release. In this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service at $110. The following graph shows how the department's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current and full cost fees are just below the jurisdictional average of $113 and are most closely aligned with San Carlos at $112. The highest fee in the survey is $183, charged by Burlingame, while San Mateo charges the lowest at $80.
175

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54

MASSAGE PERMIT
Currently, the Police Department charges a fee of $2,500 for massage permit processing. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $3,466. The following graph shows how the department's current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.

Belmont's current fee of $2,500 and full cost of $3,466 are both significantly above the jurisdictional average of $912 and the highest surveyed fee, $1,523, charged by Burlingame. Menlo Park charges the lowest fee in the survey at $135. Note that Foster City does not charge a fee for this service and is excluded from the graph.

PARKS & RECREATION COMPARATIVE SURVEY
The following section summarizes a comparative market-rate survey of Parks and Recreation fees. All comparative jurisdiction data is drawn from publicly available fee schedules, recreation guides, and program pages as of 2026. Each section presents Belmont’s current fees and baseline costs alongside data collected from peer jurisdictions, enabling direct comparison across program categories.

At a high level, the following themes emerged from the comparative benchmark survey:
• Belmont's indoor rental fees generally fall in the lower-to-middle range of the peer market, especially compared with San Mateo, Foster City, and Redwood City. Burlingame and Menlo Park are typically higher for larger or premium indoor spaces.
• Belmont's outdoor rental fees are mixed. Picnic and open space rentals generally align with peer ranges, while volleyball and horseshoe courts currently differ because Belmont offers free use, whereas several peers charge rental fees.
• Community garden current fees are below the identified annual peer example in Burlingame, while Belmont's baseline costs are closer to or above that peer range.

The following sections break down these findings by service area, providing a more detailed comparison of Belmont’s current fees and calculated baseline costs alongside those of comparable jurisdictions.

This analysis highlights where fees align with regional norms, where they differ, and how those 176

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55
differences reflect broader policy choices regarding cost recovery and community access. These types of fees are not static. They are reactive to economic conditions and public demands, balancing the community's needs with accessibility. When assigning fees, the department must strike a delicate balance, ensuring they are reasonable for users while generating sufficient revenue to support ongoing operations and improvements.

INDOOR RENTALS
The City of Belmont charges fees for the use of indoor facilities at its community center and other public buildings. The table below compares Belmont’s current fee schedule and calculated baseline costs against six comparable jurisdictions: San Carlos, San Mateo, Foster City, Redwood City, Burlingame, and Menlo Park.

TABLE 18: COMPARATIVE FEE SUMMARY – INDOOR RENTALS
Fee Category Belmont Current Fee Belmont Baseline Cost Comparative Jurisdictions Summary
Reservation
Change/Modification
Fee
$75 per facility
change; $25 per
picnic site change
$99 per change San Mateo: $20 processing fee
(picnic only). Foster City: $10 per
change (first facility change free).

San Carlos, Redwood City,
Burlingame, Menlo Park: N/A.

Multi-Purpose Room $51–$165/hr (by
applicant type) + $39
processing fee +
$300 deposit
$73/hr + $73 processing
fee + $300 deposit
San Carlos: $873–$1,047 (3-hr
weekend block). San Mateo: $40–
$150/hr + $100 fee. Foster City:
$37–$197/hr. Redwood City: $90–
$230/hr. Burlingame: $117–
$386/hr. Menlo Park: $184–
$660/hr.

Classroom or Craft
Room
$24–$77/hr (by
applicant type) + $39
processing fee +
$100–$300 deposit
$16/hr + $73 processing
fee + $300 deposit
San Carlos: $522–$626 (3-hr
weekend block). San Mateo: $40–
$150/hr. Foster City: $37–$197/hr.

Redwood City: $25–$90/hr.

Burlingame: $117–$386/hr. Menlo
Park: $184–$660/hr.

Meeting Room $34–$107/hr (by
applicant type) + $39
processing fee +
$400 deposit
$17/hr + $73 processing
fee + $400 deposit
San Carlos: $522–$626 (3-hr
weekend block). San Mateo: $40–
$150/hr. Foster City: $37–$197/hr.

Redwood City: $35–$100/hr.

Burlingame: $104–$207/hr. Menlo
Park: $43–$122/hr.

Entire Facility $137–$437/hr (by
applicant type) + $39
processing fee +
$500 deposit
$109/hr + $36
processing fee + $500
deposit
San Mateo: $40–$150/hr. Foster
City: $37–$197/hr. Redwood City:
$150–$400/hr + $1,000 deposit.

Burlingame: $205–$571/hr (2x rate
outside business hours). San
Carlos, Menlo Park: N/A.

The key findings from this analysis are summarized below:
177

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 56
• Multi-Purpose Room: Belmont’s current hourly rate ($51–$165) falls below the baseline cost ($73) and is among the most affordable compared to peer jurisdictions. Redwood City ($90–$230), Burlingame ($117–$386), and Menlo Park ($184–$660) charge significantly more. Foster City ($37– $197) and San Mateo ($40–$150) are most aligned with Belmont’s current fee range. • Classroom/Craft Room: Belmont’s current rate ($24–$77/hr) exceeds the baseline cost ($16/hr), suggesting this category is priced above cost recovery. Redwood City ($25–$90) is most comparable to Belmont’s current fee. Burlingame ($117–$386) and Menlo Park ($184–$660) are dramatically higher.
• Meeting Room: Belmont’s current rate ($34–$107/hr) significantly exceeds the baseline cost ($17/hr). Menlo Park ($43–$122) and Redwood City ($35–$100) most closely align. Burlingame ($104–$207) is somewhat higher, while San Carlos uses a block rental model that limits direct comparison.
• Entire Facility: Belmont’s current rate ($137–$437/hr) is above baseline ($109/hr) and is competitive with Redwood City ($150–$400) and Burlingame ($205–$571). Menlo Park does not offer this rental category.
• Reservation Change Fees: Belmont’s $75 facility change fee and $25 picnic site change fee are below the baseline cost of $99 per change. Most comparable jurisdictions charge $10–$20 for picnic changes only, or do not charge at all, making Belmont’s fees relatively higher in this category.

Overall, Belmont’s indoor rental fees are generally competitive with or below those of comparable jurisdictions for multipurpose and meeting rooms. The classroom/craft room and meeting room categories are priced above baseline costs, while the multi-purpose room remains below baseline.

Reservation modification fees are above regional norms for most peer jurisdictions.

OUTDOOR RENTALS
Belmont offers a range of outdoor facility rentals including athletic fields, picnic sites, courts, and open space. The table below compares current fees and baseline costs to six peer jurisdictions. Note that San Carlos restricts field rentals to nonprofits and sport leagues only; several jurisdictions do not charge for certain court types.

TABLE 19: COMPARATIVE FEE SUMMARY – OUTDOOR RENTALS
Fee Category Belmont Current
Fee
Belmont
Baseline Cost
Comparative Jurisdictions Summary
Volleyball Court Free to use $52 per rental Foster City: $26–$32/hr per court. Menlo Park:
$88–$250/hr per court (indoor gymnasium). San
Carlos, San Mateo, Redwood City, Burlingame:

N/A.

Horseshoe Court Free to use $45 per rental Redwood City: Free to use. Burlingame: $35– $40/hr + $11 equipment rental + $42 deposit. San
Carlos, San Mateo, Foster City, Menlo Park: N/A.
178

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 57
Fee Category Belmont Current
Fee
Belmont
Baseline Cost
Comparative Jurisdictions Summary
Picnic Site Less than 100
people: $146–
$234/day; more
than 100 people:
$196–$314/day +
$39 processing fee
(by residency and
applicant type)
$194/day + $41
processing fee
San Carlos: $81–$160/day. San Mateo: $75–
$246/day (25% nonprofit discount). Foster City:
$71–$106/day. Redwood City: $15–$300/day (by
size). Burlingame: $135–$340/day. Menlo Park:
$10–$20/hr.

Open Space $25–$80 (by
residency and
applicant type) +
$100 deposit
$55 + $100
deposit
Foster City: $44–$55/day. Burlingame: $26–
$66/day. Menlo Park: $17–$23/hr. San Carlos,
San Mateo, Redwood City: N/A.

Athletic Field $52–$350 (by
residency and
applicant type)
$105–$189 (by
residency and
applicant type)
San Carlos: Nonprofit/sport leagues only. San
Mateo: $27–$34/hr. Foster City: $4–$40/hr
(youth/adult). Redwood City: $30–$125/hr.

Burlingame: $30–$113/hr. Menlo Park: $24–
$225/hr (natural and synthetic turf).

Field Lights $22/hr $24/hr San Mateo: $30/hr. Foster City: $32–$40/hr.

Redwood City: $30–$50/hr. Burlingame: $46/hr.

Menlo Park: $6–$28/hr. San Carlos: N/A.

The key findings from this analysis are summarized below:
• Volleyball and Horseshoe Courts: Belmont currently offers both at no charge, well below baseline costs of $52 and $45 per rental, respectively. No directly comparable jurisdictions offer free court rentals except Redwood City for horseshoe courts. This represents a notable revenue gap relative to both baseline costs and peer fees.
• Picnic Sites: Belmont’s current fees ($146–$314/day) are generally above or at the high end compared to most peer jurisdictions. San Carlos ($81–$160), Foster City ($71–$106), and Redwood City ($15–$300) charge less, while Burlingame ($135–$340) is most comparable. Belmont’s baseline cost ($194/day) falls within the peer range.
• Open Space: Belmont’s current range ($25–$80) is below the baseline ($55) at the low end and aligns with Foster City ($44–$55) and Burlingame ($26–$66). Limited comparable data is available across the region.
• Athletic Fields: Belmont’s current fees ($52–$350) span a wide range and are below baseline ($105– $189) at the low end. San Mateo ($27–$34/hr), Foster City ($4–$40/hr for youth), and Burlingame ($30–$113/hr) are generally lower. Menlo Park ($24–$225/hr) and Redwood City ($30–$125/hr) are most comparable to Belmont’s range.
• Field Lights: Belmont’s $22/hr is below the baseline ($24/hr) and is the lowest among jurisdictions that charge for lights. Comparable jurisdictions charge $28–$50/hr, with the exception of Menlo Park ($6–$28/hr). Burlingame ($46/hr) charges the most.

Belmont’s outdoor rental fees present a mixed picture. Court rentals (volleyball, horseshoe) are offered free, well below both baseline and peer rates. Picnic site fees are generally at or above peer levels. 179

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 58
Athletic field and field light fees are at the low end of the regional range, with room for upward alignment.

Open space fees are limited in comparability but appear consistent with available peer data.

COMMUNITY GARDEN
Belmont operates a community garden program with annual plot rental fees for full and half plots. The table below compares current fees and baseline costs to peer jurisdictions. Only San Mateo and Burlingame among the comparison cities offer a community garden program.

TABLE 20: COMPARATIVE FEE SUMMARY – COMMUNITY GARDEN
Fee Category Belmont Current Fee Belmont Baseline Cost Comparative Jurisdictions Summary Full Garden Plot $122/year $194/year San Mateo: $0.30/sq. ft. annually.

Burlingame: $141–$170/year + $100
deposit. San Carlos, Foster City,
Redwood City, Menlo Park: N/A.

Half Garden Plot $86/year $167/year San Mateo: $0.30/sq. ft. annually (prorated by plot size). Burlingame:
$141–$170/year range applies (half
plot data not separately reported). San
Carlos, Foster City, Redwood City,
Menlo Park: N/A.

The key findings from this analysis are summarized below:
• Community Garden – Full Plot: Belmont’s current fee of $122/year is well below the baseline cost of $194/year, indicating fees do not fully recover costs. Burlingame charges $141–$170/year, which is more aligned with the baseline. San Mateo uses a per-square-foot pricing model ($0.30/sq. ft.) that may yield comparable or higher totals depending on plot size. • Community Garden – Half Plot: Belmont’s $86/year is similarly below baseline ($167/year). Only San Mateo and Burlingame offer community garden programs among the comparison jurisdictions; Belmont’s fees are below both the baseline and Burlingame’s comparable rate.

Overall, Belmont’s community garden fees represent a significant subsidy relative to baseline costs.

Adjusting toward the baseline or toward Burlingame’s rate structure ($141–$170) would bring fees closer to cost recovery.

SUMMARY
Comparative market surveys provide a critical framework for evaluating fee structures by placing Belmont’s fees in the context of how similar services are priced across peer jurisdictions. While these comparisons are not intended to serve as direct benchmarks for setting fees, they illustrate the range of approaches used to balance cost recovery, community access, and service priorities. Differences between Belmont’s current fees, calculated total/baseline costs, and comparable jurisdiction pricing reflect intentional policy choices, particularly where the City elects to subsidize high-demand or community-benefit services or recover a greater share of costs for private or exclusive uses. 180

DRAFT BELMONT COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 59
Overall, Belmont generally has current fees that are higher or in the middle compared to those of the other surveyed jurisdictions. It is important to note that the results of this survey reflect only the fees adopted by other jurisdictions’ Councils, not the cost-recovery policy decisions for departments or for a jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-making tool. 181
Proposed Master Revenue Schedule Attachment D
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Finance
General Government Fees
Returned Check Fee
First returned check Each $25 $25
Subsequent checks Each Add'l $35 $35
Reproduction Costs
Standard 8 1/2 x 11 Copy Per Page $0.30 $0.30
Miscellaneous Reproductions Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Credit Card Transactions
Transactions $10,000 or above % of Transaction 2.45% 2.45% EV Charging Fee per kWh per Space New $0.45
Business License Tax (Rates set by ordinance (Section 23-203)) Businesses grossing under $10,000 Each $0 $0
Businesses grossing over $10,000
Minimum Each $25 $25
Category 1 Per $1,000 in Gross Receipts $0.40 $0.40
Category 2 Per $1,000 in Gross Receipts $0.75 $0.75
Category 3 Per $1,000 in Gross Receipts $1 $1
Category 4 Per $1,000 in Gross Receipts $60 $60
Notes:
*For Category 3 and 4 only, if the gross receipts within Belmont are less than the cost of maintaining operations within the city and the difference between the gross receipts and the cost of operations is the greater of either $300,000 or 20% of the gross receipts, the business must produce gross receipts in an amount at least equal to the cost of maintaining such operations. Costs of operations include, but are not limited to, rent, depreciation, salaries, wages, fixed charges, loan payments, utilities, insurance premiums, and other expenses.

A business licensee must pay a license tax for each tax year based on gross receipts derived from business activity in the city if those gross receipts are greater than $10,000. If those gross receipts are $10,000 or less, no tax is owed. When a business license tax is owed the amount is equal to the greater of the minimum amount or the amount calculated by applying the rates in the Rate Table to the licensee’s business category or categories. The rates in the Rate Table are expressed in dollars per thousand dollars of the licensee’s total gross receipts derived from business conducted in the. city for the previous tax year, except when a licensee did not operate in the city for the entirety of the previous tax year in which case the tax is measured by the licensee’s gross receipts derived from business conducted in the city for the current tax year. The rate applied is the maximum rate unless lowered by appropriate Council action.

Page 1 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Police
Police Fees
Fingerprint Fee
Fingerprint Fee Per Person $107 $102
State & Federal Fees Per Person Actual Cost Actual Cost Background Check Processing Fee Per Person $500 $1,441
Report Fee
Victim Requested First Copy Each $0 $0
Non-Victim Requested / Subsequent Victim Requested Copies Each $27 $47 Records Search/Print-out Per Hour $320 $189
Local Clearance Letter Per Person $53 $31
Reproduction of Photos, Audio, Video
Photo Review and Release (includes printing) Each $27 $55 Audio / Video Review and Release Per Hour $320 $265
Electronic Media Each $53 Actual Cost
Solicitors Permit Per Person $320 $773
Vehicle / Bike Release
Release Fee Per Vehicle $107 $110
E-Bike Storage & Release: Each
1st Incident Each $50 $150
2nd or more incidents Each $50 $362
Lost Citations Per Citation $27 $15
Ticket Sign-off (outside agency) Per Vehicle $27 $20
Emergency Cost Recovery Each
As allowed by
statute As allowed by statute
False Alarm Fees (per calendar year)
1st and 2nd incident Each $0 $0
3rd incident Each $125 $150
4th incident Each $225 $275
5th or more incident Each $525 $315
Alarm Permit Fee Per Address Per Year $30 $42
Massage Permits
Biannual Permit Processing Fee Biannual $2,500 $3,466
Annual Inspection Fee Annual $150 $1,115
Cannabis Business Permit
Permit Processing Fee Every 2 years $2,500 $3,629
Inspection Fee Annual $1,500 $1,115
Firearm, Ammunition, Ammunition Feeding Devices Storage Intake & First Year Storage Per Item Per Year $140 $671 Annual Storage Beyond 1st Year Per Item Per Year $35 $182

Page 2 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Police
Fines
Old County Rd Parked on Right of Way Doing Work Each $40 $50 Old County Rd Parked on Right of Way (2000-0600 HRS) Each $40 $50 Old County Rd Parked 3’ Easement (0600-2000 HRS) Each $40 $50 Parked in Excess of 72 hrs Each $40 $72
No Parking Anytime Each $42 $60
Parking in Violation of Regulatory Sign Each $42 $60
Timed Zone Parking Each $42 $50
Wheels Not Curbed Each $40 $50
Violate Temporary Signs Each $42 $50
Expired Registration Each $56 $80
Replace Lost/Stolen Plate Each New $72
Improper Use of Registration/Plate/Placard Each New $195 False Display of Registration (Tab) Each $56 $125
Front and/or Rear Plate Missing Each $40 $50
Improper Position of Plates Each $40 $50
Period of Display/License Plate Each $40 $50
Year and/or Month Tab Missing Each $40 $50
Parked/Drive on Public Ground Without a Permit Each $40 $50 Parked Blocking a Bicycle Lane Each $40 $50
Parked in Intersection Each $40 $50
Parked in Crosswalk Each $40 $50
Parked Within 15’ of Fire Station Driveway Each $40 $50 Parked Blocking Driveway Each $40 $50
Parked on Sidewalk Each $40 $50
Parked in Highway Work Zone Each New $50
Double Parked Each $40 $50
Parked in Bus Zone Each $255 $255
Parked in Front of Lowered Curb/Access Ramp Each $355 $355 Parked in Posted Fire Lane Each $40 $60
Parked on Wrong Side of Roadway/18” from Curb Each $40 $50 Parked in Disabled Person Marking Each $355 $355
Parked in Disabled Parking Accessibility Area Each $355 $355 Parked in or blocking EV Designated Space Each New $60
Parked Within 15’ of Fire Hydrant Each $40 $60
Unattended Vehicle Engine Running Each New $50
Parked Within 7 ½’ of Railroad Tracks Each $40 $50
Parked Within 3’ of Sidewalk Access Ramp Each $355 $355 Abandoned Vehicle
On Highways Each $255 $255
Public or Private Property Each $255 $255
Unlisted California Vehicle Code Infraction Each New $60 Unlisted Belmont City Code Infraction Each New $50
Correctable Violation Fee Each $20 $25
Penalty Fee - Overdue Violations Each New $42
Administrative Citations - Infractions
First Offense Each $100 $100
Second Offense Each $200 $200
Third Offense Each $500 $500
Administrative Citations - Misdemeanor
First Offense Each $100 $100
Second Offense Each $300 $300
Third Offense Each $500 $500

Page 3 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Planning / Development Review
Appeals
Appeal of Planning Action to City Council Each $1,683 $5,000 Appeal of Administrative Action to Planning Commission Each $259 $3,000 Appeal of tree permit Each $523 $2,000
Design Review
New Building Construction - Commercial Each $13,992 $13,251 Additions - Commercial Each $13,198 $10,998
Administrative Design Review - exterior modifications Each $3,771 $3,926 Single-Family Design Review Tier 2* - Zoning Administrator Review without hearing Each $3,969 $4,783
Single-Family Design Review Tier 3
Planning Commission Review - Addition Each $11,572 $10,166 Planning Commission Review - New Homes Deposit $11,572 $13,000 *Single-Family Design Review Tier 1 only requires a building permit.

Conditional Use Permit
Administrative Permit - Community Development Director Each $3,771 $4,683 Permit - Planning Commission Review Each $13,198 $10,431 Variance Each $3,771 $11,499
FAR Exception
Administrative Permit - Community Development Director Each $5,954 $4,419 Permit - Planning Commission Review Each $5,954 $10,267 Geologic Review
Small Geologic Review Deposit $4,692 $3,500
Large Geologic Review Deposit $4,692 $5,000
Map Modification or Exception Deposit $4,692 $8,500
Environmental Fees
Minor Categorical Exemption - Community Development Director Each $397 $336 Environmental Analysis Deposit $43,341 Actual Cost
Additional Fees
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning, or Zoning Ordinance Amendment Deposit $20,640 $40,500
Historic Building Alteration, Community Development Director Each $13,496 $3,345 Historic Building Alteration, City Council Review Each $13,496 $9,980 Grading Plan, Planning Commission Review Each $11,908 $8,113 Extension of Permits Each $1,191 $1,995
Property Profile Report Each $1,588 $1,234
Fiscal Impact Analysis Review Deposit New $3,500
Complex Project Deposit $31,754 $30,000
Tree Removal Permit - With Development
Protected Trees Removal Permit with Development Each $92 $985 Public Notice Fee Each $358 $684
Subdivisions
Tentative Map Deposit $15,878 $6,500
Tentative Parcel Map Deposit $15,878 $5,000
Lot Merger / Lot Line Adjustment Each $3,771 $3,747
Certificate of Compliance Each $3,771 $2,926
Complex Certificate of Compliance Deposit New $5,500
Signage
Administrative Sign Review Each $1,191 $1,149
Banner/Temporary Sign Review Each $397 $657
Master Sign Program Each $2,382 $4,000
Legal Review Deposit $9,689 $10,000
SB-9 Application - Lot Split Deposit New $5,000

Page 4 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Planning / Development Review
Pre-Application Review
Small Pre-Application Each New $2,373
Large Pre-Application Each New $5,908
Housing Development
Affordable Housing Plan Each New $1,601
Affordable Housing Monitoring
Up to 100 Units Per Unit New $83
Over 100 Units Deposit New $7,500
SB-330 - Housing Preliminary Application
150 Units or Less Each New $5,437
Greater Than 150 Units Deposit New $8,000
Affordable Housing Agreement Each New $2,401
Wireless Communication Facility Application
6409 Application Deposit New $6,000
Other Deposit New $10,000
Temporary Use Permit Each New $1,149
Development Agreement or Conditional Use Permit Monitoring Each New $955 For services requested of City Staff for which no fee/deposit is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate deposit to be collected. Per Hour New $345 Services Provided by Outside Consultants Each
Actual Cost +
30% Actual Cost + 15%
Notes:

Deposit-based fees incur actual time charges and material / consultant costs. Additional funds can be requested or funds can be reimbursed if the full amount of funds are not utilized.

All complex project charges / deposits must be paid prior to public hearing.

Services provided by Outside Consultants can be charged in addition to any of the fees / deposits noted.

All flat fees are to be paid at the time of filing an application.

Fees are additive; multiple applications require multiple fees, until they reach the complex deposit, then the complex deposit is collected.

Each parcel requires separate Use Permit or Variance Fees.

Page 5 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Engineering Support to Planning / Development Review
Design Review
New Building Construction - Commercial Each $5,851 $5,820 Additions - Commercial Each $0 $4,195
Single-Family Design Review Tier 2 - Zoning Administrator Review without Hearing Each $1,170 $1,651
Single-Family Design Review Tier 3
Planning Commission Review - Addition Each $6,228 $4,039 Planning Commission Review - New Homes Deposit $6,228 $5,500 Conditional Use Permit
Administrative Permit - Community Development Director Each $2,354 $924 Permit - Planning Commission Review Each $2,354 $1,386
Additional Fees
Grading Plan, Planning Commission Review Each $4,290 $3,219 Complex Project
Consultant Management (20 hrs initial deposit) Deposit Modified $6,000 Subdivisions
Tentative Map Deposit $0 $14,500
Tentative Parcel Map Deposit $15,602 $11,500
Lot Merger / Lot Line Adjustment Each $3,510 $3,465
Certificate of Compliance Each $0 $606
Complex Certificate of Compliance Deposit $0 $1,000
SB-9 Application - Lot Split Deposit New $7,500
Pre-Application Review
Small Pre-Application Each New $471
Large Pre-Application Each New $4,709
For services requested of City Staff for which no fee/deposit is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate deposit to be collected.

Services Provided by Outside Consultants Each
Actual Cost +
30% Actual Cost + 15%
Notes:

Deposit-based fees incur actual time charges and material / consultant costs. Additional funds can be requested or funds can be reimbursed if the full amount of funds are not utilized.

Services provided by Outside Consultants can be charged in addition to any of the fees / deposits noted.

All complex project charges / deposits must be paid prior to public hearing.

All flat fees are to be paid at the time of filing an application.

Fees are additive; multiple applications require multiple fees.

Each parcel requires separate Use Permit or Variance Fees.

Page 6 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Building
Building Permit Fee
$1 - $2,000
First $1 Base $42.65 $424.35
Each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 Each Add'll $100 $4.92 $3.80 $2,001 - $25,000
First $2,000 Base $125.63 $500.25
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 Each Add'll $1,000 $22.68 $19.80 $25,001 - $50,000
First $25,000 Base $841.45 $955.65
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 Each Add'll $1,000 $16.36 $46.44 $50,001 - $100,000
First $50,000 Base $1,774.48 $2,116.58
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 Each Add'll $1,000 $11.35 $93.05 $100,001 - $500,000
First $100,000 Base $6,612.37 $6,768.92
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 Each Add'll $1,000 $9.07 $11.12 $500,001 - $1,000,000
First $500,000 Base $10,931.92 $11,215.98
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 Each Add'll $1,000 $7.69 $16.05 $1,000,001 - $10,000,000
First $1,000,000 Base $15,242.85 $19,239.79
For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Add'll $1,000 $5.91 $3.66 $10,000,001 - $50,000,000
First $10,000,000 Base $68,432.85 $52,141.63
For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Add'll $1,000 $5.91 $1.82 $50,000,001 and Above
First $50,000,000 Base $304,832.85 $124,748.76
For each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Add'll $1,000 $5.91 $0.91 Building Support Fees
Plan Check - Building Review % of Building Fee 65% 65%

Page 7 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Building
Building Permits
Residential
Bathroom Each $793 $946
Cellular Antenna Each $1,191 $1,246
Deck Each $993 $1,355
Drainage System Each $993 $1,141
Fireplace Insert Each $595 $642
Kitchen Remodel Each $793 $946
Pergola Each $1,191 $1,160
Re-Roofs Each Valuation $534
Retaining Wall
Linear Foot to 50 Base $1,389 $1,550
Linear Foot Per 10LF Per 10 LF New $318
Siding/Stucco Each $1,191 $849
Spa/Hot Tub/Sauna
Alteration Each Valuation $989
New Each Valuation $989
Swimming Pool
Alteration Each $1,389 $989
New Each $1,389 $1,378
Voluntary
Foundation Upgrade Each $1,191 $1,160
Seismic Upgrade Each $993 $1,008
Windows
Up to 5 Each $993 $600
More than 5 Each $993 $1,055
Commercial
Swimming Pool
New Each $1,389 $1,898
Alteration Each $1,389 $1,203
Spa/Hot Tub/Sauna
Alteration Each Valuation $1,203
New Each Valuation $1,496
Spray Booth Each $1,191 $1,291

Page 8 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Building
Electrical Permits
Residential
New, Additions, Alterations Per Sq. Ft. $0.17 $0.40
Electrical permit Each $203 $382
Temp Power Each $187 $303
Subpanel Each $203 $303
Service Panel
Up to 200A Each $203 $303
201-1000 Each $203 $303
Over 1000 Each $406 $303
Rewire Each $203 $400
EV Charger
Single Family/Duplex Each $203 $303
Level I or II Each $203 $303
Commerical
New, Additions, Alterations Per Sq. Ft. $0.17 $0.30
Electrical permit Each $203 $401
Temp Power Each $187 $401
Subpanel Each $203 $401
Service Panel
Up to 200A Each $203 $401
201-1000 Each $203 $401
Over 1000 Each $406 $401
Rewire Each $203 $651
EV Charger
Level I or II Each Valuation $857
Level 3 Each Valuation $1,550
Solar
Residential
Solar Energy Base $450 $450
Per kW above 15 kW Each Add'll $15 $15
Solar Thermal Base $450 $450
Per kW above 15 kW Each Add'll $15 $15
Battery Storage Each New $450
Commercial
Solar Energy Base $1,000 $1,000
Per kW above 50 kW to 250 kW Each Add'll $7 $7
Per kW above 250 kW Each Add'll $5 $5
Solar Thermal Base $1,000 $1,000
Per kW above 50 kW to 250 kW Each Add'll $7 $7
Per kW above 250 kW Each Add'll $5 $5
Battery Storage Each New $1,000

Page 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Building
Plumbing Permits
Residential
New, Additions, Alterations Per Sq. Ft. Modified $0.40
Plumbing Permit Each $206 $382
Sewer Lateral Each $286 $362
Water Repipe Each $220 $362
Gas Lines
1 - 5 Each $190 $382
Over 5 Each $206 $382
Drain, Waste, Vents DWV Each $206 $382
Fixtures in Trap Each $206 $230
Water Heater
Gas tank Each $206 $329
Tankless Each $206 $329
Heat Pump Water Heater Each $206 $329
Backflow Each Valuation $382
Commercial
New, Additions, Alterations Per Sq. Ft. Modified $0.30
Plumbing Permit Each $206 $401
Sewer Lateral Each Valuation $401
Water Repipe Each Valuation $553
Gas Lines
1 - 5 Each $190 $401
Over 5 Each $206 $553
Drain, Waste, Vents DWV Each $206 $401
Fixtures in Trap Each $206 $401
Water Heater
Gas tank Each $206 $401
Tankless Each $206 $401
Heat Pump Water Heater Each $206 $553
Backflow Each Valuation $553
Mechanical Permits
Residential
New, Additions, Alterations Per Sq. Ft. Modified $0.40
Mechanical Permit Each $207 $382
Furnace only Each $207 $329
HVAC system Each $207 $329
Heat Pump HVAC Each $207 $329
Commercial
New, Additions, Alterations Per Sq. Ft. Modified $0.30
Mechanical Permit Each $207 $401
HVAC Each $207 $596
Furnace Only Each $207 $596
Heat Pump Each $207 $748
Air Handler/Air Condition
To 10 Tons Each $26 $748
Over 10 Tons Each $57 $1,203

Page 10 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Building
Other Building Admin Fees
Alternate Materials Request Each New $1,596
Unreasonable Hardship Request Each New $1,469
Stop Work Order, Work Without Permits Each New 2x Applicable Permit Fee Violation of Issued Stop Work Per Occurrence Per Occurrence New Actual Cost Violation of Noise Ordinance Per Occurrence Per Occurrence New Actual Cost Research Services Each Actual Cost $131
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Each New $1,336
Permit Re-Activation Not Under Construction Time Limits Each New $595 Address Change Requests Each New $786
Inspection outside of normal business hours Per Hour $397 $336 Reinspection Per Hour $397 $303
Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated Per Hour $397 $303 Additional plan review or plan review for which no fee is indicated Per Hour $397 $389 Plan Check - Planning Review % of Permit Fee 35% 35%
General Plan Maintenance Fee % of Building Valuation 0.75% 0.77% Notes:

Where the valuation reported for the purpose of assessing fees does not reasonably reflect the scope, complexity, or estimated cost of the work, the Building Official may determine an alternative valuation or fee based on documented project information and the City's estimated cost of providing the applicable services.

City projects are subject to the fee schedule
If projects do not fit into one of the categories defined or are outside of the typical scope of work, the Building Official can determine the most appropriate relatable fee category or collect an initial deposit.

Page 11 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Engineering
Engineering Fees
Subdivision Maps
Parcel Map: Deposit Deposit $12,481 $12,000
Final Maps: Deposit Deposit $19,502 $24,000
Hourly rate in excess of deposit Per Hour $390 $290
Consultant Cost Each
Actual Cost +
30% Actual Cost + 15%
Building Permit Plan Check
Estimated Project cost under $4,000
Initial Each $390 $247
Per Hour Per Hour $390 $247
Estimated Project cost $4,001-$10,000
Initial Each $780 $494
Per Hour Per Hour $390 $247
Estimated Project cost $10,001-$50,000
Initial Each $1,365 $864
Per Hour Per Hour $390 $247
Estimated Project cost $50,001-$100,000
Initial Each $1,950 $1,235
Per Hour Per Hour $390 $247
Estimated Project cost $100,001-$250,000
Initial Each $2,730 $1,729
Per Hour Per Hour $390 $247
Estimated Project cost over $250,000
Initial Deposit $5,851 $6,500
Per Hour Per Hour $390 $247
Estimated Project cost over $250,000: Consultant Each
Actual Cost +
30% Actual Cost + 15%
Consultant Management (20 hours initial deposit) Deposit Modified $6,000 Hauling Permit
0-50 CY Flat $390 $369
Each Additional CY Over 50 CY Per CY $3.00 $4.08
Grading Permit Fees
Refundable Deposit
0-50 CY Deposit $600 $1,000
Each additional CY over 50 CY up to 499 CY Per CY $60 $65 Complex Geotechnical Condition (500+ CY, landslide, creek improvement, San Juan Area Plan project, Bay mud, or as determined by City Engineer) Per CY $90 $109
0 to 500 CY Grading
0-500 CY Each $1,170 $1,755
Each additional CY over 50 CY up to 499 CY Per CY $3.00 $4 Complex Geotechnical Condition (500+ CY, landslide, creek improvement, San Juan Area Plan project, Bay mud, or as determined by City Engineer) % of Improvement Cost Base Modified 5% Grading Moratorium Exception (5 business days) Per Request Modified $818 NPDES C.3 Development/Redevelopment Stormwater Inspection Fee Each Inspection Modified $413 NPDES C.4 Business Stormwater Inspection Each Inspection $390 $261 NPDES C.6 Construction Inspection (6 inspections for one rainy season) Deposit Modified $500 FOG Inspection Fees
Initial Inspection Each $1,170 $261
Additional Inspection Each Add'll $585 $261
Transportation Demand Management Compliance Report Review Annual New $1,078

Page 12 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Engineering
Encroachment Permit
Sidewalk Policy
Deferment or Exception Review Request to Sidewalk Installation Policy Each Modified $850
Executed Deferred Improvement Agreement with San Mateo CouEach $1,037 $267 Exception Approval Letter Each Modified $140
Temporary (TE) - Small Projects
Scope Change/Revision to active/under review Temporary EncroaEach Modified $859 Debris Bin (per 14 days) Each $195 $338
Storage Pod (per 7 days) Each Modified $234
Concrete Frontage Improvements (100 sq. ft. or less) or Driveway Approach Each $1,755 $926
Concrete Frontage Improvements (101 sq. ft. or more) Each $1,560 $1,800 Utility Trenching (storm/sewer/water) Each $1,268 $1,225 Pavement Restoration Each Modified $2,625
Sewer Lateral Video Review Inspection (Report & Certificate) Each Modified $370 Sewer Lateral Certificate (only) Each $150 $107
Permit Extension Each Modified $169
Utility Temporary (UTE) - All Projects - Public Utility Application Review and Permit (i.e. utility lid adjustments, grade adjustments, and minor in-kind modifications to existing Each $3,120.00 $2,757 Permit Extension for Delayed Right-of-Way Restoration (per 5 Each New $169 Major (PE) - All Projects, per BCC Section 22
Application Review Each Modified $2,063
Administrative Permanent Encroachment Agreement (does not require Council approval) Each $659 $688
Permanent Encroachment Agreement (requires Council Approval Each Modified $1,820 Inspection Each Modified $382
Major (PE) - All Projects - Public Utility
Application Review (i.e. poles, wires, guy anchors, hydrants, aboveground cabinets for housing splices, transformers or switches) Each $3,120 $3,356
Administrative Permanent Encroachment Agreement (does not require Council approval) Each $659 $688
Permanent Encroachment Agreement (requires Council Approval Each Modified $1,820 Per hour in excess of initial review (engineering) Per Hour $390 $265 Per hour in excess of initial review (inspection) Per Hour $390 $261 Complex Street Improvement Permit (SIP)
Construction (applicable improvement(s) may be included under a single SIP, per project. Review falls under Building Permit.

Consultant Services Fee may be required.)
Concrete Frontage Improvements (100 sq. ft. or less) or DrivewEach Modified $523 Concrete Frontage Improvements (101 sq. ft. or more) Each Modified $1,046 Poles and/or Street Signs Each $683 $261
Sewer Lateral in Easement on Private Property Each $683 $523 Sewer Lateral in right-of-way Each $1,268 $784
Trenching in the right-of-way or easement Each $780 $523 Pavement Restoration Each Modified $3,547
New Roadway Each New $5,030
Miscellaneous Improvement Each $780 $784

Page 13 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Engineering
Miscellaneous - All Projects
Per hour in excess of initial review (engineering) Per Hour $390 $265 Work without Permit / Stop Work Notice Each
Permit fee +
staff time 2x Permit Fee
Permit Extension for Delayed Pavement Restoration (per 5 days) Each Modified $365 Paving Moratorium Exception Per Request Modified $711
Inspection No Show Each New $130
Inspection Outside of Normal Business Hours Each New $261 Right-of-Way and Easements
Easement Vacation Each $7,021 $5,021
Summary Easement Vacation Each $7,021 $2,437
Easement or Street Dedication Each $7,021 $1,468
Review per hour in excess of initial fee (engineering) Each $390 $273 Miscellaneous
Engineering and inspection services not covered by any of the above Per Hour $390 $261 Annual Transportation Demand Management Compliance Report ReviewEach New $607 Waste Water Discharge Fee
For non sewer services related discharges into the sewer system Each Wastewater
Charges Wastewater Charges
Processing Fee Each $1,560 $938
No Parking Sign Each $3 $3
Consultant Services Fee Deposit
Actual Cost +
30% Actual Cost + 15%
Consultant Management (5 hours initial deposit) Deposit Modified $1,500 Consultant Services Fee in excess of deposit Each Modified Actual Cost + 15% Hourly rate in excess of deposit Per Hour $390 $265
Work performed by Public Works maintenance
Labor Per Hour $390 $219
Material Each
Actual Cost +
30% Actual Cost + 15%
Equipment Each
Equip. Rental
Rates Equip. Rental Rates
Temporary Street Closure Permit
Community Events (30 days min notice) Each $414 $150
Community Events (less than 30 days notice) Each $414 $200 Banner Permit (Ralston Ave) Each $456 $100
Temporary Street Light Pole Banner Permit
Group of up to 5 banners Each $100 $100
Each additional group of 5 (or less) Each Add'll $50 $50 Transportation (Oversize / Overweight) Permit - Caltrans Permit Required Annual Each $90 $90
Per Trip Each $16 $16

Page 14 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Parks & Recreation
Indoor Facility Rental Fees
Change in Date Fee (Facilities) Per Change $75 $99
Facility Staffing Fee Per Hour $30-$50 $36
Custodial Fee* Per Event $122 $129
Technology Access Fee (Optional)** Per Event $75 $85
*Required for events with more than 100 guests; optional opt-in for less than 100 guests **Available at the Belmont Sports Complex Conference Center only Barrett Community Center - Classroom
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $198
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $247
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $165
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $297
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Twin Pines Cottage (Max Capacity: 35)
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $128
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $160
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $107
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $192
Refundable Deposit Deposit $300 $300
Twin Pines Lodge (Entire Facility) (Max Capacity: 125)
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $250
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $313
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $209
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $376
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
**Important notice regarding the fees in this section.** Per Proposition 26, fees for the use of government property (e.g., renting public buildings, parks, or event spaces) or for recreation and programming services are voluntary transactions. Therefore, governments may charge market-based rental fees for these services. Rental fees are listed below as a part of this fee schedule; however, recreation program fees should be referenced in the current activity guide, available at www.belmont.gov/parksandrec or in the Parks and Recreation administrative office.

Page 15 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Parks & Recreation
Indoor Facility Rental Fees
Twin Pines Lodge (Meeting Room 4 Only)
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $199
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $249
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $166
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $298
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Twin Pines Manor (Max Capacity: 70)
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $170
Refundable Deposit Deposit $550 $550
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $213
Refundable Deposit Deposit $550 $550
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $142
Refundable Deposit Deposit $550 $550
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $255
Refundable Deposit Deposit $550 $550
Sports Complex Conference Center (Max Capacity: 170)
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $213
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $267
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $178
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $320
Refundable Deposit Deposit $400 $400
TP Sr. & Community Center (Entire Facility) (Max Capacity: 250) Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $304
Refundable Deposit Deposit $500 $500
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $381
Refundable Deposit Deposit $500 $500
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $254
Refundable Deposit Deposit $500 $500
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $457
Refundable Deposit Deposit $500 $500

Page 16 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Parks & Recreation
Indoor Facility Rental Fees
TP Sr. & Community Center (Craft Room Only)
Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $189
Refundable Deposit Deposit $100 $100
Non-Resident
Rental Per Hour Modified $237
Refundable Deposit Deposit $100 $100
Non-Profit
Rental Per Hour Modified $158
Refundable Deposit Deposit $100 $100
Commercial
Rental Per Hour Modified $284
Refundable Deposit Deposit $100 $100
Photography & Filming Fees
Photography Daily Fee Per Day $100 $184
Filming Daily Fee Per Day $1,200 $2,349
Outdoor Facility Rental Fees
Change in Date Fee (Picnic) Per Change $25 $99
Festival Service Fee Per Event $200 $236
Outdoor Game Rentals
Volleyball Per Rental New $67
Horseshoes Per Rental New $58
Picnic Rentals
Special Equipment Refundable Deposit Deposit $250 $250
<100 People
Resident All Day $146 $232
Non-Resident All Day $197 $291
Non-Profit All Day $146 $194
Commercial All Day $234 $349
100+ People
Resident All Day $196 $290
Non-Resident All Day $265 $364
Non-Profit All Day $196 $243
Commercial All Day $314 $436
Group Park and Open Space Use
Resident Per Hour $25 $68
Non-Resident Per Hour $30 $85
Non-Profit Per Hour $80 $57
Commercial Per Hour $68 $102
Refundable Deposit Deposit $100 $100
Community Garden Fees
Full Plot Annually $122 $176
Half Plot Annually $86 $142

Page 17 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Proposed Fee
Parks & Recreation
Athletic Field Rental (2 Hour Minimum)
Belmont Sports Complex North Field (Full Field)
Resident Per Hour $192 $226
Non-Resident Per Hour $259 $283
Non-Profit Per Hour $115 $189
Commercial Per Hour $303 $340
Belmont Sports Complex North Field (Shared Field)
Resident Per Hour $96 $113
Non-Resident Per Hour $130 $141
Non-Profit Per Hour $58 $94
Commercial Per Hour $152 $170
Belmont Sports Complex South Field (Full Field)
Resident Per Hour $172 $126
Non-Resident Per Hour $232 $157
Non-Profit Per Hour $103 $105
Commercial Per Hour $275 $189
Belmont Sports Complex South Field (Shared Field)
Resident Per Hour $86 $63
Non-Resident Per Hour $116 $78
Non-Profit Per Hour $52 $52
Commercial Per Hour $138 $94
All Other Fields (Full Field)
Resident Per Hour $86 $198
Non-Resident Per Hour $116 $247
Non-Profit Per Hour $52 $165
Commercial Per Hour $138 $297
All Other Fields (Shared Field)
Resident Per Hour $43 $99
Non-Resident Per Hour $58 $123
Non-Profit Per Hour $26 $82
Commercial Per Hour $69 $148
Lights
Belmont Sports Complex (North Field) Per Hour $22 $23
Tree Removals
Tree Removal Permit Associated with General Property Maintenance Per Permit $92 $139 In lieu of planting fee Per Tree Not Replaced $611 $611 Arborist Report Review Per Review New $182

Page 18 ends

Quimby Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees Effective 12/27/14 Updated 9/22/20
Per Dwelling Unit

1. Park In-Lieu Fee
Single-Family Housing:

Land Dedication Requirement: 436 land sq. ft. per unit
Parkland In-Lieu Fee per Unit: $41,043 per Unit $41,043 Multifamily Housing:

Land Dedication Requirement: 291 land sq. ft. per unit $27,362 Parkland In-Lieu Fee per Unit: $27,362 per Unit

2. Multifamily Housing includes dwelling units contained in buildings designed for two or more families that are not on separate parcels.

3. Applicability

4. Credits

5. Land Value
Fees - Residential Subdivision
Fee per dwelling unit contained in residential land subdivisions:

The Single Family land use category includes single family detached units and single family attached units (e.g., townhouses, row houses, duplexes, etc.).

Quimby Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee only applies to residential units developed on mapped parcels created through the Subdivision Map Act if applicant opts not to dedicate the required parkland Subdivision projects that are subject to the Quimby land dedication requirement or that pay the In-Lieu FEE are also required to the pay the Park Improvement Fee.

Credits may be given for dedication of land, improvements to dedicated parkland, or private recreational facilities meeting the standards described in Belmont City Code Chapter 17, Article IV.

Park in-lieu fees are based on a land value of $4,100,000 per acre. A subdivider may request that the City complete an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the subdivider's property as described in Section 17-105 of the Belmont City Code. 200
Park Improvement Impact Fees
Fee
FY 2025-
26 FY 2026-
27 Residential Development
Single-Family, per Unit: $14,975 $15,544
Multifamily, per Unit: $9,984 $10,363
Accessory Dwelling Units: ( > 750 sq.ft.)
Non-Residential Development
Retail & Other Commercial, per gross sq. ft.: $2.71 $2.81 Office, per gross sq. ft.: $0.81 $0.84
Industrial, per gross sq. ft.: $1.08 $1.13
Lodging, per room $487.49 $506.02
Applicability
Annual Adjustment to Fee
"Office Uses" means general, professional, and medical offices. "Industrial Uses" means all manufacturing facilities.

Subdivision projects that are subject to the Quimby land dedication requirement or that pay the In-Lieu fee are also required to the pay the Park Improvement Fee.

The Fee Ordinance allows for an automatic adjustment of the fee to keep pace with inflationary increases in construction costs. This allows the fee level to keep pace with inflation without requiring an annual approval process. Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” prevents jurisdictions from requiring housing development projects to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard that was not already adopted and in effect at the time of the project’s preliminary application submittal. This applies directly to fees and exactions. Such fee increases are allowed during a project’s application period, however, if they are an annual fee adjustment based on an independently published cost index and referenced within the relevant establishing ordinance or resolution.

Fee per dwelling unit:

Varies in proportion to
size
The Single Family land use category includes single family detached units and single family attached units (e.g., townhouses, row houses, duplexes, etc.).

Multifamily Housing includes dwelling units contained in buildings designed for two or more families that are not on separate parcels, such as condominiums.

ADUs 750 square feet or larger pay fees in proportion to the size of the primary residence. For example, if a proposed ADU is 800 square feet, and the primary residence is 2,400 square feet, impact fees will be 1/3 of the single family fee (800 / 2,400 = 33.3%). 201
Transportation Impact Fee Effective 01/25/21
FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27

1. Residential Development
Single-Family, per Unit: $8,093.35 $8,400.90
Multifamily, per Unit: $6,281.63 $6,520.33
Accessory Dwelling Units: ( > 750 sq.ft.)

2. Non-Residential Development
Retail & Other Commercial, per gross sq. ft.: $18.93 $19.65 Office, per gross sq. ft.: $12.62 $13.10
Industrial, per gross sq. ft.: $5.26 $5.46
Lodging, per room $11,073.28 $11,494.07

3. Applicability

4. Annual Adjustment to Fee
"Office Uses" means general, professional, and medical offices. "Industrial Uses" means all manufacturing facilities.

Subdivision projects that are subject to the Quimby land dedication requirement or that pay the In-Lieu fee are also required to the pay the Park Improvement Fee.

Multifamily Housing includes dwelling units contained in buildings designed for two or more families that are not on separate parcels, such as condominiums.

Accessory Dwelling Unit means a dwelling unit constructed under the second dwelling unit provisions contained in Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 24. Senate Bill 13 (effective 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2024) precludes jurisdictions from charging impact fees on ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. ADUs 750 square feet or larger pay fees in proportion to the size of the primary residence. For example, if a proposed ADU is 800 square feet, and the primary residence is 2,400 square feet, impact fees will be 1/3 of the single family fee (800 / 2,400 = 33.3%).

Fee per dwelling unit:

The Single Family land use category includes single family detached units and single family attached units (e.g., townhouses, row houses, duplexes, etc.).

Fee
Varies in
proportion
202
Public Art Requirement and In-Lieu Fee
Pursuant to City Code Chapter 17, Article V: Effective 01/08/2021 Public Art Requirement.
(1)
(2) Residential. Residential development of 5 or more new dwelling units In-Lieu Fee Contribution.

Alternative Public Location.
(1)
(2)
(3) Adequate and acceptable provisions have been made for the maintenance and security of the public art (4)
Exclusions.

The public art requirement and in-lie fee does not apply to (1) A 100% affordable housing development that is consistent with Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G) (2) Reconstruction of a building damaged by accidental fire or natural disaster The artwork is acceptable and the alternative proposal will further the purposes of this article, the Public Art Master Plan, the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The cost of the alternative proposal will be equal to or greater than the cost of the public art requirement and establish freely accessible public art to an equal or greater extent than installation of the public art on the development site.

The developer has agreed to enter into agreements reasonably necessary to memorialize the legal rights and obligations of all parties Fees
The following development projects must devote an amount not less than 1% of building development costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the development site:

Non-residential/Mixed Use. Non-residential and mixed use development involving 10,000 square feet or more of new floor area At the discretion of the developer, and in lieu of installing public art, an in-lieu contribution may be paid to the city for acquisition and placement of public art in the city.

The Public Art In-Lieu Fee shall be equal to one percent (1%) of the building permit valuation, as approved by the Building A developer may propose to satisfy the public art requirement by acquisition and installation of freely accessible art on city property or in the public right of way. The proposed must be submitted to the Public Art Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the city council. The council may approve the alternative location if it finds:
203
Sewer and Connection Fees
Effective 7/1/2026
FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29
Notes:
*

The winter water use for a location will be estimated as the average of the meter readings provided by the Mid-Peninsula Water District for the December through March period from the second year prior to the year for which charges are calculated. If December through March readings are not available for that year, but are available for the December through March period from the year prior to the year for which the charges are calculated, then the later readings shall be used for the average.

If December through March readings are not available for a residential connection (as when a connection is established after the most recent December), then annual wastewater discharge will be estimated based on an estimated monthly winter water use of 8 hcf.

For non-residential connections, if December through March readings are not available, or, where in the determination of the Director of Finance, the type of business using the commercial connection has changed such that prior readings cannot accurately predict future wastewater discharge, annual wastewater discharge will be estimated by the Director of Finance based upon his or her best estimation based upon the type of use of the connection, but in no event shall the estimated flow in such case be less than half of the average estimated flow for all commercial connections in the City during the prior year.

Sewer charges will be billed on the San Mateo County tax rolls with a pass-through charge to the ratepayer of $1.42 per parcel to cover county fees related to collecting the sewer charges on the tax roll.

The $245.40 standby charge for parcels that are undeveloped and not currently using sewer service or being charged a sewer service charge will continue unchanged.
204
Sewer and Connection Fees
Effective 7/1/2026
Residential Use - including but not limited to:

1. $9,889.11
$2,135.70
$12,024.81

2. $9,889.11
$2,135.70
$12,024.81
$9,889.11 270 GPD per City ordinance
$36.63
$2,135.70
$7.91
$12,024.81
$44.54
Sewer Lateral Certificate Application Review Fee: $150.00 Single family dwellings, duplex and multiple family
dwellings apartments and multiple dwelling structures
used for human inhabitation, per living unit.

Non Residential Use
Occupancies where the calculated flow to the sanitary
sewer is less than 270 gallons per day, per connection. 270 GPD per City ordinance
Occupancies where the calculated flow to the sanitary
sewer is greater than 270 gallons per day, per connection. (Vi-270)
(Vi-270)
(Vi-270)
Where:

Vi = Volume of waste water in gallons per day to be discharged from the nonresidential use. 270 GPD is the maximum flow, per City ordinance, not subject to the additional fee Sewer Connection Fees:
205
Solid Waste Service Rates Effective 1/1/2025
Residential customers are billed based on their Garbage Cart size.

The monthly rate includes the following:

One (1) Garbage Cart provided to customer
Curbside Household Hazardous Waste Collection
One (1) 64-Gallon Recycling Cart and one (1) 96-Gallon Yard Waste Cart One (1) Garbage Cart
Recycling Cart
Pickups/Wk
20 32 64 96
1 $ 58.12 52.35 $ 112.40 $ 162.46 $
2 $ 119.66 107.69 $ 226.80 $ 332.78 $
3 $ 178.12 160.34 $ 344.13 $ 505.02 $
4 $ 244.57 220.12 $ 462.71 $ 683.13 $
5 $ 309.42 278.50 $ 588.16 $ 863.66 $
6 $ 387.17 348.47 $ 716.74 $ 1,087.16 $
7 $ 471.64 424.49 $ 839.05 $ 1,268.34 $
These fees are set on a calendar year basis. Please see the City of Belmont's website for subsequent updates.

Residential Carts
1 pickup per week.

Pickups/Wk Cart Size (in Gallons) Rate
1 20 Gallon 41.03 $
1 32 Gallon 48.95 $
1 64 Gallon 96.36 $
1 96 Gallon 144.54 $
Commercial Carts
The monthly rate includes the following:

Cart Size (in Gallons)
206
Pickups/Wk
32 64 96
1 $ 78.70 40.71 $ 113.72 $
2 $ 158.76 83.76 $ 232.94 $
3 $ 240.88 124.68 $ 353.51 $
4 $ 323.92 171.22 $ 478.18 $
5 $ 411.72 216.60 $ 604.56 $
6 $ 501.68 271.05 $ 761.00 $
7 $ 587.33 330.17 $ 887.84 $
One (1) Garbage Bin
Recycling container at customer's requested size
Pickups/Wk
12346
1 $ 548.36 272.61 $ 827.02 $ 1,128.96 $ 1,736.26 $
2 $ 1,105.73 555.02 $ 1,664.02 $ 2,277.43 $ 3,521.40 $
3 $ 1,668.35 842.26 $ 2,505.93 $ 3,425.93 $ 5,293.26 $
4 $ 2,235.07 1,132.86 $ 3,350.35 $ 4,587.49 $ 7,050.05 $ 5 $ 2,809.80 1,425.79 $ 4,197.69 $ 5,753.95 $ 8,831.87 $ 6 $ 3,317.14 1,779.46 $ 5,095.81 $ 6,968.80 $ 10,676.95 $ 7 $ 3,928.58 2,099.54 $ 6,000.20 $ 8,209.08 $ 12,505.21 $ Commercial Carts Organics
Note: Organics containers are charged at seventy percent (70%) of the similar Garbage commercial cart rate above container size and service levels, representing a thirty percent (30%) discount.

Cart Size (in Gallons)
Commercial Bins
The monthly rate includes the following:

Bin Size (in Cubic Yards)
207
Pickups/Wk
12346
1 $ 383.86 190.84 $ 578.90 $ 790.28 $ 1,215.39 $
2 $ 773.99 388.50 $ 1,164.85 $ 1,594.20 $ 2,464.99 $
3 $ 1,167.86 589.57 $ 1,754.16 $ 2,398.14 $ 3,705.27 $
4 $ 1,564.54 793.00 $ 2,345.25 $ 3,211.25 $ 4,935.04 $
5 $ 1,966.83 998.06 $ 2,938.37 $ 4,027.75 $ 6,182.32 $
6 $ 2,321.99 1,245.63 $ 3,567.07 $ 4,878.21 $ 7,473.85 $ 7 $ 2,750.01 1,469.69 $ 4,200.14 $ 5,746.36 $ 8,753.64 $ Recycling container at customer's requested size
Commercial Waste 3 Yard Compactor
Solid Waste Compactor Rate Per Yard
Bin Size (in Cubic Yards)
Commercial Bins Organics
Note: Organics containers are charged at seventy percent (70%) of the similar Garbage commercial cart rate above container size and service levels, representing a thirty percent (30%) discount. $ 1,985.89
$ 152.78
Garbage Compactors
The monthly rate includes the following:

Monthly Rate
208
NPDES
Fee Description Unit Notes Fee
Single Family per acre
1 acre minimum
charge $30.00
Institutional per acre $30.00
Condominium per unit $30.00
Multi‐Family per unit x 2/3 $30.00
Commercial per acre x 20 $30.00
Undeveloped per acre $30.00
Additional County Transaction
Fee per parcel $1.35
209
San Mateo Consolidated Fire Fees
Rates are established by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. Please vist smcfire.org for most up-todate fee information. 210
211

Page 1 of 4 ends

Citywide Naming and Donor Recognition Policy - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Kevin Kobayashi, Parks & Recreation Director, [email protected]; and Afshin Oskoui, [email protected]
Agenda Title: Citywide Naming and Donor Recognition Policy and Establish a Framework for Philanthropic Recognition
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation

1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the Citywide Naming and Donor Recognition Policy.

2. Authorize the City Manager to establish and maintain administrative procedures, naming opportunity schedules, recognition standards, and standard agreement templates consistent with the Policy.

3. Authorize the City Manager to work with qualified nonprofit or philanthropic partners, as appropriate, to support fundraising and donor stewardship for City capital projects and programs.

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
The City periodically receives philanthropic gifts, requests for commemorative recognition, and proposals to name City facilities, parks, trails, public art, rooms, amenities, and other civic assets. The City currently does not have a single, consistent framework applicable across these different settings.

The proposed Citywide Naming and Donor Recognition Policy establishes a simple, durable framework for evaluating and approving naming and donor recognition opportunities. It is intended to apply to the Community Center, parks, trails, public art, future facilities, Centennial projects, and future capital campaigns.

The item also asks the Council to authorize the City Manager to work collaboratively with the Belmont Community Foundation (“BCF” or the “Foundation”) to design and implement a philanthropic capital campaign consistent with the Policy. The Policy preserves City ownership and operational control while providing donors and philanthropic partners with greater clarity regarding available recognition opportunities, approval authority, and general contribution.

Because the campaign will unfold during Belmont's Centennial, staff recommends branding the effort “Belmont Together: Building Our Next 100 Years.” The theme ties the Community Center Campus, the Centennial, and community philanthropy into a single forward-looking narrative: every donor becomes part of Belmont's next century, not simply a contributor to a building. Framed this way, the effort functions 212

Page 2 of 4 ends

Belmont City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Belmont City Council
September 22, 2026