Brisbane City Council
June 18, 2026

-1-
City of Brisbane
City Council Meeting Agenda
Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 6:30 PM ● Hybrid Meeting ● 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA The public may observe/participate in City Council meetings using remote public comment options or by attending in person. The City Council may take action on any item listed in the agenda.

To Address the Council
In Person:

Location: Community Meeting Room 50 Park Place, Brisbane, CA 94005 To address the City Council on any item – whether on the posted agenda or not – please fill out a Request to Speak Form located in the Community Meeting Room Lobby and submit it to the City Clerk, preferably before the start of the meeting. Speakers are not required to submit their name or address.

Remote Participation:

Members of the public may observe/participate in the City Council meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below. City Council meetings may also be viewed live and/or on-demand via the City’s YouTube Channel, youtube.com/brisbaneca, or on Comcast Ch. 27. Archived videos may be replayed on the City’s website, brisbaneca.org/meetings. Please be advised that if there are technological difficulties, the meeting will nevertheless continue if remote participation is available.

The agenda materials may be viewed online at brisbaneca.org at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting, and at least 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting.

Remote Public Comments:

Remote meeting participants may address the City Council via Zoom Webinar. Aside from commenting personally while in the Zoom Webinar, you can also use the call in number. The public comments received will be noted for the record during Oral Communications 1 and 2 or during an agenda item. We encourage you to email comments in advance of the meeting to [email protected]. That email address, however, will not be monitored during the meeting and emails received during the meeting will not be responded to or brought to the attention of the City Council during the meeting.

Join Zoom Webinar: zoom.us (please use the latest version: zoom.us/download) brisbaneca.org/cc-zoom
Webinar ID: 991 9362 8666
Call In Number: 1 (669) 900-9128
Note: Callers dial *9 to “raise hand” and dial *6 to mute/unmute.

Special Assistance:

If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (415) 508- 2113.

Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

June 18, 2026 -2- 6:30 PM
Writings that Are Received After the Agenda Has Been Posted Any writings that are received after the agenda has been posted but before 4pm of the day of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the front lobby in City Hall and on the internet (brisbaneca.org/meetings).

Any writings that are received after 4pm of the day of the meeting will be distributed to the Council and made available for public inspection at the front lobby and on the internet the day after the meeting (brisbaneca.org/meetings).

Call to Order – Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
A. Remote Attendance Under the Just Cause Provisions of the Brown Act Adoption of Agenda
Oral Communications No. 1
Consent Calendar
B. Commemorating June 19, 2026 as Juneteenth
C. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of May 11, 2026 D. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Meeting of June 3, 2026 E. Approve Minutes of City Council Closed Session Special Meeting of June 4, 2026 F. Addendum to Contract with Millbrae Community Television (MCTV) for Streaming, Broadcasting, and Station Management Services
G. Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 H. Sierra Point Landscape and Lighting District Annual Appointments, Preliminary Approval of Engineer’s Report and Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments

1. Approve Resolution “Appointing Attorney for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027”

2. Approve Resolution “Appointing Engineer for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027”

3. Approve Resolution, “A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report Fiscal Year 2026-2027 - Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District

4. Approve Resolution “A Resolution of Intention to order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 - Fiscal Year 2026- 2027- Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District”

June 18, 2026 -3- 6:30 PM
I. Approve a Contract Amendment with Environmental Science Associates for Work Related to the Baylands Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan Adoption in the Amount of $943,824.60
J. Adopt Resolution calling a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 and Adopting Regulations pertaining to the Conduct and Administration of such Election including the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder to Provide Specified Election Services
K. Authorize City Manager to Sign Renewal and Amendment to the Cooperation Agreement with the San Mateo County Urban County Program in order to access Community Development Block Grant Funds
Public Hearing
L. Consider Adoption and Acceptance of the Master Fee Study and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Update and Adopt New Fees and Charges for Services Rendered by Various City Departments pursuant to Section3.32.040 of the Brisbane Municipal Code
M. Adopt Resolution amending the General Plan by updating the Open Space Element, as required by Government Code Section 65565.5, to update the goals, policies and programs in the Element to address access, climate resilience and other co-benefits of open space, rewilding, and regional conservation plans coordination.

Old Business
N. Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Potential Ballot Measure Regarding Business License Tax New Business
O. Adopt Parcel R Park Development Plan
Staff Reports
P. City Manager’s Report- City Updates and Upcoming Activities Mayor and Council Matters
Q. Approve the formation of a Childcare Ad Hoc Subcommittee R. Recruitment Update
S. Future Agenda Items
T. Countywide Assignments and Subcommittee Reports
i. Parkside 2 Ad Hoc Subcommittee Update
ii. Report Out on Subcommittee Meetings
iii. Upcoming Subcommittee Meetings

June 18, 2026 -4- 6:30 PM
U. Written Communications
Oral Communications No. 2
Adjournment

WHEREAS, Juneteenth commemorates the
emancipation of enslaved African Americans in the
United States and serves as a time to recognize the
enduring significance of freedom and equality; and
WHEREAS, the observance of Juneteenth provides an
opportunity for education, reflection, and community
engagement, strengthening understanding of our shared
history and the ongoing work to build a more just and
equitable future; and
WHEREAS, Juneteenth celebrates freedom, new
beginnings, and the enduring legacy of African American resilience, reflecting on history while honoring
continued progress and community empowerment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brisbane values diversity,
inclusion, and the contributions of all members of its
community; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
hereby proclaims June 19, 2026, as Juneteenth Day of
Observance in the City of Brisbane, and encourages all
residents to commemorate this important day by
celebrating freedom and equality and renewing their
commitment to promoting a just, inclusive, and
welcoming community for all.

DATED this 18th day of June 2026.

City of Brisbane

PROCLAMATION
PROCLAIMING JUNE 19, 2026, AS JUNETEENTH DAY

OF OBSERVANCE
Coleen Mackin, Mayor

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY MAY 11, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 25A PARK PLACE, ANNEX CONFERENCE ROOM,
BRISBANE, CA 94005
3:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code, Section 54956.9 (d). Number of Cases: One Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 3:31P.M.

Councilmember Lentz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember O’Connell to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Tran reported that direction was provided to staff regarding Anticipated Litigation Item D and there was no reportable action.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JUNE 3, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE, CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM, BRISBANE, CA 94005
3:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code, Section 54956.9 (d). Number of Cases: One Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 3:34 P.M.

Councilmember Lentz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember O’Connell to approve the Closed Session Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Zutler reported that direction was provided to staff regarding Anticipated Litigation Item D and there was no reportable action.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

ACTION MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2026
HYBRID MEETING, 50 PARK PLACE, CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM, BRISBANE, CA 94005
5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
A. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda
B. Public Comment. Members of the public may address the Councilmembers on any item on the closed session agenda
C. Adjournment into Closed Session
D.Public Performance Evaluation
Title: City Manager
Cal. Gov't Code § 54954.5 (West)
Mayor Mackin called the meeting to order at 5:04 P.M.

Councilmember Lentz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Davis to approve the Closed Session Special Meeting agenda as it stands. The motion passed unanimously by all present.

Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Kern, Lentz, O’Connell and Mayor Mackin Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
There was no public comment. Mayor Mackin adjourned the meeting into Closed Session.

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Acting City Attorney Zutler reported that Council had no reportable action on Item D.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 P.M.

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Caroline Cheung, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Addendum to Contract with Millbrae Community
Television (MCTV) for Streaming, Broadcasting, and
Station Management Services
Recommendation
Staff recommend authorization of the Mayor to approve an addendum to the 2023 contract with MCTV for a three-year period, which may be extended one additional three-year period, through June 2032.

Background
Since 2002, the City has contracted with MCTV to televise City meetings over the Public, Education, Government (PEG) channel. In 2005, the City entered into a contract with MCTV to provide overall station management services for Ch. 27 and to provide expanded programming and rebroadcast of meetings. These two contracts were combined into one agreement with MCTV in 2009, after having both been extended several times.

Discussion
MCTV provides one operator for all City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Complete Streets Safety Committee, and Open Space and Ecology Committee meetings. The Inclusion, Diversity, Equity & Accountability Committee meetings, as well as the Public Art Advisory Committee meetings, are recorded by City staff via Zoom and uploaded to YouTube, as well as scheduled for playback by MCTV, the following day.

During the week, MCTV staff programs any replays of public meetings, carries over information from the Blast onto the Ch. 27 bulletin, and provides additional local programming content, such as the SFO Roundtable and Technical Working Group meetings.

Fiscal Impact
Operator costs are proposed to increase 6% to $464 per meeting ($2,184/year) due to COLA.

Station Management Services/Service Support costs are not being changed at this time.

Attachments

1. 2023 MCTV Contract

2. MCTV Addendum to 2023 Contract
City Manager Approval

Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
06/11/2026

Rev. 8/07/02 -1-

VENDOR AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated ______________, 2023 between Millbrae Community Television, Inc., a California non-profit corporation (“Operator”), and the City of Brisbane, a municipal corporation (“City”), is made with reference to the following facts:

A. City desires to enter into a contract to provide livestream and playback services of public City Council and Planning Commission meetings for live telecasting over the cable television network in Brisbane (“Service”).

B. City has entered into a franchise agreement with Comcast of California, Inc. (“Comcast”), which requires Comcast to provide a “reverse feed hookup” to City facilities listed in the franchise agreement.

C. Operator represents that it is trained, experienced, and qualified to perform the livestream, playback, and telecasting services and is willing to do so pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

1. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date of execution of this Agreement, and shall continue thereafter for a three (3) year period, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section 17, and may be extended for two (2) three (3) year periods pursuant to Section 18.

2. OPERATOR RESPONSIBILITY
(a) Operator shall provide Service to City in accordance with the terms and conditions attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and the terms of this Agreement, including the provision of all equipment and personnel necessary to operate equipment and provide such Service. (b) Operator shall provide Service to City for all regular City Council meetings, which are typically held on the first and third Thursday of each month. The Operator shall also provide Service to City for all regular Planning Commission meetings, which are held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Operator shall provide Service for additional meetings on an “as available” basis. City recognizes that Operator’s resources are limited and that dates for special meetings will be reserved by Operator on a “first come first served” basis. (c) Operator shall work closely with Comcast to ensure that Operator’s equipment is compatible with AT&T’s reverse feed connection at City’s facilities.

June 15

Rev. 8/07/02 -2-
(d) Operator shall work closely with Comcast and take all reasonable measures needed to ensure that a clear and audible signal of the live telecast of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings reaches the cable subscribers in Brisbane. (e) Operator shall invoice City for compensation due, as set forth in Section 3 and Section 5 of this Agreement.
(f) Operator shall begin Service immediately upon execution of this agreement.

3. COMPENSATION
(a) Operator’s compensation during the term of this Agreement shall be based on the quoted Cost per Meeting rate, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Compensation per meeting shall include all set up and break down of equipment and pre meeting testing of equipment and telecast signal as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

4. INSURANCE. Operator, at its own expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, insurance policies which satisfy the following requirements:
(a) Type of policies and coverage:
(1) General Liability Coverage. Operator shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, providing coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form CG 0001 (Ed. 11/88). If the form of insurance with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability Coverage. Operator shall maintain automobile liability insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each occurrence, for bodily injury and property damage, providing coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 0001 (Ed. 12/90) Code 1 (any auto).
(3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage. Operator shall maintain workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California and employer's liability insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, for any and all persons employed by Operator in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. In the alternative, Operator may rely on a self-insurance program to provide this

Rev. 8/07/02 -3-
coverage so long as the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or Operator, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against City for loss arising from work performed by Operator for City.
(b) Endorsements: Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Operator; products and completed operations of Operator; premises owned, occupied or used by Operator; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Operator. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to the Service, Operator's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of Operator's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
(4) Operator's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5) Operator's insurance coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City. (c) Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At City's option, Operator shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions.
(d) Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise approved by City in writing. (e) Verification of coverage. Operator shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required by this

Rev. 8/07/02 -4-
Agreement. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with City before commencement of work by Operator. At the request of City, Operator shall provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by this Agreement.

5. BILLING AND PAYMENT
(a) Operator shall submit monthly invoices for compensation, including any documentation, by the tenth (10th) of each month for services provided in the previous month. (b) City shall make payment to Operator in accordance with invoices that reflect the actual services provided during the previous month. Payment shall be made by City within thirty (30) days after receipt of approved invoices.
(c) Any necessary supporting documentation for payment must be included with the invoice.

6. CHANGES IN COST OR LEVELS OF SERVICE
(a) No change shall be made by Operator to the cost of providing Service, as set forth in Section 3, in the absence of written agreement to such change by City. (b) No change shall be made by Operator in the Service without the prior written approval of City.
(c) City reserves the right to reduce or increase Service in light of decreased or increased need and/or funding availability. Any changes in the level of Service requested by City will entitle either City or Operator to request an appropriate adjustment in the compensation payable to Operator.

City cannot increase the level of Service without the prior consent of Operator.

7. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Operator shall comply with all applicable local, county, state and federal laws, rules and regulations governing or related to the operation of the Services and the performance by Operator of its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement.

9. PERSONNEL
(a) City shall have the right to reject temporarily or permanently, by notice to Operator, for any reasonable reason whatsoever, any employee furnished by Operator for the provision of the Service. Reasons for rejecting an Operator’s employee include, but are not limited to, unprofessional

Rev. 8/07/02 -5-
conduct, disruption of meetings, and rudeness to members of the public or City personnel. Operator shall replace promptly any employee not acceptable or rejected by City. (b) Operator shall be solely responsible for payment of all of its employee’s wages and employee benefits, if applicable. Operator, without any cost or expense to City, shall faithfully comply with the requirements of all applicable state enactments with respect to employer’s liability, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance and other forms of social security, and also with respect to withholding of income tax at its source from wages of Operator’s employees. Operator shall indemnify and hold harmless City from any liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of whatever nature arising from alleged violation of such enactments or from any claims or subrogation provided for in such enactments.

10. PROJECT SUPERVISOR
Operator shall designate a Project Supervisor who shall oversee the operation of the Service. The Project Supervisor sha1l be responsible for operational management of the Service.

11. TRAINING
Operator shall provide thorough training for all its personnel in the proper performance of their duties. Operator’s employees providing services under this Agreement shall receive proper training and instruction at the time of hiring and prior to being assigned to the Service.

12. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT
During the term of this agreement, or any extensions thereto, all equipment to be used for performance of the Service shall meet all criteria listed in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

13. PERFORMANCE GOALS
(a) Operator will be responsible for providing timely and reliable Service. (b) Operator shall provide sufficient back-up equipment to assure that Service will be provided to City without interruption. Operator shall not be responsible for interruption or deterioration of cable signal within Comcast’s network.

14. SUB-CONTRACTING
Operator shall not sub-contract any services provided under this Agreement, without the express written consent of City.

Rev. 8/07/02 -6-

16. CONTACT PERSONS
(a) The following person or City Manager designee is hereby designated as the contact person for City:

Ms. Caroline Cheung
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Phone: (415) 508-2157
E-Mail: [email protected]
(b) The following person is hereby designated as the contact person for Operator:

Name: Ms. Sara Johnson
Title:

Address:

Phone:

E-Mail:

General Manager P.O.

Box 898
Millbrae, CA 94030
(650) 259-2343
[email protected]

17. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
(a) City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason by giving Operator thirty (30) days written notice thereof. Notice of termination shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested. Upon termination, City shall pay Operator its allowable costs incurred to date of termination. In the event that Operator at any time during the entire term of this Agreement breaches any of the requirements or conditions of this Agreement, and does not within ten (10) days of receipt of notice thereof from City cure such breach or violation, City may immediately terminate this Agreement. If a default is cured and the same default subsequently reoccurs, City may terminate this Agreement on written notice to Operator which may be effective immediately. (b) Operator may terminate this agreement at any time and for any reason by giving City sixty (60) days written notice thereof. Notice of termination shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested.

18. EXTENSION OF TERM
(a) Given the necessity of ensuring continuity of the Service, and as further consideration for the compensation to be paid by City to Operator for the provision of the Service rendered hereunder, Operator grants to City the option to extend the term of this Agreement for two (2) three (3) year periods after expiration of the initial three (3) year term, upon the same terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, except the rate of compensation payable to Operator

Rev. 8/07/02 -7-
during each extended term, which shall be subject to negotiation and agreement between the parties.
(b) If City desires to exercise the option to extend, or further extend, the term of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to Operator of such intention at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the initial term or the extended term, as the case may be. After giving such notice, the parties shall promptly commence negotiations regarding the compensation payable to Operator during the extended term. If agreement is reached, the parties shall confirm the same by executing an addendum to this Agreement, but if the parties are unable to agree, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the expiration of the initial or extended term.

19. AGREEMENT NOT EXCLUSIVE
This Agreement is not exclusive. City reserves the right to contract for performance of services such as those described herein through other providers.

20. WAIVER OF CONDITIONS
The waiver of any provision, term, or condition of this Agreement by City on any particular occasion shall not constitute a general waiver of said provision, term or condition, nor a release from Operator’s obligation to otherwise perform or observe the same or any other term or condition of this Agreement.

22. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Operator shall indemnify, keep and save harmless City and its directors, officers, officials, agents and employees (collectively, “Indemnitees”) against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, or liabilities, including attorneys’ fees, occurring directly or indirectly by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Operator or its employees, subcontractors, representatives or agents in the performance of its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement.
(b) The obligation to indemnify includes the obligation to defend Indemnitees and Operator further agrees to defend any and all such actions, suits or claims and pay all charges of attorneys and all other costs and expenses of Indemnitees arising therefrom or incurred in connection therewith; and if any judgement be rendered against any of Indemnities in any such action, Operator shall, at its expense, satisfy and discharge the same.

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained in it and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties, whether written or verbal. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties.

EXHIBIT A – page 1 of 1 June 5, 2023
Vendor Agreement MCTV
Millbrae Community Television

1. LIVE CABLECAST SERVICES
Includes videotaping, livestream, and broadcast, cloud storage on Cablecast and YouTube, premeeting testing of equipment, appropriate titles and graphics, interface with presenter Powerpoint if needed, monitoring live Comcast audio and video, and in the event a livestream or cablecast is done outside of the Community Meeting Room, it includes providing cameras and production equipment, and all set up and break down of equipment. a. Community Meeting Room – Three Camera Production, One Operator - $438 per meeting b. Outside of Community Meeting Room – Three Camera Production, Two Operators - $824 per meeting
c. Outside of Community Meeting Room – One Camera Production - $567 per meeting

2. NON-CABLECAST PRODUCTION and EDITING Services: For events or Public Service Announcements, a single camera with post-production editing is available (note: the State of the City event will be provided free of charge, if no post-production is involved and the event is held in the Community Meeting Room).
a. Camera producer and equipment = $84 per hour
b. Editing = $56 per hour

3. STATION MANAGEMENT / SERVICE SUPPORT - $1,646.67 per month. Services include:
a. Replay of recorded meetings at mutually agreeable dates and times b. Replay of City Staff provided videos at mutually agreeable dates and times c. Posting of City messages on the bulletin
d. Provide appropriately-licensed audio for simulcasting with bulletin e. Provide additional programming content from local and professionally produced sources selected to interest your population, to promote viewership on the channel and provide education on subjects important to local viewers. Each week we will provide three to four hours of programming which will repeat at different times on different days. f. Basic maintenance of the station equipment rack
g. Interface with Comcast, particularly with respect to problems in Video and/or Audio on the Channel.
h. Periodically check live internet streaming (if activated) for quality of audio and video levels and adjust if needed.
i. Be on call to resolve audio and video problems during daytime and evening hours. j. Maintain a programming schedule accessible from the City’s website. k. Provide such reports as are reasonably requested by city staff to oversee our operations.

4. ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE – Provide qualified engineering assistance for design, set up, modification, and upgrading of Audio Visual production and display equipment: $78 per hour.

ADDENDUM TO VENDOR AGREEMENT
THIS ADDENDUM TO VENDOR AGREEMENT is made June 18, 2026 between Millbrae Community Television, Inc., a California non-profit corporation (“Operator) and the City of Brisbane, a municipal corporation (“City”).

Recitals
A. In 2023, Operator and City entered into a Vendor Agreement (“the Vendor Agreement”) by which Operator agreed to provide livestream, playback, and telecasting of all City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Complete Streets Safety Committee, and Open Space and Ecology Committee meetings. The Inclusion, Diversity, Equity & Accountability Committee meetings, as well as the Public Art Advisory Committee meetings, are recorded by City staff via Zoom and uploaded to YouTube, as well as scheduled for playback by MCTV, the following day. The Agreement had a two year term but provided the Agreement could be extended for two additional two year terms if the parties so agreed.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following promises the parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Section 1 of the Agreement, Term of the Agreement, is amended to read as follows:

1. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date of execution of this Agreement and shall continue until June 30, 2029, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section 17.

Section 2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum to Vendor Agreement the date and year above.

CITY:

The City of Brisbane, a municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ Coleen Mackin, Mayor
__________________________ Attest: _____________________________ Samantha Zutler, City Attorney Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk OPERATOR:

Millbrae Community Television, Inc.
a California non-profit corporation
By: _________________________________
Sara Johnson, Executive Director

EXHIBIT A – page 1 of 1 June 5, 2026
Vendor Agreement MCTV
Millbrae Community Television

1. LIVE CABLECAST SERVICES
Includes videotaping, livestream, and broadcast, cloud storage on Cablecast and YouTube, premeeting testing of equipment, appropriate titles and graphics, interface with presenter PowerPoint if needed, monitoring live Comcast audio and video, and in the event a livestream or cablecast is done outside of the Community Meeting Room, it includes providing cameras and production equipment, and all set up and break down of equipment. a. Community Meeting Room – Three Camera Production, One Operator – $464 per meeting b. Annual livestreaming, playback, and telecast of the Annual State of the City Address provided free of charge.

2. STATION MANAGEMENT / SERVICE SUPPORT - $1,646.67 per month. Services include:
a. Replay of recorded meetings at mutually agreeable dates and times b. Replay of City Staff provided videos at mutually agreeable dates and times c. Posting of City messages on the bulletin
d. Provide appropriately-licensed audio for simulcasting with bulletin e. Provide additional programming content from local and professionally produced sources selected to interest your population, to promote viewership on the channel and provide education on subjects important to local viewers. Each week we will provide three to four hours of programming which will repeat at different times on different days. f. Basic maintenance of the station equipment rack
g. Interface with Comcast, particularly with respect to problems in Video and/or Audio on the Channel.
h. Periodically check live internet streaming (if activated) for quality of audio and video levels and adjust if needed.
i. Be on call to resolve audio and video problems during daytime and evening hours. j. Maintain a programming schedule accessible from the City’s website. k. Provide such reports as are reasonably requested by city staff to oversee our operations.

3. ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE – Provide qualified engineering assistance for design, set up, modification, and upgrading of Audio-Visual production and display equipment: $78 per hour.

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Carolina Yuen, Finance Director
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution establishing the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

Background
Proposition 4 was adopted by California voters in November 1979. This measure codified Article XIII B of the California Constitution, (Government Code 7901). This section specifies that governmental entities must calculate and adopt annually an appropriation limit beginning with fiscal year 1978-79. These limits are also referred to as “Gann Limits” in reference to one of the measure’s co-authors. The fundamental purpose of the appropriation limit is to keep real perperson government spending under 1978-79 levels, adjusted for inflation, and to measure if the City has revenues that cannot be appropriated because of the limit – meaning the City has “excess revenues.”
In June of 1990, California voters approved Proposition 111, which amended Government Code Section 7901 as it applies to the Appropriation Limit. According to Proposition 111, cities are permitted to adjust their appropriation limit annually by the following two factors:

1. Either the percentage change in the California per capita personal income for the preceding year or the percentage change in the growth of non-residential assessed valuation due to non-residential construction; and

2. The greater of either the percentage change in population of the City or the County.

Attached is the calculation of the appropriation limit as allowed by Proposition 111.

Discussion
The indexes used in calculating the appropriation limit for FY 2026/27 are the percentage change in the California Per Capita Personal Income, 4.95%, and the greater of either the County’s or City’s population growth/(reduction) (0.00% and -0.34%, respectively). The County’s growth of 0.00% is higher and therefore combined with the California Per Capital Personal Income, totaling a combined growth rate of 1.05%. The City’s resulting Appropriation Limit is $30,703,005. The tax proceeds expected to be received, including for the Guadalupe

Valley Municipal Improvement District, is $25,468,655 or 83.0% of the limit. Therefore, the City is below the maximum allowable appropriation limit and in compliance with State Law.

Fiscal Impact
There is no financial impact associated with the adoption of this Resolution. The City expects to receive approximately $5,234,350 less in taxes than is allowed under the appropriation limit. If tax proceeds received are determined to exceed the limit, such revenues in excess must be returned to the taxpayers of the City of Brisbane in accordance with the procedures directed by the City Council.

Attachments

1. Appropriation Limit FY26_27

2. Resolution Appropriation Limit FY26_27
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
06/11/2026

( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 )
% % Change in The
Change Non-Residential Greater
in CPCPI Construction % Change
1 % Change in CPCPI or Non-Residential Construction 4.95% NA 4.95% % Change % Change The
In County In City Higher
Population Population Growth %
2 % Change in County or City Population 0.00% -0.34% 0.00% a Prior year's Appropriation Limit $29,254,798
b Multiply 1+Line 1 by 1+Line 2 104.95%
c Multiply Line (a) by Line (b), and subtract Line (a) $1,448,207 d Add Lines (a), and (c) and enter total here $30,703,005 e APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR 2026/27 $30,703,005
Estimated tax proceeds as budgeted for fiscal year 2026/27 $25,468,655 Estimated tax proceeds to Limit 82.95%
Estimated Excess Limit Capacity $5,234,350

C A L C U L A T I O N S

CITY OF BRISBANE

COMPUTATION OF APPROPRIATION LIMIT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
Attachment 1

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE

ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B AS AMENDED OF THE

CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, Proposition 4 was approved by the California voters on November 6, 1979, thereby adding Article XIII B of the California State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1990, the California Voters amended Article XIII B and the California Constitution by approving Proposition 111 which became effective July 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of the City of Brisbane to establish the Appropriation Limit for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 pursuant to Article XIII B as amended of the California State Constitution; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby finds and determines;

1. That the California Per Capita Income (CPCPI) to be utilized to calculate the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026/27, increased by 4.95% and that the Non-Residential Construction growth factor was not available from the County Assessor.

2. That during Calendar Year 2025 the percentage increase in the County of San Mateo and decrease in the City of Brisbane population was 0.00% and -

0.34% respectively.

3. That the higher percentage shown in 1 and 2 above be applied to determine the appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

4. That the 2026/27 appropriation limit for the City of Brisbane is calculated to be $30,703,005.

5. The 2026/27 budget anticipates tax revenues of $25,468,655, which is $5,234,350 less than the appropriation limit.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any revenues from proceeds of taxes and user fees in excess of costs received during the Fiscal Year 2026/27 over and above the appropriated limit of $30,703,005 must be returned to the taxpayers of the City of Brisbane in accordance with the procedure to be adopted by the City Council of the City of Brisbane when such an amount of refund is determined.
________________________
Coleen Mackin, Mayor

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-____ was duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the Brisbane City Council on June 18, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
___________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Maz Bozorginia, Public Works Director
Subject: Sierra Point Landscape and Lighting District Annual Appointments, Preliminary Approval of Engineer’s
Report and Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments

1. Approve Resolution “Appointing Attorney for
the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District
for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027”

2. Approve Resolution “Appointing Engineer for
the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District
for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027”

3. Approve Resolution, “A Resolution of
Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report Fiscal
Year 2026-2027 - Sierra Point Landscaping and
Lighting District

4. Approve Resolution “A Resolution of Intention
to order the levy and collection of assessments
pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 - Fiscal Year 2026-2027- Sierra Point
Landscaping and Lighting District”
Recommendation
Adopt the following resolutions:

1. Proposed Resolution, “Appointing Attorney for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

2. Proposed Resolution, “Appointing Engineer for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027.”

3. Proposed Resolution, “A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report — Fiscal Year 2026-2027 - Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District”

4. Proposed Resolution, “A Resolution of Intention to order the levy and collection of

assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 - Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 - Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District”
Background
These four resolutions are part of the required annual process for the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District. In order, they appoint an Attorney and an Engineer of Record for the landscaping and lighting district, preliminarily approve the Engineer’s Report (which specifies the work to be completed, the cost of the work, and the proportionate share of the costs within the district for the next fiscal year) and indicate intention to order the levy and collection of assessments for said district.

Discussion
The requested actions begin the annual process that provides funding for the operation and maintenance of the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District. At a later meeting, a Public Hearing will be held to confirm and order the Improvements/Assessments. If the Council chooses not to approve these Resolutions, then the city will most likely not have a mechanism to collect the assessments which fund the operation and maintenance of the landscaping, irrigation and lighting at Sierra Point.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of approving the recommended resolutions; all work to be completed in this phase of the process will be completed by existing staff.

Attachments

1. Reso 1_Attorney Appointment

2. Reso 2_Engineer Appointment

3. Reso 3_Preliminary ER Approval

4. Reso 4_Intent to Levy Assessments

5. Draft Engineers Report
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
06/12/2026

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE

APPOINTING ATTORNEY FOR THE SIERRA POINT

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brisbane has determined to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof for the fiscal year 2026-2027; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing an attorney for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brisbane as follows:

Samantha Zutler, Attorney at Law, or her successor, is hereby appointed and employed to do and perform all legal services required for said proceedings. ________________________________
Coleen Mackin, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 18th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE

APPOINTING ENGINEER FOR THE SIERRA POINT

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brisbane has determined to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in the Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof for fiscal year 2026-2027;
WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing an engineer for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brisbane as follows:

Maz Bozorginia, P.E., Public Works Director, or his successor, is hereby appointed and employed as Engineer of Work, employed in order to perform all engineering work necessary in and for said proceedings.
_____________________________
Coleen Mackin, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 18th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2026 – 2027

SIERRA POINT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brisbane, California, that WHEREAS, the Engineer of Work has prepared and filed with the Clerk of said City a report, in writing, all as therein more particularly described, under and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
WHEREAS, under and pursuant to said Act, the report has been presented to this Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that neither said report, nor any part thereof should be modified in any respect.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as follows:

1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof, contained in said report, be, and they are hereby, preliminarily approved.

2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved.

3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Engineer’s Report and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, preliminarily approved.

4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained in said report, be, and they are hereby, preliminarily approved.

5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings to be had.

Coleen Mackin, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 18th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027

SIERRA POINT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brisbane, California, as follows:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of Work of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk of this City the written report, which said submitted report has been preliminarily approved by this Council in accordance with said Act; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED and ORDERED, as follows:

1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this Council to order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in Exhibit “A” hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein.

2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon the assessment district designated as Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District, the exterior boundaries of which district are the composite and consolidated area as more particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars.

Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in the district and of any zone thereof and the general location of said district.

3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of Work of said City, preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the Clerk of this City is hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district.

4. Notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2026, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Brisbane Community Meeting Room, Brisbane City Hall, 50 Park Place, Brisbane, California, the City Council shall convene and hold a public meeting to receive public testimony with respect to said assessments, pursuant to Government Code Section 59954.6.

The City Clerk is authorized to cause publication of notice of said public meeting pursuant to Government Code 6063 and to mail such notice by first-class mail to the owners of the property to be assessed as shown by the last equalized assessment roll said notice shall contain the information as specified by Government Code Section 54954.6 (C)(2).

5. Notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2026, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Brisbane Community Meeting Room, Brisbane City Hall, 50 Park Place, Brisbane, California, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy and collection of the proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing, or both, thereof, and when and where it will consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested person at or before the conclusion of said hearing, against said improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment, to the Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when and where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's Report.

6. The Clerk of said City is hereby directed to give notice of said hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be published once in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper published and circulated in San Mateo County, there being no newspaper published in said City, and by conspicuously posting a copy thereof upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein.

7. The office of the City Manager of said City is hereby designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein and may be contacted during regular office hours at City Hall, 50 Park Place, Brisbane, California 94005 or by calling (415) 508-2110.
_____________________________
Coleen Mackin, Mayor
City of Brisbane
* * * *
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brisbane on the 18th day of June, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
City of Brisbane

EXHIBIT “A” to Resolution No. 2026-__
Description of District Purpose

SIERRA POINT

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
a) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of public landscaping, including irrigation, trees, shrubs, grass, or other vegetation. b) The construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of public lighting facilities, including standards, poles and electric current or energy.

CITY OF BRISBANE

SIERRA POINT

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT

ENGINEER'S REPORT
on the
Levy of an Assessment
for the
2026 - 2027 Fiscal Year
Prepared by
Maz Bozorginia P.E.

Director of Public Works
June 5, 2026

I. BACKGROUND
In 1983, the Brisbane City Council determined to undertake proceedings under the provisions of Division 15, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highways Code, entitled “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972”, for the formation of an assessment district for the purpose of constructing, installing, maintaining and servicing the following facilities within said district:
a) Public landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass, other vegetation, and irrigation facilities.
b) Public lighting facilities, including standards, poles, and electric current or energy.

The proposed district was designated the “Sierra Point Landscaping and Lighting District”.

This report was prepared as part of an annually occurring process to detail the assessment charges and district expenses covering the 2026 - 2027 fiscal year.

II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The original plans and specifications for this assessment district have been separately bound but are incorporated herein by this reference thereto.

III. ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The costs of this assessment district for the 2026 - 2027 fiscal year are estimated to be as follows:

ZONE l & 2 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
FY 26/27
Employee costs 128,183
Supplies and services 310,306
Administrative costs 174,547
TOTAL ZONE 1 & 2 $613,036
Supplies and services include safety clothing, maintenance of vehicles and equipment, small tools and supplies, landscape and irrigation maintenance including materials, electricity, and water.

Administrative charges are indirect, overhead costs to manage the district.

A detailed breakdown of these costs is available to assessees upon request.

Costs associated with this assessment district for the 2026 - 2027 fiscal year are to be paid as follows:

ZONE l & 2 FUNDING SOURCES
FY 26/27
Assessment charges 591,719
Carryover from prior years 21,317
TOTAL ZONE 1 & 2 $613,036

IV. DIAGRAM
The assessment diagrams for Zones 1 and 2 are attached hereto and are a part of this report.

V. ASSESSMENT
The assessments to be made against the assessable lots and parcels of land within this assessment district are attached hereto and are a part of this report.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated ____________________ __________________________
Maz Bozorginia, P.E.

Director of Public Works

Filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Brisbane, San Mateo County, California, this __________ day of _________, 2026.
_____________________________
Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk
Filed in the office of the County Controller-Auditor of the County of San Mateo, California, this _________ day of ____________________, 2026.
_____________________________
Juan Raigoza
County Controller

ASSESSMENT ROLL

ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL PARCEL
NUMBER NUMBER AREA, AC. ASSESSMENT
ZONEl
A 1 007—165—210 4.41 $24,464
A 2 007—165—230 8.97 49,760
A 3 007—165—110 3.44 19,083
A 4 007—165—050 6.13 34,005
A 5 007—164—020 5.66 31,398
A 6 007—164—010 10.20 56,583
A 7 007—165—240 10.21 56,639
A 8 007—165—140 7.13 39,553
A 9 007—165—150 5.93 32,896
A 10 007—163—030 3.52 19,527
A 11 007—163—040 3.08 17,086
A 12 007—165—120 4.56 25,296
C l 015—011—090 Note1 0
C 2 015—011—100 6.92 38,388
C 3 015—011—130 8.57 47,541
C 4 015—011—120 8.56 47,486
C 5 015—011—140 2.41 13,369
Subtotal Zone 1 99.70 $553,074
1 Although previously assessed, this parcel is owned by California State Lands Commission, which is exempt from local assessments.

ZONE2
B l None (placeholder only) -0-
B 2 005—162—430 (Ptn) 15.2 7,190
B 3 005—162—300 66.5 31,455
B 4 005—162—400 (Ptn) Note2-0-
B 5 005—162—410 (Ptn) 0.23-0-
B 6 005—162—390 Note4-0-
B 7 005—162—420 (Ptn) Note4-0-
Subtotal Zone 2 81.7 $ 38,645
Total 180.99 $591,719

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT SPREAD
The amounts to be assessed against the parcels of property to pay the costs and expenses of the work and improvements shall be based on the estimated benefits to be derived by the various properties within the assessment district.

Construction and maintenance costs shall be segregated by zone, and costs are then spread to the parcels within each zone in proportion to the area of the benefited parcels within the zone.

Incidental expenses shall be spread proportionally to the area of benefited parcels within the assessment district.

Due to the County Auditor's requirement that individual parcel assessments be rounded to the nearest even cent, the total of said individual assessments may not exactly equal the total estimate of costs.

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS
2 This portion of this parcel is private land over which the public has been granted access for use as the street, Tunnel Avenue.
3 No assessment has been imposed for a value less than $100. 4 B6 and B7 are publicly owned portions of Tunnel Avenue.

ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
APN

NUMBER ASSESSEE
A-1 007-165-210 BP3 SF4 1000 Marina LLC
PO Box 927729
San Diego, CA 92192
•
A-2 007-165-230 BP3 SF5 3000 3500 Marina LLC
PO Box 927729
San Diego, CA 92192
A-3 007-165-110 SNH Brisbane Ca LLC
255 Washington St
Newton, MA 02458
A-12 007-165-120 PPF OFF 7000 Marina Blvd LP
C/O Morgan Stanley Real Estate Advisor
555 California St. 21st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94101
A-4 007-165-050 Grand Sierra Properties, Inc.
150 Executive Park Blvd. #4000
San Francisco, CA 94134
A-5 007-164-020 HCP Life Science REIT, Inc.
1920 Main St, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
A-6 007-164-010 HCP Life Science REIT, Inc.
1920 Main St, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
A-7
A-8
A-9
007-165-240
007-165-140
007-165-150
HCP LS Brisbane LLC
FKA Slough Brisbane LLC
1920 Main St. Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
A-10 007-163-030 Summit Hospitality 114 LLC
12600 Hill Country Blvd., #R-100
Austin, TX 78738
A-11 007-163-040 Bre Sh Brisbane Owner LLC
PO Box A-3956
Chicago, IL 60690-3956

ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
APN

NUMBER ASSESSEE
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
005-162-430
005-162-300
005-162-400
005-162-410
Oyster Point Properties, Inc.
150 Executive Park Blvd. #4200
San Francisco, CA 94134-3332
B-6
B-7
005-162-390
005-162-420
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
C-1 015-011-090 State of California
C/O State Lands Commission
Attn: Title Unit
100 Howe Ave., Ste. 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
C-2 015-011-100 HCP Life Sciences REIT, Inc.
3000 Meridian Boulevard #200
Franklin, TN 37067
C-3 015-011-130 DW LSP 5000 Shoreline LLC
C/O Divco West Real Estate Group
Attn: Sam Hamilton
PO Box 130667
Carlsbad, CA 92013
C-4 015-011-120 DW LSP 5000 Shoreline LLC
C/O Divco West Real Estate Group
Attn: Sam Hamilton
PO Box 130667
Carlsbad, CA 92013
C-5 015-011-140 GNS Shoreline LP
PO Box 71970
Phoenix, AZ 85050

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
Subject: Approve a Contract Amendment with Environmental Science Associates for Work Related to the Baylands
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and Specific
Plan Adoption in the Amount of $943,824.60
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of a contract amendment with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), environmental and planning consultants, for work related to the Baylands Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and Specific Plan in the amount of $943,824.60 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment.

Background
ESA has a long history with the Baylands project, having assisted Metis Environmental Group to prepare the EIR for the 2018 General Plan amendment which the City Council certified in July 2018. The City entered into a contract with ESA on June 27, 2024 to prepare the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) and associated project management for the Baylands Specific Plan. This contract was subsequently amended four times to capture additional tasks related to preparation and release of the DEIR for public review and preparation of the final EIR (FEIR), including the response to comments received on the DEIR.

Discussion
The proposed contract amendment is the fifth amendment to the City's June 27, 2024 contract with ESA and captures work to publish the FEIR, implement staff's recommended changes to the Specific Plan to ensure consistency with the FEIR, prepare needed legal findings related to certification of the FEIR, provide staff support for public hearings, and other activities to support the City's review and final action on the Baylands Specific Plan and FEIR. The contract includes work by subconsultants Sitelab, Fehr & Peers, and Natalie Macris & Associates. The contract amendment totals $943,824.60.

Fiscal Impact
Consultant costs are reimbursable to the City under an Agreement to Pay Processing Costs with the project applicant.

Environmental Impact
Approval of the requested contract amendment is not a project under the California

Environmental Quality Act.

Attachments

1. Attachment ESA Contract Amendment
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
06/10/2026

575 Market Street, Suite 3700
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax
esassoc.com
1 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
June 9, 2026
Ms. Julia Ayres, Acting Community Development Director
City of Brisbane, Planning Department
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Subject: Contract Modification #5: Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Project-Planning Commission and City Council Workshops/Hearings and Related Efforts
Dear Ms. Ayres:

ESA is pleased to continue work on the Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan and associated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as the project moves into the workshop and hearing phase. This scope of work and budget has been prepared based on recent discussions with the City regarding the anticipated hearing strategy, the expected level of technical preparation, and the materials needed to support City staff and decision-makers through the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process. It also includes out-of-scope work associated with preparation and publication of the Final Specific Plan and Final EIR, which includes word processing, printing, and mailing efforts.

The work efforts are presented first by ESA, followed by those of our subconsultants, which include Fehr & Peers and SITELAB.

ESA Work Efforts
This contract amendment is divided into the following discrete work efforts:
• Assistance with City staff workshop/hearing preparation, including development of workshop/hearing strategies, preparation of meeting presentation materials, review and input on staff reports, and practice runs, if necessary; • Attendance at hearings and related preparation meetings by ESA technical and project management staff (as well as subconsultants), including travel time, participation, direct expenses associated with travel, and follow-up activities; • Preparation and assembly of a staff/hearing briefing binder, which will serve as a valuable resource if technical questions arise during hearings on non-scheduled, technical topics; • Preparation of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is assumed to include the evaluation of the Staff-Recommended Specific Plan;
• Review resolutions, ordinances, and/or other City-prepared staff discretionary approval documents (beyond staff reports);
•
• Attendance at meetings with BDI with City staff, including development of responses to pre-prepared questions, preparation of overview slide decks, and other preparation or follow-up activities; • Internal/client/subconsultant coordination and project management activities associated with the above activities; • Direct expenses associated with attendance at eleven workshops and public hearings by numerous ESA staff; and • Subconsultant work efforts, which are provided as Appendices C and D of this contract amendment and include:
— Appendix C – SITELAB (Development and Design Standards) — Appendix D – Fehr & Pehrs (Transportation)
ATTACHMENT 1

Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan Project: Contract Modification #5
2 June 9, 2026 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Additionally, ESA has identified the following out-of-scope activities associated with preparation and publication of the Final Specific Plan and Final EIR
— Word processing associated with preparation of a second Consolidated Final EIR and clean and redline versions of the Specific Plan resulting from changes that occurred between April and May of 2026; — Reproduction of the Consolidated Final EIR and Specific Plan beyond the remaining direct expense budget; and — Mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to a mailing list of approximately 360 individuals (color copies with labor and postage).

Task 1. Hearing Preparation, Attendance, and Related Support ESA assumes a robust and coordinated workshop and hearing preparation process that involves ESA, applicable technical specialists, City staff, and City legal team members in order to effectively present the FEIR and Specific Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council for project approvals. ESA will serve in an advisory capacity to support the City and legal team to prepare for workshops, hearings and other related meetings, which is anticipated to include development of workshop/hearing strategies; preparation of meeting presentation materials; development of technical talking points or issue summaries; attendance by the appropriate technical personnel, including travel time; preparation and refinement of hearing-related documentation; follow-up support after workshops and hearings, as needed; and coordination with City staff, the City Attorney, and subconsultants related to these efforts.

As part of the workshop and hearing process, ESA will have at least one additional CEQA expert (beyond Ms. Avila and the technical team members) present at each workshop and hearing who will listen to the proceedings to “fact check” answers provided by the City, ESA, and technical experts to ensure accuracy; to determine whether a clarification or amplification might be necessary to enter into the record; and/or whether any follow-up analysis, review, or response to Commissioner, Council, or public comment might be necessary. The goal of this activity is to bolster the administrative record and to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that the environmental record and hearing materials are internally consistent.

ESA understands that the City intends, where feasible, to focus individual hearing discussions on particular technical topics to improve efficiency and to be respectful of cost considerations. The following scope and budget have been developed based on this understanding, with key subject matter experts in attendance based on the topic(s) scheduled.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Attend 11 workshops/hearings by a range of ESA staff, including an average of six staff per meeting; some meetings will have fewer staff and some meetings will have more staff, depending on needs. It is assumed that each in-person hearing would require 8 hours of staff time, inclusive of travel time. ➔ Prepare PowerPoint Presentations for the May 28 and June 11 workshops. ➔ Prepare “real time” responses to questions or comments raised during workshops or hearings, as needed to read into the record, and/or provide follow-up written responses.

Task 2. Prepare Hearing Binder
ESA will prepare a “hearing binder” that identifies likely questions that might be asked during workshops and hearings.

The purpose of the hearing binder is to allow the City and/or other presenters to quickly access key information that will likely be a subject of discussion, which will support the efficient provision of focused and accurate answers. The briefing binder will be organized by topic.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Hearing Binder (five hard copies), including an electronic copy.

ATTACHMENT 1

Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan Project: Contract Modification #5
3 June 9, 2026 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Task 3. Prepare Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
ESA will prepare the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Staff-recommended Specific Plan project. This work will address comments received from the City team and City Attorneys, coordination with the technical team as needed to confirm supporting evidence in the record, and updates necessary to reflect hearing outcomes and final project actions.

Findings of Fact
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091) require a public agency to make one or more written findings for each significant environmental effect, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding, if it intends to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified. Findings for Modified Alternative 1 (the Staff-Recommended Specific Plan) will be prepared for (1) Impacts Determined to Have No Impact; (2) Impacts Determined to Be Less than Significant; (3) Impacts to be Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; (4) Significant Unavoidable Impacts; and (5) Project Alternatives. This task includes an approximate 10 percent contingency to revise the Findings based on any project revisions proposed during the public hearing process. As an optional task, ESA could also prepare Findings for the BDI Specific Plan.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one of more significant effects on the environment unless the agency makes findings that “specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.” Accordingly, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, ESA will prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies the specific reasons to support its approval action based on the FEIR and/or other substantial evidence in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the project approval and will be mentioned in the notice of determination.

Deliverable(s)
➔ 1st Draft, 2nd Draft, and Final Findings of Fact for Modified Alternative 1, presuming initial review by Meyers Nave followed by City review, with preparation of a final document. ➔ 1st Draft, 2nd Draft, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Modified Alternative 1, presuming initial review by Meyers Nave followed by City review, with preparation of a final document. ➔ Preparation of a Final Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations presuming nominal changes resulting from the hearing process (up to a 10 percent contingency, capped by the total budget amount).

Task 4. Review Resolutions, Ordinances, and/or Other CityPrepared Discretionary Approval Documents ESA will review all resolutions, ordinances, and/or other City-Prepared discretionary approval documents prepared either by Meyers Nave and/or the City for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. The action documents are anticipated to address, but are not limited to, the following:
• Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element
• Amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element
• Approval of the Baylands Specific Plan, including a change of zone from Commercial Mixed-Use (C-1), Marsh Lagoon Bayfront (MLB), and Manufacturing (M-1) to Baylands Specific Plan ATTACHMENT 1

Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan Project: Contract Modification #5
4 June 9, 2026 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
• Amendment to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Brisbane Municipal Code to establish the Specific Plan as the regulatory authority for future development within the Specific Plan area • Approval of the Bayshore Mobility Plan
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of an agreement between the City of Brisbane and California Water Service Company (Cal Water) to provide water service for the Baylands, Sierra Point, and Beatty Subareas Deliverable(s)
➔ Review comments on up to four approval documents.

Task 5. Provide Review of a Specific Plan Errata Document for Planning Commission Consideration
ESA will review two rounds of a City-prepared errata document that will address minor clarifications or typographical changes to the Specific Plan that have been raised since publication of the document.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Review up to two versions of the City errata document to address minor clarifications or typographical changes to the Specific Plan for Planning Commission review at the June 25, 2026, public hearing (or a subsequent hearing).

Task 6. Attend Meetings with BDI with City staff
ESA will provide responses for written questions raised by BDI staff, which could include the preparation of overview slide decks and/or other preparation or follow-up activities. It is assumed this will require up to four meetings.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Provided responses to written questions raised by BDI staff, including preparation of overview slide decks and other preparation or follow-up activities for up to four meetings.

Task 7. Project Management and Coordination
This task includes internal ESA coordination; coordination with City staff, the City Attorney, the City’s environmental Attorney, and subconsultants; participation in internal preparation meetings; general oversight of the hearing support scope, budget, and schedule; and quality assurance/quality control for all written work products.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Ongoing coordination with ESA team, ESA subconsultants, City staff, City Attorney, and City environmental attorney. ➔ Participation in meetings (no formal notes anticipated), which include approximately two meetings a week for four months attended by up to three ESA staff members.
➔ Monthly invoicing and budget tracking updates.

Task 8. Direct Expenses Associated with Workshop and Hearing Attendance
To attend the workshops and hearings, various ESA staff members will need to travel from locations outside of the City of Brisbane, including other areas of Northern California and Southern California. Assumptions regarding workshop and hearing attendance are documented in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENT 1

Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan Project: Contract Modification #5
5 June 9, 2026 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Deliverable(s)
➔ ESA attendance at 11 workshops and public hearings.

Task 9. Word Processing and Production (April and May 2026) ESA has completed out-of-scope work associated with word processing a second Consolidated Final EIR and clean and redline versions of the Specific Plan resulting from changes that occurred between April and May 2026.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Preparation of a “final” Consolidated Final EIR and clean and redline versions of the City-Recommended Specific Plan for delivery to the City; the printers (for publication); and the State Clearinghouse.

Task 10. Reproduction (April and May 2026)
ESA’s vendor (Phoenix1) reproduced the Consolidated Final EIR and clean and redline versions of the Specific Plan, which was out-of-scope work (i.e., beyond the limited and remaining direct expense budget, which was only earmarked for the Draft EIR). In addition, another ESA vendor (BayPrint) mailed out the Notice of Public Hearing to a list of approximately 360 individuals, which included color copies, postage, and labor.

Refer to Appendix B for details regarding reproduction expenses.

Deliverable(s)
➔ Reproduction of a “final” Consolidated Final EIR and clean and redline versions of the City-Recommended Specific Plan for delivery to the City.
➔ Distribution (mailing) of approximately 360 Notices of Public Hearing.

Subconsulting Team Member Work Efforts

SITELAB
Refer to Appendix C for the complete scope of work and estimated budget.

Fehr & Peers
Refer to Appendix D for the complete scope of work and estimated budget.

Natalie Macris Editing
Refer to Appendix E for the complete scope of work and estimated budget (note, this modification only includes Task 1).

ATTACHMENT 1

Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan Project: Contract Modification #5
6 June 9, 2026 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Budget
Table 1, Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Draft EIR Contract Modification #5 Budget, provides a summary of the budget for each of the efforts described above. As previously noted, this budget will be used to continue the ESA’s team participation through to the end of the public workshop and hearing process.

Table 1. Brisbane Baylands Specific Plan Draft EIR Contract Modification #5 Budget

TASK BUDGET
Task 1. Hearing Preparation, Attendance, and Related Support $331,026.00 Task 2. Prepare Hearing Binder $26,736.00
Task 3. Prepare Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations $63,500.00 Task 4. Review Resolutions, Ordinance, and/or Other City-Prepared Discretionary Approval Documents
$8,328.00
Task 5. Provide Review of a Specific Plan Errata Document for Planning Commission Consideration
$26,720
Task 6. Attend Meetings with BDI and City Staff $31,694.00 Task 7. Project Management and Coordination $32,576.00
Task 8. Direct Expenses Associated with Hearing Attendance (with 15 percent ESA markup) – Travel
$61,240.00
Task 9. Word Processing and Production (April and May 2026) – out of scope related to preparation of the second set of a Consolidated FEIR and clean and redline Specific Plan documents
$6,816.00
Task 10. Direct Expenses Associated with Publication of the Consolidated FEIR and Specific Plan – out of scope (the scope of work only include budget for publication of the Draft EIR) (with 15 percent ESA markup)
$92,230.00
ESA Labor and Direct Expense Subtotal $680,866.00
ESA 5 percent Contingency (on Tasks 1 through 8) $29,091.00 ESA Labor + Contingency Total $709,957.00
SiteLab (with 15 percent ESA markup) $114,452.60
Fehr & Peers: Transportation (with 15 percent ESA markup) $115,000.00 Natalie Macris: Editing (Consistency of Specific Plan with EIR) (with 15 percent ESA markup) $4,415.00 Subconsultant Total $233,867.60
GRAND TOTAL (ESA and Subconsultants) $943,824.60
Schedule
ESA will complete the work efforts described herein in support of all efforts required towards consideration of project approval and Final EIR certification, which ultimately includes two public workshops (May 28, 2026, and June 11, 2026); four Planning Commission hearings (June 25, 2026; June 30, 2026; July 9, 2026; and July 14, 2026); and five City Council meetings (September 3, 2026; September 10, 2026; September 17, 2026; September 24, 2026; and October 1, 2026). This ATTACHMENT 1

Brisbane Baylands Specific
Plan Project: Contract Modification #5
7 June 9, 2026 Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
scope of work and budget goes through the last anticipated City Council meeting. If any revisions to documents are required during the workshop/hearing process, or after, it would be considered an out-of-scope item, but one we are happily willing to accommodate.

Conclusion
A separate scope of work and budget will be prepared for preparation and filing of the Notice of Determination, if the project is approved and the FEIR is certified, as well as any amendments or revisions that might be required to the Specific Plan or FEIR as a result of the workshop and hearing process.

ESA appreciates the opportunity to continue to work with the City team as we jointly move this project through the environmental and entitlement process.

Sincerely,
Terri S. Avila Susan Yogi
Vice President Senior Managing Associate
ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix A
Direct Expenses
Associated with Workshop
and Hearing Attendance
ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix B
Direct Expenses
Associated with Document
Reproduction (April and
May 2026)
ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix C

SITELAB
Scope of Work and
Estimated Budget
ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix D
Fehr & Peers
Scope of Work and
Estimated Budget
ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix E
Natalie Macris
Scope of Work and
Estimated Budget (only for
Task 1)
ATTACHMENT 1

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
Subject: Adopt Resolution calling a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 and Adopting
Regulations pertaining to the Conduct and
Administration of such Election including the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder to Provide Specified Election
Services
Recommendation
Adopt the attached Resolution calling a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, adopting procedures pertaining to the conduct and administration of such election including requesting the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder to provide specified elections services, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Service Agreement with San Mateo County Officials for election related services.

Background
The San Mateo County Elections Division will hold a General Election on November 3, 2026.

This election will be an All Mailed Ballot/Vote Center Election under the California Voter’s Choice Act. Every registered voter in Brisbane will receive through the mail a Vote by Mail ballot which may be returned by mail (postage prepaid) or dropped off at any Vote Center or Ballot Drop-off Box located throughout the County starting 28 days prior to Election Day.

Vote Centers replace traditional polling places and are open for voting starting 10 days prior to Election Day and on Election Day. Vote Centers provide expanded voter services such as voter registration, multilingual assistance, and disabled access voting options. Brisbane City Hall is scheduled to be a San Mateo County Voter Center and will be open three days prior to Election Day and on Election Day, i.e., October 31, November 1, 2, and 3, 2026.

Discussion
The attached resolution calls for an election to fill two City Council member terms currently held by Council members Davis and O’Connell, for a term of four years each. Citizens (including current members of the City Council) who are interested in running for City Council may pick up a nomination packet from the City Clerk between July 13 and August 7, 2026. If an incumbent chooses not to or fails to file the nomination paper during the filing period, the filing period will be extended to August 12, 2026. Nomination papers must include 20 to 30 signatures of Brisbane registered voters. There will also be some paperwork to file regarding campaign disclosures and disclosures of economic interests. Although there is no filing fee, there will be a cost to print a candidate’s statement in the voter pamphlet which is estimated

to be $300, to be paid after the election. (Candidate’s statements are optional.) San Mateo County has also requested the City enter into the attached Services Agreement for election related services. It sets forth with some specificity what services related to the November 2026 election the City will perform and what services the County election officials will perform. It also provides the City will reimburse the County for election related services the County provides. Based on past general municipal election costs, the City has budgeted $15,000 for this election.

Fiscal Impact
The cost to conduct the election is determined by the number of registered voters at the time of the election. The election cost is currently budgeted at $15,000 which was included in the City Clerk’s budget.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 Elections Resolution 2026-xx

2. Attachment 2 Elections Services Agreement
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
06/11/2026

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026; REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION; AND REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY

OF SAN MATEO
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, a regular general municipal election shall be held in Brisbane on the 3rd day of November 2026 for the purpose of electing two members of the City Council of Brisbane; and
WHEREAS, the November 3, 2026 election will be conducted as a General Election, i.e., an All-Mailed Ballot/Vote Center Election under the California Voter’s Choice Act (Senate Bill 450) by which every registered voter will be receiving a Vote by Mail Ballot through the mail and which ballot may be returned by mail or dropped off at any Vote Center or Ballot Drop-off Box located throughout the county during the 28-day period prior to the Election Day and on Election Day; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 620 on June 1, 2017, and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved the changes as in compliance with the California Voter Participation Rights Act (Senate Bill 415), which requires City Council elections be held in conjunction with statewide elections in even numbered years to increase voter participation; and WHEREAS, members of the Brisbane City Council are elected at large for a term of four years; and WHEREAS, the California Elections Code authorizes the governing body of any local agency to adopt procedures pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City General Municipal Election will appear on the same ballot as the statewide general election held on November 3, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code section 10002 authorizes the City to request the County to provide election services, subject to reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that consolidating the General Municipal Election with the statewide general election serves the public interest.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brisbane, San Mateo County, California, as follows:

1. Call of Election. The City Council calls a General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Brisbane (“City”) on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, to elect two members to the City Council, at large, each to a four-year term, commencing in December 2026 and expiring in December 2030.

The office shall appear on the ballot in the form set by the San Mateo County (“County”) Chief Elections Officer, and shall be conducted as a General Municipal District Election pursuant to the California Voter’s Choice Act.

2. Candidate Statements. Pursuant to the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate may submit a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. Such statement shall be limited to 400 words. Each candidate who submits a statement shall pay the actual prorated costs of printing, handling, translating and distributing the statement. The City will provide a bill to each candidate after the election; the bill shall be due and payable immediately upon receipt.

3. Conduct of the Election. The consolidated election shall be conducted, the votes thereof canvassed, the returns thereof made, and the results thereof ascertained and determined as provided by relevant provisions of the Elections Code and this resolution.

4. Request for Election Services and Reimbursement. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to authorize the Registrar of Voters and any other relevant officials and staff of the County to provide services necessary to conduct the election.

The City Council accepts the usual terms and conditions of the performance of said election services by the County. The City will reimburse the County for the cost of services provided in relation to the election, pursuant to an agreement between the City and County for such services.

5. Services Provided by the County. The All Mail and Vote Center coordination and officers of election shall be established, designated, and appointed as usual by the Registrar of Voters, San Mateo County, who shall also canvass the returns and prepare and mail a statement of the results thereof, all as provided by the appropriate provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California. The Registrar of Voters of San Mateo County shall be responsible for procuring the rosters and all other supplies necessary to properly and lawfully conduct the Election.

6. Voting Procedures. All qualified voters residing within the City of Brisbane, upon the date of the election, shall be qualified to vote at said Election and allowed to drop off their mail-in ballot during the 28-day period prior to Election Day and on Election Day, or cast their vote in-person at a Vote Center within the County starting 10 days prior to the election.

8. Voting Hours and Location. The Vote Center in Brisbane at City Hall shall be kept open from 9:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. on October 31, November 1 and 2 and at 7:00 a.m. on Election DayNovember 3, and shall be kept open until 8:00 p.m., except as to voters in line as provided in the Elections Code.

9. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to Elections Code sections 10400 and 10403, the City Council requests the County Board of Supervisors consolidate the City’s general municipal election with the statewide general election to be held on November 3, 2026.

10. Notice. The City Clerk will post notice of the election pursuant to Elections Code section 12101.

11. Filing. The city clerk is hereby directed to submit a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, and to the appropriate County election officials of San Mateo. The city clerk is also directed to file a copy of the resolution with the San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer and Assessor-County ClerkRecorder.

12. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption. ________________________
Coleen Mackin
Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-XX was duly and regularly adopted at the regular meeting of the Brisbane City Council on June 18, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN
___________________________
Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 2

SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTION SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF AND

SAN MATEO COUNTY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER & ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER This Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services (“Agreement”), entered into this _______ day of _______________, 20___, is by and between the City of (the “Municipality”) and San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor – County Clerk – Recorder (the “Chief Elections Officer”);
WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that the Chief Elections Officer be retained for the purpose of conducting an election, described in more detail below, for the Municipality; and WHEREAS, the Chief Elections Officer has been asked by the Municipality to conduct an election on , 20___ (the “Election”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE MUNICIPALITY:
1) Within the time frame set by statute, the Municipality will request the Board of Supervisors, through the Chief Elections Officer, to conduct an election relating to the Municipality on , 20___ and will request the services of the Chief Elections Officer in relation to the Election.
2) The Municipality will timely publish the Notice of Election and the Notice to File Declarations of Candidacy for the offices to be voted on and/or the Notice to File Arguments For or Against any measure.
3) The Municipality will submit to the Chief Elections Officer the offices to be voted on and the measure ballot questions by no later than 88 days prior to the Election. The Municipality will submit to the Chief Elections Officer the names and ballot destinations of the candidates to appear upon the ballot by no later than 81 days prior to the Election. 4) The Municipality will timely prepare and deliver to the Chief Elections Officer the ballot pamphlet information containing, as applicable, candidate designations and statements, ballot measure(s), tax rate statement(s), impartial analyses, arguments for or against measures and rebuttals thereto.

5) The Municipality will, if applicable, timely review and sign off on the official ballot wording for ballot measures.
6) The Municipality will timely complete any other non-delegable tasks required by law in relation to the Election.
7) The Municipality shall maintain records/maps regarding the boundaries of the Municipality and will notify the Chief Elections Officer of any changes/additions to those boundaries by 125 days prior to the Election.
8) If a candidate for a Municipality office alleges to be indigent and unable to pay in advance the requisite fee for submitting a candidate statement, the Municipality, as the applicable local agency, shall be solely responsible for determining whether the candidate is indigent pursuant to Elections Code section 13309. The Municipality shall notify the candidate, and inform the Chief Elections Officer, of the Municipality’s indigency determination, in writing, by no later than 64 days prior to the Election. If the Municipality determines that a candidate is indigent such that the candidate is eligible for an advanced candidate statement fee waiver under Elections Code section 13309, or if the Municipality fails to advise the Chief Elections Officer of its indigency determination by the specified deadline, then the Municipality shall be responsible for paying the candidate’s pro rata share of the cost of the candidate statement, which will be invoiced in accordance with the “Costs for Services” section of this agreement. Municipality’s payment of a candidate’s pro rata share of the cost of the candidate statement is without prejudice to the Municipality’s ability to recover such costs directly from the candidate after the election, as authorized by Elections Code section 13309(f).

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER:
1) The Chief Elections Officer will select the sample and official ballot printer(s) and translators.
2) The Chief Elections Officer will prepare and deliver all election information to the printers and translators.
3) The Chief Elections Officer will determine the appropriate translation and transliteration of all pertinent documents.
4) The Chief Elections Officer will issue, receive and process vote by mail ballots. 5) The Chief Elections Officer will set up ADA compliant Vote Centers, publish any required notices and conduct the Election.
6) The Chief Elections Officer will provide services for any official recount or election contest, if applicable.

7) The Chief Elections Officer will conduct all aspects of the Canvass of Votes Cast. Pursuant to Section 10262 of the Elections Code, the Chief Elections Officer will submit a Certificate of Chief Elections Officer to the Municipality’s governing body certifying the results of the Election. 8) The Chief Elections Officer will conduct other various and miscellaneous election-related activities directly required to conduct the Election itself. To the extent that the Municipality has obligations under law to perform various duties that relate to the Election beyond those directly involved with conducting the Election, those duties remain the responsibility of the Municipality.

If the Municipality wishes to have any such duties performed by the Chief Elections Officer, the parties must mutually agree in advance in writing to have the Chief Elections Officer perform such duties. By way of example only, if the Municipality is required to send certain notices or adopt resolutions relating to the Election, those duties remain duties of the Municipality.

INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE OF CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Municipality shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the County), and hold harmless the County of San Mateo, the Chief Elections Officer & Assessor–County Clerk–Recorder, and their respective officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “County Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, actions, proceedings, writ petitions, lawsuits, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, arising out of or relating to:
(a) any challenge to the legality, validity, or enforceability of any Municipality ballot measure, tax measure, or proposition;
(b) any challenge to the qualification, nomination, eligibility, or election of any candidate for office; or
(c) any act or omission of the Municipality, its governing board, officers, employees, or agents in connection with the calling, preparation, submission, or approval of materials for the Election, except to the extent such claim is finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the Chief Elections Officer.

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST; INTERVENTION
In any action or proceeding described above in which the Chief Elections Officer or County Indemnitees are named as a respondent or defendant, the Municipality acknowledges that it is the real party in interest and agrees, upon request of the County, to promptly appear, intervene, or otherwise participate in such action as the real party in interest, and to assume responsibility for the defense of the Chief Elections Officer.

SURVIVAL
The provisions of this section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement and the completion of the Election.

TERMS:

This Agreement shall be in effect for the performance of all services incident to the preparation and conduct of the Election to be held on , 20___, including before and after said Election date.

In the event the Chief Elections Officer is unable to perform services required under this Agreement as a result of employer/employee relation conditions, vendor conditions, the unavailability of Federal, State, or County funds, and/or other conditions beyond the control of the Chief Elections Officer, the Chief Elections Officer will be relieved of all obligations under this Agreement. The Chief Elections Officer may terminate this Agreement after giving 72 hours written notice, at which time the Chief Elections Officer will be relieved of all obligations under this Agreement.

This Agreement can be terminated by the Municipality upon 30 days written notice.

COST FOR SERVICES
In consideration of the performance of services and supplies provided by the Chief Elections Officer, including 1) any and all costs incurred during a recount or election contest that are not reimbursed by the voter requesting the recount or filing the contest as specified in the Elections Code and 2) any other costs associated with the Election, such as return postage costs and costs for ensuring voter accessibility, the Municipality shall pay to the Chief Elections Officer a sum equal to the full cost of the Election, including all such services, supplies, and other costs.

The Chief Elections Officer shall send an itemized invoice to the Municipality for all services provided pursuant to this Agreement after the Election is conducted and all related costs are determined. Payment on the full amount of the invoice shall be due and the Municipality shall submit payment to the County of San Mateo within forty-five (45) days of the date of the invoice (the “Due Date”). If the amount is not paid in full within this time, interest shall accrue monthly at a rate of 0.25% per month (equivalent to 3% annually) on the unpaid balance starting at the Due Date. Thereafter, invoices will be sent and shall be payable within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice, with interest being added each month for any unpaid balance. The provisions of this section shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement and the completion of the Election.

MUNICIPALITY
Signature: _____________________________________ Date:_____________ Print Name: _____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________

COUNTY
Signature: _____________________________________ Date: _____________ Print Name: _____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Julia Ayres, Community Development Director
Subject: Authorize City Manager to Sign Renewal and
Amendment to the Cooperation Agreement with the
San Mateo County Urban County Program in order to
access Community Development Block Grant Funds
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to the September 2017 Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Mateo Urban County Program in order to access future Community Development Block Grant Funds.

Background
In September 2017, San Mateo County and the City of Brisbane entered into a Cooperation Agreement (Resolution No. 2017-46; see Attachment 1) whereby the City, a public entity which would not be eligible for federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on its own, could cooperate and participate in the San Mateo County Urban County Program in order to secure and award CDBG funding. Benefits of participation include eligibility to apply for CDBG funds through the Urban County’s annual CDBG funding cycle as well as participation in the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs since the Urban County is a member of the San Mateo County HOME Consortium.

The 2017 Cooperation Agreement between the City and County establishes the formal relationship between the City and County for this purpose. The Agreement provides for automatic renewals every three years unless an amendment to the Agreement is required. The County notified the City in May 2026 that an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement is required for the upcoming funding program cycle.

Discussion
The required amendment to the Cooperation Agreement is attached as Attachment 2. It does not substantially alter the City's existing obligations under the original 2017 Agreement. The primary difference is a procedural one, in that renewals will not be automatic every three years; only one automatic three year renewal is now allowed by HUD and all subsequent renewals will require future amendments to the Agreement and action by Council.

Fiscal Impact
Continued participation in the Urban County would allow the City to access Federal funds it may not otherwise be eligible for.

Attachments

1. 2017 Cooperative Agreement as amended

2. Second Amendment to 2017 Cooperative Agreement
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City
Manager
06/12/2026

County of San Mateo ~ Minor Cooperative Agreement Amendment Coopera11on Agreement dated September 20, 2017 Amendment Number: 1 (First) Agreement between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and the CITY OF BRISBANE THE AGREEI\IIENT IS CHANGED AS FOLLOWS
I. Section 2 (Term), Paragraph 11s hereby D added 1:81 amended as follows:

Adds the following emboldened, Italicized phrase:
"As provided by HUD rules and regulations, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for participation in successive three-year qualification period, unless County or City provides written notice to the County with a copy to the HUD Field Office by the date specified In the urban county qualiflcationschedule electing not to participate ln the new qualification period ... "
II. Section 3a (County's Responsibilities as Applicant), Paragraph 1 is h ereby D added 181 amended as follows:

Adds the following emboldened, italicized phrase:
"County, as cjpplicant, has ultimate responsibility for executing the housing and community development programs on behalf of the Urban County, following its Consolidated Plan, which provides for an analysis of housing and non-housing community development needs of the geographic area, and meeting the requirements of other applicable laws, including but not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Uniform Relocation Act, the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 197 4, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part B, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.'' Ill. Section 3a (County's Responslbllltles as Applicant), Paragraph 41s h i:reby D added 181 amended as follows:

Adds the following emboldened1 italicized phrase:
"Therefore, County requires City, and City agrees to cooperate to undertake, or assist In undertaking, community renewal and lower-income housing assistance activities, strictly adhere t o the Consolidated Plan as approved and to all assurances and certifications provided to HUD, including taking all actions necessary to comply with the Urban County's certifications under Section 104(b) ofTitle I of t he Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 1, the Fair Housing Act, and Implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 100 and will affirmatively further fair housing. All parties to the Cooperation Agreement must comply with 24 CFR § 91.225(a) and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housillg Definitions and Certifications (86 FR 30779, June 10, 2021), to be codified at 24 CFR 5,151 and 5.152, available at https://www.Jederalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021~12114/restori11g-affirmatlvelyfurtherlng-fairhousin{J-de/inltions-and-certif/cations and to comply with section 109 of Title l of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 6, which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of-1973 and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 35, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. County requires City, and City agrees to comply with all other applicable laws." ATTACHMENT 1

IV. Section Sa (County's Responslblllty to City) fs hereby O added 181 amended as follows:

Adds the followlng emboldened, Italicized phrase:
"County shall, In preparing Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and any relevant future plans ("plann) under the Act, solicit to the extent allowed by the Act and all lawful HUD regulations, City's participation In the development of such future plans which refer to City's activities under the Act. County w/11 sign the assurances and certificates In the HUD 424-8."
Otherchanges:None
This change Is effective as of: July 1, 2024
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT REMAIN UNCHANGED. 6/:;/tii?
Signature
(City Manager)
Requester Signature
County of San Mateo
Date Name (pl~se print)
Requester Name (please print)
County of San Mateo
Requestor Title (please print)
I hereby certify that the requested changes are required per the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Department Head Signature
Director of Housing
County of San Mateo
7/12/23
Date
Raymond Hodges
Department Head
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION No. 2017-46

CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BRISBANE, STATB OF CALIFORNIA

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATION AGREEMENTS

WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION ON THE COUNTY'S HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing a Cooperative agreement with San Mateo County to secure and award federal funds through the process of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) to eligible public entities; and WHEREAS, public entities that do not otherwise come within the definition of an eligible public agency may cooperate and participate with an eligible public entity such as an urban county; and WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo has heretofore qualified as an urban county under the Act, the County again solicits the cooperation and co-participation of public entities such as City in its application for federal assistance under the Act for the Federal Fiscal Years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and subsequent three-year periods thereafter; and
WHEREAS, a Cooperation Agreement by and between City and County establishes the formal relationship to cooperate and co-participate and is specifically authorized under the provisions of Government Code Section 6502 and 26227; and
WHEREAS, City has previously, by an official act of pronouncement expressed its intent and desire to cooperate and participate with County in its plan application and to engage in housing and community development activities within Us in.oorporated limits thereunder; and WHEREAS, City understands that in becoming part ofth.e Urban County, City automatically participates in the HbME and ESG Programs, which provide eligible local jurisdictions with federal funds for affordable housing activities; and
NOW THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Brisbane that the City Council hereby authorizes a Cooperation Agreement with San Mateo County to award Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) to eligible public entities; and
BE IT FURTHER RBSOL VED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute documents necessary to effectuate the Cooperation Agreement with San Mateo County. c4/. j ;(; __ ~ - Lori S. Liu, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1

I hereby cez:tify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2017-46 was duly and regularly adopted at the meeting of the Brisbane City Council on September 7, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Conway, Davis, Lentz, O'Connell and Mayor Liu NOES: None
ABSENT: None
! - :

I
i
I
. 1
ATTACHMENT 1

COOPERATION AGREEMENT
This Cooperation Agreement (the '
1 Agreement"), entered into this gth day of September 2017, between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County""}, and the CITY OF BRISBANE, a duly incorporated City within the County of San Mateo ("City").

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the "Act"), provides for the distribution of federal funds through the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program to eligible public entities; and
WHEREAS, those public entities which are eligible to receive said federal funds are cjties with a population more than 50,000, "hold harmless" public entities, and urban counties; and WHEREAS, public entities that do not otherwise come within the definition of an eligible public entity may cooperate a11d participate with an eligible public entity such as an Urban County; and WHEREAS, since County has heretofore qualified as an "Urban County" under the Act, County again solicits the cooperation and co-participation of public entities such as City in its application for federal assistance under the Act for the Federal Fiscal Years of 2018, 2019 and 2020 and subsequent three-year periods thereafter; and
WHEREAS, City, having a population ofless than 50,000, desires to cooperate and co-participate with County in this venture; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement by and between City and County establishes the formal relationship to cooperate and co-participate and is specifically authorized under the provisions of California Government Code sections 6502 and 26227; and
\VI-IEREAS, County has received a communication from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), regarding additional language which must be included in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement with this additional language must be executed by the pa1iies and submitted to HUD by September 21, 2017; and
Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

WHEREAS, City has previously, by an official act of pronouncement, expressed its intent and desire to jointly partic!pate in the housing and community development programs of the Urban County and to submit a joint application to establish or re-establish the Urban County for the fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and subsequent three-year periods thereafter, as designated under Government Code Sections 6502 and 26227 as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and l)rban Development; and
WHEREAS, City understands that in becoming part of the Urban County, City automatically participates in the HOME Investment Partnership ("HOME") Program and the Emergency Solutions Grant ("ESG') Program, which provide eligible local jurisdictions with federal funds for housing and community development activities; and •
WHEREAS, City now desires to enter into this Agreement with County so that it may qualify, under applicable provisions of the Act and HUD regulations, as co-participant with County in eligible activities under the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Purpose:

County and City agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing; economic development, neighborhood facilities, housing rehabilitation, and other appropriate housing assistance to primarily benefit lower and moderate income people. This Agreement includes participation in the CDBG, HOME and ESG Programs.

2. Term:

The term of this Agreement shall be for the Federal Fiscal Years of 2018, 2019 and 2020, after which the term shall be automatically renewed unless action is taken by the City to tenninate this Agreement. As provided by HUD rules and regulations, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for participation in successive three-year qualification periods, unless County or City provides written notice electing not to participate in a new qualification period, provided however, that this Agreement shall remain in effect until CDBG, HOME and ESG funds and income received with respect to the three-year qualification period are expended and the funded activities are completed. County and City cannot terminate or withdraw from this Agreement white the Agreement remains in effect.

By the date specified in HUD's Urban County Qualification Notice CPD- 17-03, and for a subsequent qualification period of three years, County will notify City in writing of its right not to participate. Should there be changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsegl1ent three-year Urban County qualification period, amendment(s) to this Agreement shall be executed between County and City and then submitted to HUD. Failure to do so will void the automatic renewal of such qualification period.

3. County's Responsibilities as Applicant:

Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

a. County, as applicant, has ultimate responsibility for executing the housing and community development programs on behalf of the Urban County, following its Consolidated Plan, which provides for an analysis of housing and non-housing community development needs of the geographic area, and meeting the requirements of other applicable laws, including but not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Uniform Relocation Act, the Fair Housing Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

County is the lead agent for carrying out the Urban County CDBG Program and the ESG Program. The Urban County, as a CDBG entitlemenljurisdiction, is qualified to receive its own allocation of federal HOwfE fonds. However, to increase HOME funding access to County overall, County has formed the San Mateo County HOME Consortium, of which the Urban County is a member.

County is also the lead agent for the HOME Consortium. The HOME Consortium is technically responsible for preparing and submitting to HUD the Consolidated Plan, which covers the geographic area of the Consortium. The Urban County is responsible for submitting its own non-housing community development plan, an Action Plan, and required certificatioµs as part of the Consortium's Consolidated Plan. As lead agent for the Urban County and the HOME Consortium, County is responsible for coordinating all activities necessary to prepare and submit a five-year Consolidated Plan on behalf of the Urban County, including providing assw·ances or certifications to HUD.

Therefore, County requires City, and City agrees to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower-income housing assistance activities, strictly adhere to the Consolidated Plan as approved and to all assurances and certifications provided to HUD, including taking all actions necessary to comply with the.Urban County's certifications under Section 104(b) of Title I of the Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and affirmatively fmther fair housing. All parties to the Cooperation Agreement must comply with 24 CFR § 91 .225(a) and to comply with section 109 of Title 1 of the Housing and Community D evelopment Act of 1974, which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. County requires City, and City agrees to comply with all other applicable laws.

This Agreement shall also prohibit the Urban County from funding activities in or in support of, any cooperating unit or general local government that does not affirmatively fmiher fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes County's actions to comply with its· own fair housing certification. This provision is required because noncompliance by a unit of general local government included in an urban county may constitute noncompliance by the grantee (i.e. the Urban County) that may, in turn, provide cause for funding sanctions or other remedial actions by HUD.

County shall not provide CDBG, HO:ME or ESG funds for activities in, or in supp01t of City that does not affirmatively further fair houstng within its own jurisdiction or for activities that impede County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification. In addition, County and City are responsible for taking all required actions to comply with Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. b. Further, pursuant to 24 CFR § 570.S0l(b), County, as appli cant, has the responsibility for ensuring that CDBG, HOME and ESG funds are used in accordance with aU program requirements, determining the adequacy of performance under agreements and procurement contracts, and taking appropriate action when performance problems arise.

Therefore, before disbursing any CDBG, HOME or ESG funds to City or projects in City, County will require City, and City agrees to enter into a written agreement for each individual project.
c. City may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any po1tion of CDBG funds to another such metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular·area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds on exchange for any other funds, credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. This requirement applies to the qualification and requalification of an Urban County and is contained in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2014 Pub. L 113-76.

4. City Subject to Same Requirements as Subrecipients:

Pursuant to 24 CFR § 570.50l(b), City is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement set forth in 24 CFR § 570.503. As applicant, County has the responsibility for ensuring that CDBG, HOME and ESG funds are used in accordance with all program requirements, determining the adequacy of performance under agreements and proctu'ement contracts, and taking appropriate action when performance problems arise. Therefore, before disbursing any CDBG, HOME or ESG funds to City or projects in City, County will require City, and City agrees to enter into a written agreement for each individua'. project.

5. City's Adoption and Enforcement of Policies:
a. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
b. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions.

6. City Eligibilitv for CDBG, HOME and ESG Funding
By executing this Agreement, the City understands that it a. May not apply for grants from approptfations w1der the Small Cities or State CDBG Programs for fiscal years during the period in which it parlicipates in the Urban County's CDBG Program;
b. May participate in HOME Program only through the Urban County. Thus, even if the Urban County does not receive a HOME formula allocation, City cannot form a HOME Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

Consortium with other local governments; and
c. May receive a formula allocation under the ESQ Program only through the Urban County, although this does not preclude the urban county or a unit of government participating with the urban county from applying to the State for ESG funds, if the State allows.

7. Affirmative Action:

Under County's ultimate supervision and responsibility, City covenants and agrees that it will abide by and enforce all applicable affirmative action requirements including, but not limited to Executive Order No. 11246, the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, the San Mateo County Affirmative Action Plan and local affirmative action plans.

8. County's Responsibility to City:

In addition to .the foregoing obligations:
a. County shall, in preparing Consolidated Plans, Annual Action Plans, and any relevant future plans ("plan") under the Act, solicit to the extent allowed by the Act and all lawful HUD regulations, City's participation in the development of such future plans which refer to City's activities under the Act.
b. In accordance with instructions from HUD, County agrees to permit City to cany out the essential community development and housing assistance activities provided for in the application and.in future Consolidated and/or Annual Action Plans. c. County agrees to distribute funding it receives from its current Annual Action Plan and in future Consolidated and/or Annual Action Plans, in accordance with the terms and provisions therein contained, or in accordance with such terms and conditions as required by the Act or HUD. -

9. City's Responsibilities to County.

In addition to the foregoing obligations:
a. City agrees to expend any funds received by virtue of any of the Urban County's plans only in accordance with the terms and conditions stated therein, or as amended by HUD. b. City agrees to cooperate with the Urban County, as it has heretofore, with the development of current and future Consolidated Plans for the Urban County in which housing and cofomunity development activities are funded by COBO, HONIE and/or ESG to be continued or undertaken by City within its boundaries are included.

10. Program Income.
a. City must inform County of any income generated by the expenditure ofCDBG, HOME or ESG funds received by City.
b. Any such program income must be paid to County, or City may retain the progran1 income subject to requirements set forth in this Agreement.

Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

c. Any program income City is authorized to retain may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG, HOME or ESG requirements as may then apply. d. County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such.program income, and County shall require appropriate recordkeeping and reporting by City as may be needed for this purpose.
e. In the event of close-ant or change in status of City, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to County.

11. Acquisition, Change in Use, and Disposition of Real Property Acquired or Improved with CDBG Funds:

If at any time after CDBG funds are allocated, in whole or in part, for the acquisition or improvement of real property, which is within the control of City, and ifthere is a change in the proposed use of said property, including disposition, City shall notify County of the proposed change. City shall reimburse County in an amow1t equal to the current fair market value (less any po1tion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations at any time prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of this Agreement between County and City.

12. Headings:

The headings in this document are merely for the convenience of the parties, and do not form a material part of this document. Headings shall not be considered in the construction of this document.

13. Minor Amendments to the Agreement.

Notwithstanding paragt·aph 2 above, should it become necessary to change the language of this Agreement to meet HUD approval, without making major changes and without altering the intent of the Agreement, such changes may be made administratively by City Manager of City.

Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

All remaining provisions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the term provided herein.

IN vVIThTESS WHEREOF> the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
ATTEST:

Clerk of Sai
~

CITY OF BRISBANE
ATTEST: }fl t4{ 1J,,;tJJl_J
Ingrid Padilla, ~ of Brisbane City Clerk
Certificate of Delivery
(Government Code Section 25103)
I certify that a copy of the original document filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County has been delivered to the President of the Board of 1 ,,,_),,,..--·J /./~/ Supervisors.
// ./ / / ' ~
/
/ ~ - ;- • / /
~ «1,.;;: .. \ ?L~ ..__.- '-- • y
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Revised 08.23.17
ATTACHMENT 1

County of San Mateo Cooperative Agreement Amendment
Cooperation Agreement dated September 20, 2017 Amendment Number: 2 (Second) Cooperation Agreement Amendment #1 dated July 2023
Agreement between the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and the CITY OF BRISBANE

THE AGREEMENT IS CHANGED AS FOLLOWS
I. Witnesseth Section is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Adds the following emboldened, italicized phrase:

WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo has heretofore qualified as an urban county under the Act, the County again solicits the cooperation and co-participation of public entities such as the City in its application for federal assistance under the Act for Federal Fiscal Years 2027, 2028 and 2029 and one subsequent three-year period thereafter; and
II. Witnesseth Section is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Adds the following as a new Whereas provision:

WHEREAS, the City Executive of the City is authorized to execute this Amendment on the City’s behalf, and the County Executive is authorized to execute this Amendment on the County’s behalf.

III. Section 1 (Purpose) is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Replaces the first sentence with the following emboldened, italicized phrase:
“The County and City agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities in and for the benefit of the City, as approved or authorized between the parties in the CDBG Agreements, including the Consolidated Plan. This Agreement includes...” IV. Section 2 (Term), 1 is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Amends and restates the first paragraph in its entirety as follows:
“This Agreement shall remain in effect for the three-year program period of Federal Fiscal Years 2027, 2028 and 2029, and until funds granted and program income received during the three-year program period are expended and the funded activities completed. Neither the County nor the Municipality may terminate, withdraw, or be removed from the program during the three-year program period. The Agreement will renew automatically for participation in one successive three-year Urban County qualification period (Federal Fiscal Years 2030, 2031, and 2032), unless the Municipality or the County provide written notice to the other party that it elects not to participate in a new qualification period. The terminating party shall send a copy of the notice of termination to the HUD field office by the date specified on the HUD Exchange Urban Counties website. The County will notify the Municipality in writing of the Municipality’s right to make this election. A copy of the County’s notification must be sent to the HUD field office by the date specified on the HUD Exchange Urban Counties website.” ATTACHMENT 2

V. Section 3 (County’s Responsibilities as Applicant) is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Amends and restates Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Subsection a. in their entirety as follows:
“Therefore, the County and City agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities in and for the benefit of the City, as approved or authorized between the parties in the CDBG Agreements, including the Consolidated Plan. The County and City will also strictly adhere to the Consolidated Plan as approved and to all assurances and certifications provided to HUD, including taking all actions necessary to comply with the Urban County’s certifications under Section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, that the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 1; and • the Fair Housing Act, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 100 and will comply with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing; and
• Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 6, which incorporates: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the • implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 8; and
• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1974, and the implementing regulations at 28 CFR Part 35; and
• the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 146; and • Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968; and • Uniform Relocation and Real Property Policies Act of 1970 and the implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24; and
• Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; and
• all other applicable laws and regulations.

The Parties acknowledge that the Urban County is a plaintiff in King County et al. v. Turner et al., 2:25-cv-00814- BJR (W.D. Wash.) and through this litigation has obtained a Preliminary Injunction against HUD. To the extent that this Agreement purports to impose terms or conditions that are enjoined pursuant to that Preliminary Injunction, the Urban County is not bound to those enjoined terms or conditions.

The Parties agree that Urban County funding in no event will be used for activities in, or in support of, any cooperating unit of general local government that impedes the County’s actions to comply with the County’s fair housing certification and duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This provision is required because noncompliance by a unit of general local government included in an urban county may constitute noncompliance by the grantee (i.e. the Urban County) that can, in turn, provide cause for funding sanctions or other remedial actions by the Department.”
VI. Section 3 (County’s Responsibilities as Applicant), is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Amends and restates Subsection c. in its entirety as follows:
“Parties to this Agreement understand and agree that they may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of CDBG funds to a Metropolitan City, Urban County, unit of general local government, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any funds, credits, or nonFederal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.”
ATTACHMENT 2

VII. Section 5 is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Adds the following italicized and underlined language:

The City and County has each adopted and is enforcing:
a. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civilrightsdemonstrations; b. A policy ofenforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exitfrom a facility or location which is the subject ofsuch non-violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions.

VIII. Section 8 (County’s Responsibility to City), is hereby ☒ added ☐ amended as follows:

Adds the following new Subsection d.:
“d. The Urban County agrees that the CDBG funds that the Municipality is entitled to will be utilized to benefit the Municipality.”
IX. Section 10 (Program Income) is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows:

Amends and restates Subsection e. in its entirety as follows:
“e. The County and Municipality shall not terminate or withdraw from the Agreement while it remains in effect.

The County may transfer the program income to the Metropolitan City, upon its termination of Urban County participation, provided that the Municipality begins participating as an independent CDBG Entitlement grantee and agrees to use the program income in its own CDBG Entitlement program.” X. Section 13 (Minor Amendments to the Agreement) is hereby ☐ added ☒ amended as follows Amends and restates Section 13 in its entirety as follows:

13. Amendments to the Agreement.
“The Parties agree to adopt amendment(s) to this Agreement as may be required by HUD to meet any new Urban County Qualification requirement(s), when applicable. Failure by either Party to adopt any such amendment, and to submit such amendment to HUD, will void the Agreement for such qualification period.” Other changes: None
I hereby certify that the requested changes are required per the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
________ June 4, 2026_____ Karen Coppock___________
Requestor Signature Date Requestor Name (please print)
County of San Mateo County of San Mateo
HCD Supervisor_____________
Requestor Title (please print)
ATTACHMENT 2

This change is effective as of: July 1, 2027
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT REMAIN UNCHANGED.

In witness of and in agreement with this Amendment’s terms, the Parties, by their duly authorized representatives, affix their respective signatures:

For City:
___________________________ ___________________ __________________________________ Signature Date Name (please print)
(City Manager)
For County:
____________________________ ____________________ _________ ______________________ Signature Date Name (please print)
(County Executive)
ATTACHMENT 2

4906-1443-8068 v1
City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 18, 2026
From: Carolina Yuen, Finance Director
Subject: Consider Adoption and Acceptance of the Master Fee Study and Adoption of Resolution Amending
the Master Fee Schedule to Update and Adopt New
Fees and Charges for Services Rendered by Various
City Departments pursuant to Section

3.32.040 of the Brisbane Municipal Code
Recommendation
Staff recommend the City Council adopt the Master Fee Study and adopt a Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule.

Background
During the review of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25, Council directed staff to conduct a Master Fee Study to review the existing Master Fee Schedule and determine subsidy ratios, service costs, market trends, compliance and whether the City is optimizing the methods available to assess service fees. Given at the time, budgeted operating expenses exceeded the City’s budgeted revenues, the City wanted to review its revenue streams to explore additional opportunities for growth or restructuring. The last study was conducted in 2002.

Discussion
Under the California Constitution, Proposition 218, and the California Code of Regulations, user fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which they are levied, unless placed on the ballot as a measure and approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. This is to ensure that fees are fair, transparent, and directly connected to the actual cost of the service being provided.

Staff engaged Matrix Consulting Group (“Matrix”) to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study (“Study”). The general purpose of the Study was to document the costs associated with feebased city services. The Study would also identify services currently provided for, propose new fees, and compare the City’s fees to neighboring jurisdictions’ fees. The basic steps of the study and project included:

4906-1443-8068 v1

1.Review existing fees and services

2.Establish time estimates and service level assumptions

3.Calculate the fully burdened hourly rates

4.Conduct jurisdictional comparison

5.Develop fee recommendations and Master Fee Schedule
After several meetings with staff and analysis of the data, Matrix completed the Study and assisted City Staff with the preparation of the proposed Master Fee Schedule to present to City Council and stakeholders. The Study made many recommendations; some of those recommendations are:
• Increase certain fees to reflect the full cost of providing the service. • Not implementing the full cost recovery for certain fees primarily due to competitive pricing of neighboring jurisdictions.
• Increase some Parks and Recreation and Marina fees to reflect market value. • Reorganize the Master Fee Schedule for clarity and ease of reference. • There were several feesthat were higher than service cost or higher than regulation and needed to be reduced.
• Continue using the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area (“CPI”) for annual adjustment determinations.

On May 21, 2026, Staff brought the Master Fee Study results to Council for a general review of the Study and the proposed Master Fee Schedule. No action was taken, but staff was directed to proceed with a public hearing.

A public hearing is required to adopt new or adjusted fees. Staff requests the Council accept and adopt the Master Fee Study and adopt the resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule to implement fees as proposed.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting and adopting this Master Fee Study and Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule.

Attachments

1. FY26 Brisbane Master Fee Study Report 120925

2. Resolution Adopting the Master Fee Study and Master Fee Schedule

3. Exhibit A Brisbane Master Fee Schedule

4906-1443-8068 v1
City Manager Approval
Jeremy Dennis, City Manager

BRISBANE, CA

COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE

STUDY REPORT
DECEMBER 2025
Attachment 1

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4
USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 7
RESULTS OVERVIEW 9
BUILDING 10
FINANCE 17
FIRE 19
MARINA 24
PARKS AND RECREATION 25
PLANNING 28
POLICE 34
PUBLIC WORKS 36
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES 40
COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS 43
APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Comprehensive User Fee study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Brisbane, California.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Brisbane has not conducted a formal fee analysis since 2002, which is approximately 13 years ago. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of city services. The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Building, Finance, Fire, Marina, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police, and Public Works. The results of this study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed by Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing 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, clerical, and Citywide support.

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 for that service is charged. The work accomplished by Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps:
• Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department/program staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items or for addition of new fee items.
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit/service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2025-26 were entered into Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.
• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
• Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results.

A more detailed description of user fee methodology and legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
When comparing fee-related revenue with the calculated total annual cost, the City is under-recovering its development fee-related costs by approximately $292,000 or recovering 70% of its costs. The following table shows the revenue collected, the total annual cost, the resulting difference, and the resulting cost recovery percentage by major fee-related division.

TABLE 2: ANNUAL COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS
Division Fee-Related Revenue Fee-Related Cost Difference Cost Recovery % Building $667,669 $876,014 ($208,346) 76%
Planning $25,119 $108,295 ($83,176) 23%
Total $692,788 $984,309 ($291,522) 70%
The most significant deficit is in relation to the Building Permit Fees, specifically permit and plan check fees for alterations and repairs. Right-sizing these fees will help the City ensure that it is appropriately capturing its costs.

For all other departments, detailed information was not available to provide the annual cost recovery impacts.

The differences highlight the disparity between current fees charged and the actual cost of providing services. As such, the City should closely evaluate and modify fees where appropriate to help bridge the cost-recovery gap.

The detailed documentation of this study will show an over-collection for some fees (on a per-unit basis) and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will provide the Department 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 display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among City Councilmembers and City staff and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the City 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 City Council with input from City staff and the community.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, including a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3

ADOPT A FORMAL COST RECOVERY POLICY
The Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees which include the jurisdiction’s intention to recover the full cost or partial costs of providing services, sets forth circumstances under which the jurisdiction might set a charge for fee at less than or more than 100% of full cost, and outlines the considerations that might influence the jurisdiction’s pricing decision.

The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Council adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.

ADOPT AN ANNUAL FEE UPDATE / INCREASE MECHANISM
GFOA best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should review, and update charges and fees periodically based on factors such as the impact of inflation, other cost increases, adequacy of cost recovery, use of services, and the competitiveness of current rates to avoid large infrequent fee increases.

The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis. It’s recommended the City establish a practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every five to seven years as this practice captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, as well as any new service areas.

In between comprehensive updates, the City should continue to utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview of the legal rules and regulations that govern what is considered a fee for service, how those fees can be calculated, general principles, philosophies, and general policy considerations for setting fees for service.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A “user fee” is a charge for a service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group.

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: Passed in 2010, specifically outlined the difference 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: gives local governments the authority 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 or property rentals. This exception outlines that fees for use of government property (e.g., renting public buildings, parks, or event spaces) are voluntary transactions. Therefore, governments can charge market-based rental fees for these services.

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

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
TABLE 3: SERVICES IN RELATION TO BENEFIT RECEIVED
Funding for local government is obtained from myriad revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global community benefit” section tend to be funded primarily 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 according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that 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 laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, 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 established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.

GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax-based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received. "Global" Community Benefit
•Police
•Park Maintenance
•Fire Suppression
"Global" Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit
•Recreation / Community
Services
•Fire Prevention
Individual or Group Benefit
•Building Permits
•Planning and Zoning
Approval
•Engineering Development
Review

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6
Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or City Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• 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. • Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for changing a water heater in a residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is 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 the costs of providing services and 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 which is up to, and not more than, the full cost amount. The City Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of 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. Overall, city staff has reviewed all fees for service in this analysis and where subsidies were identified, they recommended increases where appropriate to reduce the deficit; and where overrecoveries were identified, reduced the fee to comply with the law.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:

The following subsections discuss the two components of the basis of the full cost.

TIME ESTIMATION
Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City 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. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis.
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a 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, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project.
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no over-allocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.

The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service and meets the requirements of California law.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to 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 to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:

TIME ASSUMPTION
(by position)

FULLY BURDENED
HOURLY RATE Total Cost

USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of 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 warrants 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 and itemized within the current fee schedule.

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 Brisbane’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 captures any internal service charges or operating supply costs such as vehicles, supplies, etc. Additionally, this component includes the cost associated with support from Director, Administrative and Analytical staff that 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 internal Cost Allocation Plan.

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

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community and to maintain control over the policy and management of these services.

It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time,” where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates, allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, City Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.

Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each fee including the following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable).
• Annualized Results: utilizing volume of activity estimates, annual subsidies, and revenue impacts were projected where workload was available.

The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report.

RESULTS OVERVIEW

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The Building Division is part of the Community Development Department. The Building Division is responsible for conducting plan review and inspections in order to ensure that all construction in the city is in compliance with the California Building Code. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Building Division.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with the Building Division, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating ‘Property Address Service’ and ‘For the Installation of Each New Domestic Water or Sewer Service’, as these services are no longer offered by City staff, covered under other fees, or are now offered by other departments within the City. • New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees, to capture services already provided but not codified or new services being provided:
o ‘Minimum Plan Check Fee’
o ‘Fire Support’
o Energy Storage System
o ‘Expedited Plan Review’
o ‘Permit Refund (fee)’
o ‘Revision Processing Fee’
o ‘Reinstatement Fee’
o Installation, Alteration Relocation of Each Electrical Service o Standalone plumbing permits for waterline, water piping, water heaters, and gas piping. o Standalone mechanical permits for
• Modified Fees: The following bullet points represent various miscellaneous modifications that were made to the fee schedule:
o ‘Planning Support’ was proposed to shift from a flat rate to a percentage of the building permit to better reflect the services offered.
o ‘Installation, Alteration, Relocation of Each Electrical Service’ fees was proposed to remove the ‘600 Volts or Less’ header and the ‘Over 600 Volts’ fees to better reflect the services offered.

BUILDING

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
The modifications noted ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Building Division.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Building Division collects fees for Building Permit Fees, New Structures and Additions, Misc Fees like Plan Check Fees and Reroofing, Solar, Inspections, Electrical Permits, Plumbing Permits, and Mechanical Permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 4: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Building permit fees - Alterations, repairs, and interior changes to existing structures & plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work
$800-$2,000
Base $35.00 $87.73 ($52.73)
Each Addl. $100 $3.83 $23.60 ($19.77)
$2,001-$25,000
Base $81.00 $263.18 ($182.18)
Each Addl. $1,000 $16.30 $26.19 ($9.89)
$25,001-$50,000
Base $456.00 $741.46 ($285.46)
Each Addl. $1,000 $12.35 $38.31 ($25.97)
$50,001-$100,000
Base $777.00 $1,052.71 ($275.71)
Each Addl. $1,000 $8.00 $26.88 ($18.88)
$100,001-$500,000
Base $1,000.00 $1,675.22 ($675.22)
Each Addl. $1,000 $6.12 $12.25 ($6.13)
$500,001+
Base $3,610.00 $4,686.65 ($1,076.65)
Each Addl. $1,000 $6.12 $6.12 ($0.00)
New Structures and Additions
Assembly buildings, theaters, stadiums, reviewing stands, amusement park structures 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.89 $1.03 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.77 $0.77 $0.00
VB $0.71 $0.73 ($0.02)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.71 $0.85 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.62 $0.70 ($0.08)
VB $0.57 $0.57 $0.00
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.57 $0.83 ($0.26)
IIB to V $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
VB $0.46 $0.54 ($0.08)
Warehouses, gas stations, storage garages, open garages, wholesale/retail stores, churches, office buildings, bars/restaurants, printing plants, police, fire stations, factories, workshops, storage, sales, paint stores, ice plants, power plants, pumping plants, cold storage, creameries 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.89 $1.14 ($0.25)
IIB to V $0.77 $0.80 ($0.03)
VB $0.83 $0.84 ($0.01)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.71 $0.85 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.62 $0.64 ($0.02)
VB $0.67 $0.75 ($0.08)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.57 $0.83 ($0.26)
IIB to V $0.49 $0.53 ($0.04)
VB $0.53 $0.65 ($0.12)
Education buildings, day care (more than 6 children - less than 6 use "R") 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $1.08 $1.25 ($0.17)
IIB to V $0.95 $0.95 $0.00
VB $0.87 $0.91 ($0.04)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $1.00 $1.15 ($0.15)
IIB to V $0.88 $0.92 ($0.04)
VB $0.80 $0.83 ($0.03)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.69 $0.83 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.61 $0.66 ($0.05)
VB $0.55 $0.55 $0.00
Includes hazardous materials storage, paint shops, box factories, repair garages 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $1.08 $1.25 ($0.17)
IIB to V $0.95 $0.95 $0.00
VB $0.88 $0.91 ($0.03)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.87 $1.15 ($0.28)
IIB to V $0.76 $0.92 ($0.16)
VB $0.70 $0.83 ($0.13)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.69 $0.83 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.61 $0.66 ($0.05)
VB $0.56 $0.57 ($0.01)
Private garages/carports, patio covers, greenhouses, water tanks, storage sheds, corrals, barns, towers, fences over 6 feet high
0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
I & II $0.64 $0.74 ($0.10)
IIB to V $0.53 $0.55 ($0.02)
VB $0.42 $0.42 $0.00
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.51 $0.59 ($0.08)
IIB to V $0.42 $0.49 ($0.07)
VB $0.34 $0.40 ($0.06)
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.41 $0.51 ($0.10)
IIB to V $0.34 $0.41 ($0.07)
VB $0.27 $0.33 ($0.06)
Hotels, apartment houses, dwellings, duplexes, lodging houses, motels 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.89 $1.03 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.77 $0.84 ($0.07)
VB $0.74 $0.77 ($0.03)
5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II $0.71 $0.85 ($0.14)
IIB to V $0.62 $0.72 ($0.10)
VB $0.59 $0.59 $0.00
10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II $0.57 $0.83 ($0.26)
IIB to V $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16)
VB $0.47 $0.54 ($0.07)
Swimming Pools (Including utilities)
Swimming Pools $0.40 $1.39 ($0.99)
Decks
Decks $0.16 $0.96 ($0.80)
Termite Repair
$1-$250 $80.00 $279.20 ($199.20)
$250-$20,000
Base $83.00 $311.25 ($228.25)
Each Addl. $1,000 $13.45 $15.18 ($1.73)
$20,000+
Base $357.00 $611.10 ($254.10)
Misc Fees
Reroofing Permit $35 $52 ($17)
Minimum Building Permit Fee $35 $160 ($125)
Plan Checking Fees
Minimum Plan Check Fee New $310 N/A
Commercial 60% 70% (10%)
Residential 50% 60% (10%)
Fire Support New 15% N/A
Planning Support Modified 15% N/A

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Checking of plan revisions initiated by applicant (after issuance of building permit) $63 $248 ($185)
Energy code compliance plan review and inspection
(separate from Section 1 and 2 permits) $64 $248 ($184) Pre-development conference $76 $248 ($172)
Technical Plan and Report Review Cost + 10% Cost + 10% N/A Research Service Fee $1.63 $17.00 ($15)
Penalty for Building without a Permit 10x Permit
Fee
10x Permit
Fee N/A
Solar
Residential1
15 kW or Less $265.57 $450 ($184)
More than 15 kW $265.57 $450 ($184)
Each kW above 15 kW $18 $15 $3
Commercial2
50kW or Less $971 $1,000 ($29)
51 kW - 250 kW $971 $1,000 ($29)
Each kW above 50 kW but less than 250 kW $7.00 $7.00 $0 > 250 kW $2,371 $2,400 ($29)
Each kW above 251 kW $5.00 $5.00 ($0)
Energy Storage System
Application Fee New $105 N/A
Storage Unit New $763 N/A
Thermal System - Residential1
10 kWth or Less $450 $450 $0
More than 10 kWth $450 $450 $0
Each kWth above 10 kWth $15 $15 $0
Thermal System - Commercial2
30 kWth or Less $1,000 $1,000 $0
30 kWth - 260 kWth $1,000 $1,000 $0
Each kWth above 30 kWth but less than 260 kWth $7.00 $7.00 $0 More than 260 kWth $2,610 $2,610 $0
Each kWth above 260 kWth $5.00 $5.00 $0
Expedited Plan Review New 1.5x Fee N/A
Engineering Review $461 $601 ($140)
Inspection Fees
Change of Use Inspection $170 $215 ($45)
Inspection outside normal business hours $135 $280 ($145) Requested Inspection - prior to permit issuance $135 $214 ($79) Re-inspection $135 $215 ($80)
CASp Inspection $160 $264 ($104)
Other Provisions
Appeal of Building Official Decision $170 $500 ($330)
1 GOV § 66015 (a)
2 Gov. Code 66015 (b)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Permit Refund (fee) New $271 N/A
Revision Processing Fee New $158 N/A
Reinstatement Fee
Original Building Permit Fee $500 or less New $105 N/A
Original Building Permit Fee more than $500 New 50% of
original fee N/A
Electrical Permit Fees
Installation, Alteration Relocation of Each Electrical
Service
First 200 Ampere Capacity with one meter
socket/base New $478 N/A
Each additional 100 Ampere Capacity or fraction
thereof New $56 N/A
Each additional meter socket/base New $11 N/A
Plumbing Permit Fees
For the Repair or Replacement of each
Waterline, Sewer Line or Drainage/Vent Piping
System (or as determined by the Building Official) New $247 N/A Refrigerant Piping System New $462 N/A
Water Piping System New $247 N/A
Water Heater or Water Storage Tank - Single Family
Dwelling New $193 N/A
Water Heater or Water Storage Tank - Non-Residential New $247 N/A Tank-less water Heater Gas-fired (includes gas line, &
exhaust vent & Electrical)
Residential New $193 N/A
Non-Residential New $462 N/A
Gas Piping System or Gas Service
Residential New $247 N/A
Non-Residential New $462 N/A
Mechanical Permit Fees
Furnace Replacement- Single Family Residence (<
100K Btu and < 40 lineal feet of new duct) New $247 N/A For the installation, relocation or replacement of each Commercial Heating, Cooling Refrigeration Appliance.
(Includes all necessary electrical circuits, fixtures,
switches receptacles, gas piping, vents or water
piping.) New $247 N/A
For the Installation, relocation or replacement of each Boiler. (Includes all necessary electrical circuits,
receptacles, switches, gas piping and vents - but does
not include motors identified in E6 of the schedule) New $139 N/A For the installation, relocation or replacement of Other Fuel Burning Appliances not listed in this schedule.
(Includes all necessary gas piping, vents, electrical
circuits receptacles and switches.) New $247 N/A
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each or Air Handler Unit, Heating or Cooling Coil or Element in a duct system. (Includes all necessary electrical
circuits, receptacles or switches and piping for cooling media.)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
0 to 400,000 Btu New $139 N/A
401,000 Btu and Over New $247 N/A
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each Radiant Heating Panel Radiator or Convertor
(including all necessary piping)
1 to 5 Devices New $139 N/A
Each Additional 5 Devices New $17 N/A
The fees administered by the Building Division are largely new, but of the existing fees, generally underrecover for their services. For Building Permit fees, the largest deficit is in relation to the ‘500,001+ - base’ fee at $1,076.65.

For Permits outside the valuation-based fees, the largest deficit is in relation to the ‘Appeal of Building Official Decision’ under the Other Provisions fees category at $330. The smallest under recovery is for the ‘Research Service Fee’ under the Misc Fees category at $15.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s workload information, Building has a deficit of roughly $208,000. The following table shows the revenue at the current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference by major fee category.

TABLE 5: ANNUAL RESULTS – BUILDING
Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Valuation & Sq. Ft. Based Fees $606,084 $792,945 ($186,861) Misc Fees $40,587 $60,301 ($19,714)
Solar $7,625 $9,564 ($1,939)
Electrical Permit Fees $6,751 $9,082 ($2,331)
Plumbing Permit Fees $6,622 $4,122 $2,500
Total $667,669 $876,014 ($208,346)
Building has an annual cost recovery of roughly 76%. The largest deficit is in relation to the valuationbased Building Permit Fees inspection and plan check fees. For the fees outside of the valuation and percentage-based fees, the largest deficit is in regard to the ‘Reroofing Permit’ under the Misc Fees category. Currently, the City charges $35 per 1,000 sq. ft. Ft; the total cost was calculated to be $52, resulting in a per-unit deficit of $17. The per-unit deficit, coupled with the roughly 1,160 times this permit was issued in the last year, resulted in the large cost recovery gap. The division should review these results and adjust fees appropriately to align with divisional and departmental cost recovery goals.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17
The Finance Department is responsible for overseeing the city’s financial operations, including accounting, payroll, accounts payable, collections, and utility billing. The Finance Department provides utility billing support for water. The following sections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for the fee-related services associated with Finance.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fees as these services are no longer offered by City staff or are now offered by other departments within the City:
o ‘Copy of Annual Budget’
o ‘Annual Financial Report’
• Consolidated Fees: Staff proposed consolidating ‘Single/Commercial ($20 non-refundable)’, ‘Duplex ($20 non-refundable)’, and ‘After 2nd Disconnection’ into a ‘processing’ fee and ‘Deposit’ fee in order to simplify the fee schedule.
• Expanded Fees: Staff proposed expanding Returned Payment Charge (All Departments) to include two state set fees ‘First Check’ and ‘Second & Subsequent’ to better reflect the services offered.

The modifications proposed ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Finance staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Finance Department collects fees for Utility Billing and Finance Fees like Returned Payment Charges.

The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Division and Citywide overhead.

The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 6: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – FINANCE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Utility Billing
Water and Service Connection
Processing $20 $217 ($197)
Deposit $70 $107 ($37)
Late Notice Fee $5 $5 $0
10 Day Disconnect Notice Fee $54 $54 $0
Water Turn On
After payment of delinquent account: 8a-4p $55 $102 ($47) After payment of delinquent account: after 4p $139 $274 ($135)

FINANCE

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
After 3rd notice for backflow recertification $307 $291 $16 Finance Fees
Returned Payment Charge (All Departments)
First Check3 $65 $25 $40
Second & Subsequent4 $65 $35 $30
The fees administered by the Finance Department are a mix of over- and under-recovery for its services.

The largest deficit is in relation to the ‘Water and Service Connection’ Fees, specifically the ‘Processing’ fee under the Utility Billing category for $197. The smallest non-deposit related under-recovery is in relation to ‘Water Turn On’ fees, specifically for an ‘After payment of delinquent account: 8a-4p’ fee at $47. The largest over-recovery is in relation to the ‘Returned Payment Charge (All Departments)’ Fees, specifically the ‘First Check’ fee at $40; however, this is a state-set fee. The smallest over-recovery is in relation to the ‘Water Turn On’ fees, specifically the ‘After 3rd notice for backflow recertification’ at $16.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Finance does record their utility billings and the number of checks returned at the per-unit level, as such annual results are not presented here.
3 CIV § 1719(a)
4 CIV § 1719(a)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
The Fire Department, who is part of the North County Fire Authority (NCFA) and provides various fee related services such as fire related annual permits, Construction Fire Permits, Hazardous Materials, and New Business Fire Inspections, Re-Inspections and various other related fees. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual revenue impacts as appropriate for the fee-related services provided by the Fire Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions, staff proposed the addition of ‘Expedited Plan Review’, ‘Alternate Methods / Materials Request Fee’ and ‘Emergency Responder Radio Coverage’ as they highlight services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Fire Department collects fees for Annual Permits, Other Fees like Copies of Fire Reports and Firefighter Standby Fees, Construction Fire Permit Fees, and Hazardous Materials. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct consultant costs, Departmental, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 7: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – FIRE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Annual Permits
Aerosol Products $281 $284 ($3)
Asbestos/Lead Coating Removal $431 $465 ($34)
Automobile Wrecking Yard $290 $310 ($20)
Apartment House (incl. condos & congregate res.)
3 units to 10 units $290 $310 ($20)
11 units to 20 units $365 $387 ($22)
Greater than 20 units $365 $387 ($22)
Per Unit Over 20 $1.30 $1.72 ($0.42)
Battery system $144 $155 ($11)
Candles or Open Flames in Assembly Areas (may
combine with assembly permit
$144 $155 ($11)
Carnivals or Fairs $431 $465 ($34)
Cellulose Nitrate Storage $361 $387 ($26)
Combustible Fiber Storage $290 $310 ($20)
Combustible Material Storage $290 $310 ($20)
Compressed Gases (in excess of the amts. listed in CFC, Table 105-A)
$290 $310 ($20)
Commercial Rubbish Handling Plant $420 $465 ($45)
FIRE

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Cryogen's (in excess of the amounts listed in CFC, Table 105-B)
$431 $465 ($34)
Dry Cleaning Plants $290 $310 ($20)
Dust Producing Operations $290 $310 ($20)
Explosives or Blasting Agents $431 $465 ($34)
Fireworks Display (fees for standby Fire staff, when req'd, are add'l) $420
$431 $465 ($34)
Flammable or Combustible Liquid Pipeline $431 $465 ($34) To Store, Handle or Use Flam/Combust. Liquids $215 $232 ($17) Flammable or Combustible Liquids in Tanks, vessels > 60 gal. capacity); largest
$431 $465 ($34)
Up to 10,000 gallons tank size:
1 tank $418 $439 ($21)
2-3 tanks
Base $418 $439 ($21)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $125 $129 ($4)
3 + tanks
Base $558 $594 ($36)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $290 $310 ($20)
Over 10,000 to 100,000 gallons tank size:
1 tank $629 $672 ($43)
2-3 tanks
Base $629 $672 ($43)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $290 $310 ($20)
3+ tanks
Base $834 $879 ($45)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $290 $310 ($20)
Over 100,000 gallons tank size:
1 tank $1,256 $1,344 ($88)
2-3 tanks
Base $1,256 $1,344 ($88)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $312 $336 ($24)
3+ tanks
Base $1,256 $1,344 ($88)
Each Additional Tank Over the First $312 $336 ($24)
Tank Vehicles $215 $232 ($17)
Install, Alter, Remove, Abandon, Place Temporarily Any $578 $620 ($42) Fumigation or Thermal Insecticidal Fogging: $215
Hazardous Materials (to store, disperse, handle amounts in excess of the quantities listed in CFC table 105.620) refer to Hazardous material table HM-1
High-Piled Combustible Storage $431 $465 ($34)
High-Rise Building Annual Inspection $431 $465 ($34)
Hot work operations: $216 $232 ($16)
Hotels, Motels and Lodging Houses $290 $310 ($20)
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (except portable containers
<125 gal. cap.)
$290 $310 ($20)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Liquid/Gas-Fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly
Buildings
$216 $232 ($16)
Lumber Yards (over 100,000 board feet) $290 $310 ($20)
Magnesium Working $216 $232 ($16)
Mall, Covered $431 $465 ($34)
Motor vehicle fuel dispensing stations: $431 $465 ($34) Occupant Load Increase $290 $310 ($20)
Open Burning $290 $310 ($20)
Ovens, Industrial Baking or Drying $290 $310 ($20)
Places of Assembly (churches, schools, NPOs permitted
at no fee)
A-1, A-2, A-2.1 $341 $362 ($21)
A-3, A-4 $279 $284 ($5)
Special Assembly events $279 $284 ($5)
Pyrotechnic Special Effects Material (fees for standby Fire staff, when required,
$426 $465 ($39)
Refrigeration Equipment $216 $232 ($16)
Repair Garage $290 $310 ($20)
Spraying or Dipping $290 $310 ($20)
Temporary membrane structures, tents, and canopies $290 $310 ($20) Tire Storage $290 $310 ($20)
Wood Products (over 200 cu. ft.) $290 $310 ($20)
Other Fire Fees
Copy of Fire Report $22 $25 ($3)
False Alarm in Excess of 3 per Calendar Year (accidental or equipment)
$180 $310 ($130)
Fire Hazard Abatement performed by City or City
Contractor (including, but not limited to, combustible or flammable vegetation removal)
Abatement cost plus administrative fee
New Business Fire Inspection $218 $232 ($14)
Re-Inspection Fee (for each following second reinspection) $148 $155 ($7)
Standby Engine Company
First Hour $370 $677 ($307)
Each Additional Half Hour $108 $338 ($230)
Standby Firefighter (1 hour minimum) $119 $215 ($96)
Work Performed after Normal Working Hours (Callback is
a 3-hr min)
$216 $248 ($32)
Expedited Plan Review New 1.5x Plan
Review
N/A
Alternate Methods / Materials Request Fee New $310 N/A
Construction Fire Permit Fees:

Automatic Sprinkler System Permit (installation of suspended piping larger than 4" nominal pipe size also requires Building Department approval of imposed loading on structure):

For other than 1 and 2 family dwellings:

New (per sq. ft.) $0.26 $0.33 ($0.07)
Minimum Fee $330.00 $450 ($120)
Alteration (per sq. ft. of protected area,) $0.26 $0.17 $0.09

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Minimum Fee $206.00 $300 ($94)
One and Two-family dwellings:

New (per sq. ft.) $0.26 $0.42 ($0.16)
Minimum Fee $218 $300 ($82)
Alteration (per sq. ft. of protected area) $0.26 $0.25 $0.01 Minimum Fee $136 $200 ($64)
Fixed Extinguishing System Permit: New and Upgrade
Installations
$456 $450 $6
Fire Plan Check and resubmittal $150 $150 $0
Fire Alarm Permit $228 $250 ($22)
Construction, Alteration & Renovation Permit $198 $200 ($2) Emergency Responder Radio Coverage New $450 N/A
Gas Piping System Installation Permit $361 $375 ($14)
Underground Fire Protection Piping Permit $479 $525 ($46) Consultant Service Fee (actual cost-plus admin fee) $57 $300 ($243) Document Review (per hour) $144 $300 ($156)
Hydrant Flow Test $643 $650 ($7)
Other Services (per half hour and portion thereof) $72 $150 ($78) Re-Inspection Fee (for each following second reinspection) $148 $300 ($152)
Hazardous Materials Table Schedule:

Range Solids (pounds)
1 0 to 500 $408 $450 ($42)
2 >500 to 5,000 $571 $600 ($29)
3 >5,000 to 25,000 $765 $800 ($35)
4 >25,000 to 50,000 1114 $1,151 ($37)
5 >50,000 to 80,000 $1,613 $1,651 ($38)
6 >80,000 to 120,000 $2,334 $2,402 ($68)
7 >120,000 $3,037 $3,153 ($116)
Range Liquids (gallons)
1 0 to 55 $408 $450 ($42)
2 >55 to 550 $571 $600 ($29)
3 >550 to 2,750 $764 $800 ($36)
4 >2,750 to 5,500 $1,114 $1,151 ($37)
5 >5,500 to 10,000 $1,613 $1,651 ($38)
6 >10,000 to 15,000 $2,334 $2,402 ($68)
7 > 15,000 3037 $3,153 ($116)
Range Gas (cubic feet)
1 0 to 200 $316 $375 ($59)
2 >200 to 2,000 $571 $600 ($29)
3 >2,000 to 10,000 $764 $800 ($36)
4 >10,000 to 20,000 $1,114 $1,151 ($37)
5 >20,000 to 40,000 $1,613 $1,651 ($38)
6 >40,000 to 60,000 $2,334 $2,402 ($68)
7 >60,000 $3,037 $3,153 ($116)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
The fees administered by the Fire Department mostly under-recover. The largest deficit is in relation to ‘Standby Engine Company’, specifically the ‘First Hour’ fees under Other Fire Fees at $307. The smallest under recovery is for the ‘Automatic Sprinkler System Permit (installation of suspended piping larger than 4" nominal pipe size also requires Building Department approval of imposed loading on structure): ‘, specifically the ‘For other than 1 and 2 family dwelling: - New (per sq. ft.)’ under the Construction Fire Permit Fees category at $0.07.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Fire does not record the number of permits issued, general fees charged, and hazardous materials fees charged at the per-unit level, as such annual results are not presented here.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
The Marina Department is responsible for managing the Marina’s fleet, slip rentals, guest berthing, fishing pier, and the bay trail. The majority of the fees charged by the Marina are for the use of space and as such are not covered under this analysis. The only fees evaluated in this analysis are the fees that are time-based. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual results for the fee-related services provided by the Marina Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
No modifications were proposed to the Marina’s fee schedule as it relates to the services being evaluated in this study.

DETAILED RESULTS
While the Marina offers more fees than we listed, we only analyzed the Marina’s service-based fees. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Division and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 8: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – MARINA
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Application Fee (Non-Refundable) $25 $474 ($449)
Dock Wheel / Fender Wheel Installation
For One $50 $142 ($92)
For Two $80 $142 ($62)
Slip Transfer Fee $25 $71 ($46)
Lien Fee $180 $302 ($122)
The largest under-recovery is for an ‘Application Fee (Non-Refundable)’ under Move-In Costs at $449., followed by the lien fee at $122.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
While the Marina tracks the detailed information for each of the rentals, as the scope of this analysis wasn’t a full review of the Marina’s use of space fees, the annual revenue impact was not calculated.

MARINA

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for assisting the Parks and Recreation Commission on policy decisions, organizing and administering community programs like camps, athletics, aquatics, social services, and cultural events for all age ranges, as well as managing the City’s public facilities like parks, trails, community centers, and pool. The following sections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual results for the fee-related services provided by Parks and Recreation staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with Parks and Recreation staff, the following modifications were made to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed the elimination of the ‘Adult- Non-Resident Summer’ fee under the Daily Admission Category, as this fee is no longer offered by the Parks and Recreation staff. • Modified Fees: Staff proposed modifying the Daily Camp Fee section’s resident and non-resident fees to include ‘summer camp’ and ‘break camp’ in order to more accurately reflect the services offered.

The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Parks and Recreation staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Parks and Recreation Department collects fees for a wide variety of services. Due to the nature of these services being unique and market-based, not all fees were evaluated. In this study, fees for Facility Rentals, Aquatics, Youth Activities, and Senior lunches were evaluated. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 9: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PARKS AND RECREATION Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Facility Rentals
Mission Blue Center
Residential
1 Room - Weekday $192 $285 ($93)
Entire Facility - Weekday $297 $379 ($82)
1 Room - Weekend $239 $302 ($63)
Entire Facility - Weekend $371 $407 ($36)
Non-Residential
1 Room - Weekday $292 $285 $7
Entire Facility - Weekday $432 $379 $53
1 Room - Weekend $357 $302 $55
Entire Facility - Weekend $547 $407 $140

PARKS AND RECREATION

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Aquatics
Daily Admission
Adult
Resident $7 $21 ($14)
Non-Resident $11 $21 ($10)
Youth/Senior
Resident $5 $21 ($16)
Non-Resident $8 $21 ($13)
Monthly Passes
Adult Resident $66 $213 ($147)
Adult Non-Resident $113 $213 ($100)
Swim Lessons
Swim Lessons (8): Resident
Lesson Package $88 $296 ($208)
Per Class $11 $37 ($26)
Swim Lessons (8): Non-Resident
Lesson Package $120 $296 ($176)
Per Class $15 $37 ($22)
Semi-Private Swim Lessons (4)
Resident $128 $200 ($72)
Non-Resident $185 $200 ($15)
Private Swim Lesson (4)
Resident $178 $334 ($156)
Non-Resident $258 $334 ($76)
Pool Rentals
Rec Swim Party
Resident $171 $397 ($226)
Non-Resident $248 $397 ($149)
Rec Swim Party
Resident $350 $629 ($279)
Non-Resident $500 $629 ($129)
Misc Rec Fees
Lifeguard Certification $238 $279 ($41)
Piranha Swim Club
Resident $6 $18 ($12)
Non-Resident $9 $18 ($9)
Youth Activities
Club Rec Monthly
Resident $1,961 $2,640 ($679)
Non-Resident $2,726 $2,640 $86
Daily Camp Fee
Summer Camp
Resident $43 $49 ($6)
Non-Resident $60 $49 $11
Break Camps

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Resident $43 $54 ($11)
Non-Resident $60 $54 $6
Preschool
Resident $7 $9 ($2)
Non-Resident $9 $9 $0
Seniors
Senior Lunches $10 $133 ($123)
Misc. Fee
Processing Fee for Refunds $7 $9 ($2)
Nearly all of the fees administered by the Parks and Recreation Department under-recover. The largest under-recovery is in relation to ‘Resident’ fees under the Club Rec Monthly section at $680. The smallest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Resident’ fee under the Preschool section or the ‘Processing Fee for Refunds’ at $2.

It is important to note that Parks and Recreation fees are different in the sense that they’re based on what the market can bear and, as such, do not have to be set based on the cost of the service, but rather the market rate. Therefore, even if there are over or under-recoveries, the City must evaluate the information in the context of the desirability of the services and the rentals to determine where and how to change their fees.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Parks and Recreation do track annual activities, but as they vary based on season and participation no annual revenue impacts were calculated.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
The Planning Division is part of the Community Development Department. The Planning Division is responsible for long-term and current planning, turning the City’s general plan into zoning regulations, area plans, and policy updates, as well as advising the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator.

The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per-unit results for the feerelated services provided by Planning staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fees as these services are no longer offered by City staff or are now offered by other departments within the City:
o Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit
o Setback Exception Modifications
o ‘Categorical Exemption’
o ‘Zoning enforcement penalty’
o Concept reviews
o ‘Tie-vote at Planning Commission’
• New Fees: To better align with where and how services are provided, the following fees have been reassigned to their respective departments.
o ‘Ministerial Subdivision Map’
o ‘HCP Operating Program Revision’
o ‘Zoning Conformance Letter’
o ‘Height Exception to Accommodate Accessibility Improvements per BMC 17.32.060.D’ o ‘Ministerial Parcel Map’
• Expanded Fees: Staff proposed the expansion of the following fees to better reflect the services offered:
o Sign Programs was expanded to include two new fees: ‘New’ and ‘Revision to existing’. o Housing Development Permit was expanded to include two new fees: ‘Base’ and ‘Per Additional Unit’
o ‘Parking lot redesign/landscape plan review (per BMC section 15.70.030)’ was broken out into Parking lot redesign and landscape plan review.
o ‘Tree Removal Permit’ was expanded to include ‘1-5 trees’ and ‘6+Trees’

PLANNING

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
o ‘Address Assignment’ was expanded to include ‘Required as condition of approval on a building permit’ and ‘Not required as condition of approval on a building permit’ • Consolidated Fees: Staff proposed the following consolidations in order to simplify the fee schedule:
o ‘General Plan Map’, ‘General Plan Text’, ‘Zoning Map’, and ‘Zoning Ordinance Text’ were consolidated into a single deposit fee for ‘General / Zoning Map or Text’. o ‘Solar Height Limit Exception per BMC 17.32.060.C’ was consolidated into a single fee. • Modified Fees: Staff proposed the modification of the following fees in order to better reflect the services offered:
o ‘Plan Lines’ was changed from charging based on each plan line to a deposit. o ‘Planning Technician’ was changed to ‘Community Development Technician’. o ‘Amendment to Approved Tentative Map or Ministerial Parcel Map’ was changed to ‘Amendment to Approved Tentative Map’
o ‘All other Appeals’ was changed to ‘Appeals’
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflects the services being provided by Planning staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Planning Division collects fees for Planning Permits, Use Permits, Home Occupation Permits, Sign Permits, Amendments, Subdivisions, Appeals, Environmental Reviews, Tree Removals, Short Term Rentals, Housing Development Permits, and Stormwater Review/Inspection. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 10: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Full Cost Hourly Rates by Staff Position:

Director $292 $370 ($78)
Principal Planner $223 $304 ($81)
Senior Planner $188 $295 ($107)
Associate Planner $158 $258 ($100)
Building Permit Technician $120 $210 ($90)
Community Development Technician $120 $226 ($106)
Administrative Assistant $117 $221 ($104)
Office Specialist $110 $196 ($86)
Permits:

Use Permits:

Conditional uses listed in District Regulations not listed below $1,376 $7,422 ($6,046) Transfer of development rights within the R- BA district $3,145 $8,861 ($5,716) Clustered development within the R-BA district $3,145 $8,861 ($5,716)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Height Limits per BMC 17.32.060.B $1,376 $4,992 ($3,616) Condominium conversion of existing dwelling units $1,892 $8,194 ($6,302) Non conforming parking
in R and NCRO districts $1,376 $7,089 ($5,713)
in other districts $1,892 $7,089 ($5,197)
Use Permit to Expand Nonconforming Residential Uses $1,376 $7,089 ($5,713) Home Occupation Permits:

Home occupations in residential districts $45 $172 ($127) Design Permits:

Design Permit for new construction: residential $2,089 $9,610 ($7,521) Design Permit for new construction: non-residential or mixed use $3,489 $13,804 ($10,315)
Design Permit for remodeling existing structures $2,089 $12,100 ($10,011) Design Permit Extension $1,610 $4,825 ($3,215)
Variance:

Variance to code provisions for new construction to all structures $1,575 $7,861 ($6,286)
Variance to code provisions for remodel of existing structures residential structures $1,180 $7,089 ($5,909)
other structures $1,575 $7,089 ($5,514)
Sign Permits:

Sign permits in all districts
with Hearing $920 $6,922 ($6,002)
without Hearing $387 $661 ($274)
Sign Programs
New $1,066 $8,194 ($7,128)
Revision to existing $1,066 $3,705 ($2,639)
Planned Development Permits:

Planned Development Permit $5,000 $5,000 $0
Development Agreements:

Development Agreement $5,000 $5,000 $0
Specific Plans:

Specific Plan $5,000 $5,000 $0
Exceptions to the Code:

Exceptions to Fence Regulations $648 $3,059 ($2,411)
Solar Height limits Exception per BMC 17.32.060.C $648 $1,415 ($767) Setback Exception Modification Public Hearing $648 $3,061 ($2,413) Height Exception to Accommodate Accessibility
Improvements per BMC 17.32.060.D New $1,415 N/A
Minor Modifications:

Modifications per BMC 17.56.090 $648 $4,992 ($4,344)
Grading Permits:

Grading Permit Review by Planning Commission
500 CY or less $1,771 $3,128 ($1,357)
More than 500 CY New $6.21 N/A
Amendments:

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
General / Zoning Map or Text $2,007 $18,879 ($16,872)
Subdivisions:

Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Plans with 5 or more lots/units $3,476 $15,038 ($11,562)
Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Plans – per lot $275 $285 ($10) Tentative Parcel Map and Condominium Plans with 4 or less lots/units $3,476 $12,517 ($9,041)
Ministerial Subdivision Map New $13,589 N/A
Final Parcel Map $529 $3,801 ($3,272)
Final Subdivision Map $705 $5,726 ($5,021)
Time Extension for Approved Tentative Map $1,620 $7,528 ($5,908) Amendment to Approved Tentative Map $1,620 $7,861 ($6,241) Ministerial Parcel Map New $4,750 N/A
Correction/Amendment to Final Map $447 $2,776 ($2,329)
Modifications to Subdivision Provisions $1,729 $7,861 ($6,132) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map $6,961 $15,038 ($8,077) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map – per lot $275 $285 ($10) Certificate of Compliance per GC 66499.35(a) and (b) $1,157 $6,122 ($4,965) Certificate of Compliance per GC 66499.35 (c) $447 $2,776 ($2,329) Lot Line Adjustment $1,157 $4,750 ($3,593)
Parcel Map Waivers $1,157 $6,122 ($4,965)
Reversions to Acreage $1,157 $6,122 ($4,965)
Lot Merger $447 $2,776 ($2,329)
Appeals $454 $3,367 ($2,913)
Environmental Review:

Initial Study/Negative Declaration $3,076 $16,708 ($13,632) Environmental Impact Reports
Consultant
Cost + 10%
Consultant
Cost + 10% N/A
Mitigation Monitoring-Inspections etc. Hourly Hourly N/A Other Services:

HCP Operating Program Revision New $14,038 N/A
Pre-application Review Hourly $285 N/A
Administrative review subsequent documents from Con. of Appr. Hourly $285 N/A Parking lot redesign/Landscape plan review (per BMC section

15.70.030) $692 $2,059 ($1,367)
Research record search Hourly $226 N/A
Technical report review
Consultant
Cost + 10%
Consultant
Cost + 10% N/A
Telecommunications Administrative Permit $1,270 $5,860 ($4,590) Alcohol Public Convenience Necessity (PCN) $648 $3,763 ($3,115) Tree Removal Permit
1-5 trees $397 $1,340 ($943)
6+ trees $397 $2,490 ($2,093)
Administrative Appeal (to City Manager) $114 $2,262 ($2,148) Address Assignment

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Required as condition of approval on a building permit $131 $396 ($265) Not required as conditition of approval on a building permit $131 $682 ($551) Construction Noise Exception Permit per BMC 8.28.080 $784 $3,253 ($2,469) Outdoor Sound Amplification Request $229 $642 ($413)
Short Term Rental Permit
New $369 $1,010 ($641)
Renewal $369 $455 ($86)
C.3 Stormwater Review/Inspection
Review
Consultant
Cost + 10%
Consultant
Cost + 10% N/A
Inspection $191 $191 $0
Housing Development Permit
Base 2-10 units $2,627 $9,610 ($6,983)
Per Additional Unit Modified $285 N/A
Plan Lines $3,476 $5,000 ($1,524)
Lighting Deviation $648 $2,896 ($2,248)
Consultant Management Fee 10% 0% $0.10
Zoning Conformance Letter New $894 N/A
Nearly all of the fees administered by the Planning Division under-recover for their associated costs. The largest under-recovery is $13,632 for an ‘Initial Study/Negative Declaration’. The smallest under-recovery outside of the Full Cost Hourly Rates by Staff Position: is in relation to the ‘Subdivisions:’ fees, specifically the ‘Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Plans with 5 or more lots/units’ and the ‘Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map’ fee under the Permits: category at $10.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s workload information, Planning has a deficit of roughly $83,000. The following table shows the revenue at the current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference by major fee category.

TABLE 11: ANNUAL RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Use Permits $2,752 $14,511 ($11,759)
Variance $1,575 $7,861 ($6,286)
Sign Permits $1,307 $7,583 ($6,276)
Grading Permits $3,542 $6,256 ($2,714)
Amendments $2,007 $18,879 ($16,872)
Subdivisions $8,551 $34,293 ($25,742)
Telecommunications Administrative Permit $1,270 $5,860 ($4,590) Tree Removal Permit $2,779 $9,380 ($6,601)
Outdoor Sound Amplification Request $229 $642 ($413)
Short Term Rental Permit $1,107 $3,030 ($1,923)
Total $25,119 $108,295 ($83,176)

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
Planning has an annual cost recovery of roughly 23%. The largest under-recovery is in relation to the Subdivisions category, specifically the ‘Lot Line Adjustment’. This fee specifically makes up $14,372 of the difference. Currently, the city charges $1,157 per adjustment; the total cost was calculated to be $4,750, resulting in a per-unit deficit of $3,593. The large per-unit deficit, coupled with the roughly 4 times this permit was administered in the past year, results in the large cost recovery gap. The department should review these results and adjust fees appropriately to align with divisional and departmental cost recovery goals.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
The Police Department provides public safety services to the public and provides fee-related services as it relates to fingerprinting, concealed weapons, and massage permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Police staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the ‘Repeat Nuisance Call’ and ‘Private Patrol Permit’ fees, as these services are no longer offered.
• Modified Fees: Staff proposed modifying ‘Copies of Tape Recordings’ to ‘Copies of Digital Media’ in order to better reflect the services offered.

The modifications noted ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Police staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Police Department collects fees for Copies of Reports, Alarm System Permits, Clearance & Good Conduct Letters, Concealed Weapons, Fingerprinting, Massage Certificate of Registration, Photographs, and Vehicle Releases. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name and total cost associated with each service offered.

TABLE 12: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – POLICE
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Copies of Reports $0 $239 ($239)
Alarm System Permits $0 $94 ($94)
Bicycle Registration $0 $35 ($35)
Booking Fee $0 $98 ($98)
Clearance & Good Conduct Letters:

Resident $6 $35 ($29)
Non-Resident $39 $35 $4
Subpoena Dues / Tecum Processing $39 $24 $15
Concealed Weapons:

Permit Process $75 $379 ($304)
Renewal Fee $0 $94 ($94)
Copies of Digital Media $37 $211 ($174)
Court Appearance All Personnel $275 $275 $0
False Alarms - Structure $0 $53 ($53)
POLICE

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Fingerprinting:

Resident: Adult $36 $89 ($53)
Resident: Minor $0 $89 ($89)
Non-Resident $112 $89 $23
Massage Certificate of Registration:

Registration $135 $379 ($244)
Early Renewal $35 $94 ($59)
Special Event Permit $0 $379 ($379)
Photographs:

Copies (plus actual costs) $103 $18 $85
Enlargements (plus actual costs) $103 $21 $82
Vehicle Releases:

Vehicle Releases / Enforcement $63 $68 ($5)
Vehicle Releases / Abandonment $63 $68 ($5)
Film Crew $622 $663 ($41)
Repossessed Vehicle Release5 $15 $15 $0
The majority of the fees administered by the Police Department under-recover for their associated costs.

The largest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Special Event Permit’ and the ‘Private Patrol Permit Fee’ at $379. The smallest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Vehicle Releases’ fees, specifically the ‘Vehicle Releases / Enforcement’ and ‘Vehicle Releases / Abandonment’ at $5. The largest over-recovery is in relation to the ‘Photographs’ fees, specifically the ‘Copies (Plus actual costs)’ at $85. The smallest overrecovery is in relation to the ‘Clearance & Good Conduct Letters’ fees, specifically the ‘Non-Resident’ fee at $4.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
The Police do not record their fees at the per-unit level, and as such, annual results are not presented here.
5 GOV § 26751

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
The Public Works Department is responsible for coordinating the planning, engineering, and maintenance & improvement of the city’s roads, sewer, storm drains, lighting, and facilities. The Public Works Department offers various fee-related services, including Grading Permits, Special Permits, Encroachment Permits, Site Work Permits, Water and Sewer-related Permits, and Subdivision Maps. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per-unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Public Works staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: To better align with where and how services are provided ‘3rd and subsequent Plan Checks’ and ‘3rd and subsequent Inspections’ were added. • Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed eliminating the following fees, as these services are no longer offered or covered under other permits.
o ‘Blasting Permit’
o ‘Grading Permit (paving) and drainage alteration’
o ‘Retaining Wall Design’
• Deposit To Flat Fees: Staff proposed modifying the following fees from deposit to flat fees in order to better reflect the services offered.
o Grading permits were changed from deposit to flat fees o Encroachment permits were changed from an hourly inspection fee to flat fees based on the construction valuation.
• Flat Fees to Deposits: Staff proposed changing the following fees from flat fees to deposit-based fees:
o ‘Final Parcel Map Review: - Land Surveyor Review’
o ‘Water, Sewer, Storm Drain system capacity modeling’
‘The modifications noted ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Police staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Public Works Department is responsible for collecting fees for Grading Permits and Misc. Permits such as Special Permits, Site Work Permits, Final Parcel Map Reviews, Temporary Construction Meters, Water Service Inspections & Meter, Sanitary Sewer Lateral Service Inspections, Final Subdivision Maps, and Water, Sewer, Storm Drain System Capacity Modeling. The total cost calculated for each service

PUBLIC WORKS

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
includes direct staff costs and Division and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name and total cost associated with each service offered by the group category.

TABLE 13: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PUBLIC WORKS
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Grading Permits
Grading Permit - Plan Check:
0-5 cub. yds. (no permit required) $0 $0 $0
6-50 cub. yds. $115 $183 ($68)
51-100 cub. yds. $115 $258 ($143)
101-1,000 cub. yds. $463 $484 ($21)
1,001-10,000 cub. yds. $929 $935 ($6)
10,001-100,000 cub. yds. $4,993 $5,444 ($451)
100,001-200,000 cub. yds. $8,323 $9,052 ($729)
200,000 or more cub. yds. $16,650 $16,568 $82
3rd and subsequent Plan Checks New $300 N/A
Geotechnical Peer Review $5,000 $5,000 $0
Grading Permit - Inspection:
0-5 cub. yds. (no permit required) $0 $0 $0
6-50 cub. yds. $460 $549 ($89)
51-100 cub. yds. $923 $1,238 ($315)
101-1,000 cub. yds. $16,528 $3,477 $13,051
1,001-10,000 cub. yds. $24,799 $6,922 $17,877
10,001-100,000 cub. yds. $10,000 $13,812 ($3,812)
100,000 - 200,000 cub. yds. $10,000 $17,257 ($7,257)
200,000 + cub. yds. $10,000 $25,869 ($15,869)
3rd and subsequent Inspections New $172 N/A
Grading Permit - SWPPP Compliance
Single Parcel (assessed every 2 reviews)
Single Parcel (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection $162 $269 ($107) Force Account for Remediation $591 $645 ($54)
Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews) Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection
$651 $656 ($5)
Force Account for Remediation Actual Cost
of Erosion
Control Plan
$645 N/A
Development subject to C.3 Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews) Development subject to C.3 Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection
$1,306 $1,451 ($145)
Force Account for Remediation Actual Cost
of Erosion
Control Plan
$645 N/A
Misc. Permits
Special Permit (after hours work):

Special Permit (after hours work) $233 $214 $19

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Inspection / Work $500 $500 $0
Truck Haul Permit $115 $108 $7
Encroachment Permit
Cost of ROW Improvements
Up to $49,999 New $1,529 N/A
$50,000 New $1,529 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $224 N/A $100,000 New $2,647 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $262 N/A $250,000 New $6,584 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $144 N/A $500,000 New $10,176 N/A
each additional $10,000 or fraction thereof New $85 N/A $1,000,000+ New $14,421 N/A
each additional $100,000 or fraction thereof New $21 N/A Site Work Permit:

Engineering Review (assessed every 2 reviews) $461 $601 ($140) Fast Track Review $442 $579 ($137)
Tentative Parcel Map Review $629 $676 ($47)
Final Parcel Map Review:

Final Parcel Map Review $629 $901 ($272)
Land Surveyor Review $1,500 $5,000 ($3,500)
Water Service Inspection and Meter:
5/8" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $551 $1,104 ($553) 3/4" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $569 $1,245 ($676) 1" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $607 $1,370 ($763)

1.5" Meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $961 $1,859 ($898) 2" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $1,522 $2,203 ($681) 3" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $2,663 $4,154 ($1,491) 4" meter - Inspection & Meter Cost $3,092 $4,918 ($1,826) Sanitary Sewer Lateral Service - Inspection:

Single Family Unit $353 $764 ($411)
Multiple Unit Dwelling $706 $1,108 ($402)
Commercial, Industrial, Public & Other Uses $706 $1,183 ($477) Final Subdivision Map:

Base $8,025 $8,418 ($393)
Per Lot $500 $526 ($26)
Fire Hydrant Flow Test $755 $799 ($44)
Water, Sewer, Storm Drain system capacity modeling:

City Staff Cost $450 $628 ($178)
Consultant Modeling $5,000 $5,000 $0
The fees administered by Public Works generally under-recover for its services. The largest underrecovery is in relation to the ‘Grading Permit – Inspection:’ fees, specifically the ‘200,000+ Cub. Yds.’ fee at $15,869. The smallest under-recovery is in relation to the ‘Grading Permit – SWPPP Compliance’ fees,

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
specifically the ‘Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews) - Subdivision subject to Map Act Provisions (assessed every 2 reviews): Admin + Inspection’ under the grading permits at $5.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Public Works does not track the permits at the granular level of detail as such no annual revenue impact analysis was conducted.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee. Currently, the City of Brisbane does not assess a General Plan Maintenance Fee and only assesses a Technology fee. The following subsections discuss the calculation and application of the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee and provides comparative context to other jurisdictions.

GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
A General Plan Maintenance fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning ordinance, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan.

The 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 can be charged against zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, and filing applications.

More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure any development project, which gets to that phase, makes enough of an impact to require the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. This fee should only be applied to major building permits (i.e., new or remodel / tenant improvements) rather than standalone permits for water heaters or electrical outlets.

The project team took the estimated cost associated with updating the General Plan and divided it by the years over which those services would be provided to calculate the annualized cost. The following table breaks out by category the components that comprise the total annual cost calculation.

TABLE 14: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – ANNUAL COSTS
Task Budget # of Years Annual Cost
General Plan Update $500,000 15 $33,333
Total Annual Cost $500,000 $33,333
The annual cost to the City for updating their general plan was calculated to be roughly $33,333. The City currently does not charge a General Plan Maintenance Fee, as such we calculated the fee as a percentage of the City’s building permit fees, which is the most common methodology. An alternative approach is based on the building valuation. The following table shows the general plan maintenance fee calculation based on both approaches:

TABLE 15: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
Category % of Permit Fee % of Building Valuation
Annual Cost $33,333 $33,333
Base $467,404 $35,384,951
General Plan Maintenance Fee 7% 0.09%

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
As the table indicates, the calculated Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Fee is 7% of the building permit or 0.09% of the building valuation.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 16: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Burlingame 0.20% of the Building Valuation
Daly City 1.00% of the project valuation
Emeryville 0.50% of construction valuation
Millbrae 0.39% of project valuation
San Bruno 0.90% of the building valuation
South San Francisco 0.30% of Bldg. Valuation
The fees charged by all other jurisdictions is a percentage of the building valuation. It is a best practice to charge this fee as either percentage of building permit fee or building valuation. The City’s full cost calculated at 0.09% of the Building Valuation would still be lower than all the surveyed jurisdictions. Even though building valuation is the common methodology used by surrounding jurisdiction, applying this fee as a percentage of the building permit fee has a stronger nexus as it ensures that the fee charged for long-range planning never exceeds the building permit fee.

TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE FEE
A Technology Fee allows a jurisdiction to support the costs associated with its permitting system, staff time for managing the systems, acquiring the system, mobile devices used for permitting, etc. The City of Brisbane currently charges a plan maintenance fee to capture the costs for technology and develops a budget annually for those technology-related needs. The project team utilized the annual budget for Plan Maintenance to calculate the updated technology fee. The following table shows, by line item, the FY26 adopted budget for technology-related costs for development activities.

TABLE 17: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE COST COMPONENTS
Item Fee # of Years Annual Cost
Tech Fee $1,000,000 20 $50,000
Total Annual Cost $50,000
Based upon the items needed to maintain the permitting system, annual technology-related costs are approximately $50,000.

The most defensible methodology for assessing a technology fee is based proportionately on the percentage of the permit fee, as the greater the permit fee, the more software utilization and storage space is required. The City does not utilize this method and instead charges a fee of $1.63 per plan. As

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
such, the project team calculated the rate as a percentage for the City by taking the total Technology Annual Cost and dividing it by the annual fee-related cost associated with departments that utilize the permitting software (Building & Planning). The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 18: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE CALCULATION
Category Technology Fee Calculation
Total Annual Technology Cost $50,000
Total Building & Planning Permit Fees $984,309
Technology Surcharge 5%
Based upon this calculation, the City’s full cost Technology fee would be 5% of the permit fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the Technology fee collected would be $5.00; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000, the Technology fee collected would be $50. This type of structure enables the Technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based upon the projects and their impact upon the system. The City’s current fee is $1.63 per plan, which is not comparable to the calculated full cost of 5% of the permit fee.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a Technology Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 19: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Burlingame 2% of the Fee
Daly City 9% of the Building Permit Fee
Emeryville 0.10% of Construction Valuation
Millbrae 7% of Permit Fee
San Bruno 10% of the Permit Fees
The full cost calculated for the City is the third lowest at 5% when compared to the other jurisdictions surveyed.

SURCHARGE FUND BEST PRACTICES
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology surcharges in separate accounts, as doing so ensures compliance with funding requirements, enables appropriate allocation of funds to general plan or technology-related activities, and mitigates any potential issues with the comingling of funds.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost recovery policies and procedures.

FEE ADJUSTMENTS
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under- and overcollecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees per Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees:
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service. • Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low-cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period.

The City will need to review the results of the fee study 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 following subsections provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.

FULL COST RECOVERY
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery.

Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees that cannot be increased.

The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services.

COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44

PHASED INCREASES
Depending on current cost recovery levels, some current fees may need to be increased significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching its cost recovery goals.

As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply with proposed recovery levels. Assuming this service is something the City provides quite often and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved.

Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example above, the City could increase the fee by $150 per year for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window after which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general recommendation is that a comprehensive fee analysis should be conducted every five to seven years. This allows jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes, such as staffing levels and merit increases, and process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms:
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors.

Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually. • CPI / ECI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index or Employment Cost Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
The City of Brisbane already utilizes a CPI factor, and it should continue to do so to ensure that fees are increased in alignment with cost increases.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the costs associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources.

Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits of developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery.

TYPICAL COST RECOVERY
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The following table outlines cost recovery ranges by major service area.

TABLE 20: TYPICAL COST RECOVERY RANGES BY MAJOR SERVICE AREA Service Areas Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Building 80-100%
Planning 50-80%
The following graph depicts how Brisbane compares to industry cost recovery range standards.

Building & Planning are both below the typical recovery range.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46

DEVELOPMENT OF COST RECOVERY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy regarding cost recovery.

This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the City as a whole or to each department and division specifically. A department-specific cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Brisbane, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified six municipalities to be included in the comparative survey for departments other than Parks and Recreation: Burlingame, Daly City, Emeryville, Millbrae, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. For Parks and Recreation, the City identified eight municipalities to be included in the comparative survey: Belmont, Burlingame, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Carlos, San Francisco, San Mateo, and South San Francisco. The project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances) and or contacted jurisdictions to get 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 for the City to assess what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, benchmarking does not provide adequate information regarding the relationship of other jurisdictions’ costs to their fees (i.e., 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 to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can impact how and when fees are administered, as a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose to not charge a fee, or a smaller workforce size may inhibit their ability to administer a fee. The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:

TABLE 21: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY POPULATION
Jurisdiction Population6
Brisbane 4,676
Emeryville 13,471
Millbrae 23,164
Burlingame 31,552
San Bruno 42,631
South San Francisco 65,397
6 California Finance estimates as of 1/1/2024 were used to determine each jurisdiction’s population.

APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
Jurisdiction Population6
Daly City 102,155
TABLE 22: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY CITYWIDE TOTAL BUDGET Jurisdiction FY25-26 Budget7
Brisbane $28,599,443
Millbrae $40,496,262
San Bruno $68,775,416
Burlingame $81,032,875
Daly City $125,510,727
Emeryville $142,131,800
South San Francisco $152,532,413
TABLE 23: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY FTE
Jurisdiction FY25-26 Authorized FTE
Millbrae 105.75
Brisbane 145.00
Emeryville 174.61
San Bruno 287.00
Burlingame 327.4
Daly City 487.00
South San Francisco 643.81
When compared to the surveyed jurisdictions, the City of Brisbane ranks at the bottom in terms of population and budget and ranks as the second lowest when it comes to staffing.

RECENCY FACTOR
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling Brisbane’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted recent fee studies, their fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost associated with 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 24: LAST FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Jurisdiction Response
Burlingame 2025
Daly City 2025
7 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budget (all funds) has been used for all jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
Jurisdiction Response
Emeryville 2025
Millbrae 2025
San Bruno 2025
South San Francisco 2025
TABLE 25: LAST FEE STUDY CONDUCTED
Jurisdiction Response
Burlingame 2024
Daly City 2022
Emeryville N/A
Millbrae 2017
San Bruno 2020
South San Francisco 2023
Most of the surveyed jurisdictions have published an updated fee schedule within the last year.

Additionally, all the jurisdictions except for Emeryville and Millbrae have conducted a fee study within the last five years.

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 are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services, as various policy decisions may subsidize services. • 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 run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because 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 of how the City’s current user fees and calculated full cost compare to other identified jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City versus the surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50

REROOFING PERMIT
Building currently charges a fee of $105 for a plan check and inspection of a Reroofing Permit that is 2,000 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $166. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current and full cost fees are the lowest when compared to the jurisdictional average of $507.

The City’s full cost is most comparable to Emeryville’s fee of $200.

WATER HEATER: RESIDENTIAL
Building currently charges for a Water Heater: Residential as a valuation, which would be roughly $105.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $193. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
Brisbane’s current fee is the second lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $105, as this fee is valuation-based. However, its full cost of $193 is above the jurisdictional average of $133. The calculated full cost is the same as Emeryville’s fee of $193.

SFR PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: NEW
Building currently charges a fee of $2,220 for a plan check and inspection of an SFR Plan Check & Permit: New - Valued at $450,000 (2,000 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $2,464. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $2,220. However, its full cost of $2,464 is below the jurisdictional average of $9,366. The City’s current fee and full cost is most similar to Emeryville’s fee of $3,600.

SFR PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: ADDITION
Building currently charges a fee of $235 for a plan check and inspection of an SFR Plan Check & Permit:

Addition - Valued at $5,000 (150 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $547. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
Brisbane’s current fee is the second lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $235. However, its full cost of $547 is below the jurisdictional average of $837. The City’s current fee and full cost are most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $327.

COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: NEW
Building currently charges a fee of $16,960 for a plan check and inspection of a Commercial Plan Check & Permit: New - Valued at $3,000,000 (20,000 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $22,100. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $16,960. However, its full cost of $22,100 is below the jurisdictional average of $49,242. The City’s current fee and full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $22,629.

COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK & PERMIT: TI
Building currently charges a fee of $2,979 for a plan check and inspection of a Commercial Plan Check & Permit: TI - Valued at $200,000 (1,200 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
cost of this service to be $4,930. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $2,979. However, its full cost of $4,930 is below the jurisdictional average of $6,820. The City’s current fee and full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $5,357.

SPRINKLER SYSTEM: COMMERCIAL - NEW
Fire currently charges a fee of $1,300 for a plan check and inspection of a Sprinkler System: Commercial - New - 5,000 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,668. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is in on the higher end when compared to other jurisdictions at $1,300. However, its full cost of $1,668 is above the jurisdictional average of $1,111. The City’s current fee is most comparable to San Bruno’s fee of $1,128, whereas the calculated full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $1,844.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: RESIDENTIAL - NEW
I Fire currently charges a fee of $260 for Sprinkler System: Residential - New - 1,000 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $417. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $260. However, its full cost of $417 is below the jurisdictional average of $850. The City’s current fee is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $302, whereas the calculated full cost is most comparable to Millbrae and Emeryville’s fee of $507.

SPRINKLER SYSTEM: COMMERCIAL - ALTERATION
Fire currently charges a fee of $390 for a Sprinkler System: Commercial - Alteration - 1,500 sq. ft.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $250. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is on the higher end when compared to other jurisdictions at $390. However, its full cost of $250 is below the jurisdictional average of $519. The City’s current fee is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $339, while the calculated full cost is most comparable to Burlingame’s fee of $253.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: RESIDENTIAL - ALTERATION
Fire currently charges a fee of $136 for a Sprinkler System: Residential - Alteration - 500 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $200. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $136. However, its full cost of $200 is below the jurisdictional average of $441. The City’s current fee is most similar to Burlingame and Millbrae’s fee at $162, whereas the calculated total cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $269.

FIXED EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM PERMIT: UPGRADE INSTALLATIONS Fire currently charges a fee of $456 for a Fixed Extinguishing System Permit: Upgrade Installations.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $450. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the highest when compared to other jurisdictions at $456. However, its full cost of $450 is above the jurisdictional average of $258. The City’s current fee and total cost is most comparable to San Bruno’s fee of $415.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 56

HYDRANT FLOW TEST
Fire currently charges a fee of $643 for a Hydrant Flow Test. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $650. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is in the middle when compared to other jurisdictions at $643. However, its full cost of $650 is above the jurisdictional average of $621. The City’s current fee and total cost is most comparable to Burlingame’s fee of $432.

NEW BUSINESS FIRE INSPECTION
Fire currently charges a fee of $218 for a New Business Fire Inspection. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $232. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is in the middle when compared to other jurisdictions at $218. However, its full cost of $232 is below the jurisdictional average of $247. The City’s current fee and total cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $269.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 57
COMMUNITY ROOM RENTAL: 1 HOUR - RESIDENT, WEEKDAY
Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $192 for a Community Room Rental: 1 hour - resident, weekday. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $285. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the third highest when compared to other jurisdictions at $192. However, its full cost of $285 is above the jurisdictional average of $134. The City’s current fee is most comparable to Belmont’s fee of $197, while the calculated full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $215. It was noted that Pacifica is not comparable as they do not have a community room for rent at the community center.

ENTIRE COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL: 8 HOURS - RESIDENT, WEEKEND Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $2,968 for an Entire Community Center Rental: 8 hours - resident, weekend. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $3,264. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $2,968. However, its full cost of $3,264 is above the jurisdictional average of $2,174. The City’s current fee is most comparable to

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 58
Belmont’s fee of $2,184, while the calculated full cost is most comparable to Burlingame’s fee of $3,712.

It was noted that Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Carlos do not offer the ability to rent the entire facility.

POOL ADMISSION: RESIDENT, ADULT
Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $7 for a Pool Admission: resident, adult. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $21. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is in the middle when compared to other jurisdictions at $7. However, its full cost of $21 is above the jurisdictional average of $7. The City’s current fee is most comparable to South San Francisco and Belmont’s fee of $7, whereas the calculated full cost is most similar to Burlingame’s fee of $9. It was noted that both Millbrae and San Carlos do not have a pool.

SWIM LESSON (PER CLASS): RESIDENT
Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $11 for a Swim Lesson (per class): Resident. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $37. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $11. However, its full cost of $37 is below the jurisdictional average of $93. The City’s current fee and total cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee $16. It was noted that both Millbrae and San Carlos do not have a pool.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 59

SUMMER CAMP
Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $215 for a resident per week for a Summer Camp.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $244 per week. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current and full cost fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions. Its fees are in alignment with San Francisco and South San Francisco.

BREAK CAMP
Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $215 for a resident for a week for Break Camp. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $269. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current and full cost fee is lower than the jurisdictional average of $311. Its fees are more in alignment with South San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Carlos.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 60

SENIOR LUNCHES
Parks and Recreation currently charges a fee of $10 per month for Senior Lunches. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $134. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions. However, its full cost of $134 is significantly above the jurisdictional average of $23. It was noted that South San Francisco’s senior lunches are donated, and Burlingame & San Francisco do not provide Senior Lunches, as such they were not included in the comparison.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
Planning currently charges a fee of $1,376 for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $7,422. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the second lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $1,376. However, its full cost of $7,422 is below the jurisdictional average of $8,361. The City’s current fee is most comparable to Burlingame’s fee of $1,981. Its full cost is not the highest, but also not the lowest.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 61

SIGN PERMIT
Planning currently charges a fee of $387 for a Sign Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $661. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee and full cost fee are above the jurisdictional average of $344. Its full cost fee is most in alignment with the City of Emeryville.

MINOR MODIFICATIONS
Planning currently charges a fee of $648 for Minor Modifications. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $4,992. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is in the middle when compared to other jurisdictions at $648. However, its full cost of $4,992 is above the jurisdictional average of $1,499. The City’s current fee is most comparable to Burlingame’s Fee of $822, while the calculated full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $4,632.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 62

FINAL PARCEL MAP
Planning currently charges a fee of $529 for a Final Parcel Map. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $3,801. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $529. However, its full cost of $3,801 is below the jurisdictional average of $6,412. The City’s current fee is most comparable to Emeryville’s fee of $1,311, whereas the calculated full cost is most comparable to Millbrae’s fee of $4,217.

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Planning currently charges a fee of $1,157 for a Lot Line Adjustment. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $4,750. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 63
Brisbane’s current fee is the second lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $1,157. However, its full cost of $4,750 is above the jurisdictional average of $3,006. The City’s current fee is most comparable to San Bruno’s fee of $1,234, while the calculated full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $4,522.

CLEARANCE & GOOD CONDUCT LETTERS
Police currently charges a fee of $6 for Clearance & Good Conduct Letters. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $35. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $6. However, its full cost of $35 is below the jurisdictional average of $57. The City’s current fee is most comparable to Emeryville’s fee of $13, while the calculated full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $41.

VEHICLE RELEASES
Police currently charges a fee of $63 for Vehicle Releases. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $68. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 64
Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $63. However, its full cost of $68 is below the jurisdictional average of $176. The City’s current fee and full cost is most comparable to San Bruno’s fee of $106.

FINGERPRINTING: ADULT
Police currently charges a fee of $36 for Fingerprinting: Adult. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $89. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is on the lower end when compared to other jurisdictions at $36. However, its full cost of $89 is below the jurisdictional average of $124. The City’s current fee is most comparable to Burlingame’s fee of $36, whereas the calculated full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $84.

MASSAGE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
Police currently charges a fee of $135 for a Massage Certificate of Registration. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $379. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 65
Brisbane’s current fee is the lowest when compared to other jurisdictions at $135. However, its full cost of $379 is below the jurisdictional average of $970. The City’s current fee and total cost is most comparable to Millbrae’s fee of $300.

GRADING PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION: 100 CUBIC YARDS
Public Works currently charges a fee of $16,991 for Grading Plan Check & Inspection: 101 Cubic Yards.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $3,961. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the highest when compared to other jurisdictions, at $16,991. However, its full cost of $3,961 is above the jurisdictional average of $1,819. The City’s calculated full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $4,305.

GRADING PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION: 1,000 CUBIC YARDS
Public Works currently charges a fee of $25,728 for Grading Plan Check & Inspection: 1,000 Cubic Yards.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $7,857. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 66
Brisbane’s current fee is the highest when compared to other jurisdictions at $25,728. However, its full cost of $7,857 is above the jurisdictional average of $4,425. The calculated full cost is most comparable to Emeryville’s fee of $10,000.

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: VALUED AT $50,000
Public Works currently charges an hourly fee for an Encroachment Permit: Valued at $50,000, which is roughly $575. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,529.

The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current and full cost fee are significantly below the average of $6,835. The average is being skewed by Daly City. If Daly City were removed, the average would decrease to $2,081, which would be more in alignment with the City’s full cost.

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: VALUED AT $250,000
Public Works currently charges an hourly fee for an Encroachment Permit: Valued at $250,000, which is roughly $2,300. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $6,584.

The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 67
Brisbane’s current fee and full cost are below the jurisdictional average of $14,372. It’s full cost is more in alignment with Millbrae and Emeryville.

SANITARY SEWER LATERAL SERVICE - INSPECTION: SFRM
Public Works currently charges a fee of $353 for Sanitary Sewer Lateral Service - Inspection: SFR.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $764. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the third highest when compared to other jurisdictions, at $353. However, its full cost of $764 is above the jurisdictional average of $418. The City’s current fee is most similar to Daly City’s fee of $325, whereas the calculated full cost is most comparable to South San Francisco’s fee of $1,051.

BRISBANE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 68

FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST
Public Works currently charges a fee of $755 for Fire Hydrant Flow Test. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $799. The following graph shows how Brisbane’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Brisbane’s current fee is the third highest when compared to other jurisdictions, at $755. However, its full cost of $799 is above the jurisdictional average of $621. The City’s current fee and full cost is most comparable to Daly City’s fee of $894.

SUMMARY
Overall, Brisbane generally has current fees that are lower in all departments, with the exception of Public Works, which has higher fees on average compared to the other surveyed jurisdictions. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Brisbane’s current fees are most comparable with Burlingame and San Bruno, while the City’s calculated full cost is most comparable to fees charged by Daly City, Emeryville, and South San Francisco, all of whom have recently conducted fee studies.

In regard to Parks and Recreation, Brisbane has current fees that are lower on average when compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Brisbane’s current fees are most comparable to Belmont and San Francisco, while the calculated full cost is most compatible with Burlingame and South San Francisco, who have recently conducted fee studies.

It is important to note that the results of this survey only show the fees adopted by the council, not the cost recovery policy decisions for departments or a jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-making for decision-making.

4934-0995-6020 v1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-_______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE,

UPDATING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF

CERTAIN FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THE MARINA, PARKS AND RECREATION

DEPARTMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UTILITY BILLING DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT, AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

WHEREAS, the City has the authority to impose fees, charges, and rates to offset the costs for municipal services and regulatory programs under its police powers under California Constitution Article XI §7; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, through prior actions, adopted various fees and charges for City services provided to the public through various City departments, and the City has assembled those fees in a Master Fee Schedule which the City posts on its website; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined fees for
services identified in the Master Fee Schedule, as set forth in this resolution, in order to proportionately and of providing services to those who benefit from those services; and
WHEREAS, the City has calculated the updated fees identified in this resolution in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 26 (California Constitution Article XIII C, § 1(e)) by which providing the services, and the costs are proportionately allocated to each fee payor based on their respective benefits from or burdens on the services, and each updated fee falls within one a) The amount of the fee does not exceed the costs of providing a specific benefit to the payor; or
b) The amount of the fee does not exceed the costs of providing a service or product to the payor
c) The amount of the fee does not exceed the costs of regulation (including licensing, permitting, investigation, inspecting, auditing, or enforcement); or d) The amount of the fee does not exceed the value of City land authorized by the City for use by the payor; or
e) The amount of the fee is a fine or penalty for a violation of law; and WHEREAS, to the extent that fees identified on the Master Fee Schedule are imposed for City services provided as conditions of the development of property, and those fees are required to comply with the requirements of the , Government Code §§ 66000 66025), particularly the requirements of Government Code § 66014, the City has calculated the updated fees identified in this resolution in accordance with those requirements; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the Fee Act, Government Code §§ 66016, 66017, 66018, and 6062a, the City made documents available for public review to describe the fees proposed for update in accordance with this resolution, and the City provided notice of the public
this resolution; and

4934-0995-6020 v1
WHEREAS, Government Code § 66016 requires data describing the proposed fee updates be made available to the public at least ten (10) days before the meeting at which fee increases are considered for services provided as conditions of developing property; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the new and increased user fees was published in accordance with Government Code §§ 66018 and 6062a; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code §§ 66016 and 66017, fees imposed on a development project that apply to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall not take effect until at least sixty (60) days have passed since the final action on the adoption or increase of the fee; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council was held June 18, 2026, at which public testimony was received and duly considered on the proposed fees described in this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brisbane, as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated herein by reference and each is relied upon independently by the City Council for its adoption of this resolution.

2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based upon the data, information and analysis presented to the Council concerning the fees set forth in the Proposed Master Fee Schedule, Master that those fees
do not constitute taxes as defined by Proposition 26 (California Constitution Article XIII C, § 1(e)).

3. The City Council hereby approves the new and updated fees set forth on the Master Fee Schedule, as implemented by this resolution. As of the effective date of this resolution, the amount of each fee in each row identified in the Master Fee Schedule shall be the Recommended Fee.
a. For each fee identified on the Master the
applicant shall pay the City the identified deposit amount, prior to, and as a condition of, the City providing the requested service. If the authorized representative determines that the actual costs exceed the deposit amount, the applicant shall pay the City the additional amount (actual cost less deposit) within 30 days of written notice from the City. If, at the conclusion of providing the requested services, the authorized representative determines that the actual costs are less than the deposit amount, the City shall refund 30 days after completion of the requested service. The actual costs shall be determined by the authorized representative based on (i) the hourly rates for services for City employees, plus (ii) any direct costs billed to the City by an outside contractor or consultant.
b. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to implement the fee changes authorized by this resolution by administratively organizing and publishing all City fees (including the updated fees described in this resolution) in updated Master Fee Schedule.

4. Effective Date. The fees approved by this resolution shall be effective on July 1, 2026.

However, pursuant to Government Code §§ 66016 and 66017, fees imposed on a

4934-0995-6020 v1
development project that apply to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall not take effect until August 18, 2026.

5. Conflict. If there are conflicts between the fee amounts identified in the Master Fee Schedule and the amounts adopted by any prior Council action, the Master Fee Schedule shall take precedence. This resolution does not supersede any previous resolution or ordinance setting fees that are not included in Exhibit A to this resolution.

6. Annual Adjustments for Inflation. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to approve an annual adjustment to any fee identified on the Master Fee Schedule, as updated by this resolution. The adjustment shall be effective on the date it is approved in writing by th
website. The amount of the adjustment to the fees shall not exceed the corresponding proportional change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco Bay Area, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, or any successor to that index. In determining the annual percentage increase, as an example, the City shall compare the indexed amount for the month immediately preceding the adjustment date to the indexed amount for the month immediately preceding the most recent previous update or adjustment to the fee amount by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, no such adjustment shall be made to: (i) any rates, fees or charges determined by using a percentage calculation; or (ii) any fee for which separate legal requirements must be followed (including any property related fee subject to Proposition 218, California Constitution Article XIII D § 6; and any development impact fee subject to the requirements of a nexus study in accordance with Government Code § 66016.5).

7. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution or the fee amounts established by this resolution shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution, or the fee amounts established by this resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions. All other fees contained in the Master Fee Schedule, which were not changed or eliminated by this resolution, remain as adopted.

8. The City Council finds that this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8), and California Code of Regulations §
modifies, structures, or restructures, and approves rates and charges for the purposes of: (1) meeting operating expenses; (2) purchasing supplies, equipment and materials; and (3) meeting financial requirements. This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves the adoption or amendment of certain fees and/or charges imposed by the City, does not commit the City to any specific project, and to the extent said fees and/or charges may be applicable to future development projects and/or activities, those future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15004(b)(1)). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(4); and, even if

4934-0995-6020 v1
Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment.

9. The Master Fee Schedule, set forth in Exhibit A, may be revised, amended, or updated from time to time by resolution or ordinance of the City Council. ________________________ Coleen Mackin, Mayor I, Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk of Brisbane do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 2026-______ was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brisbane City Council on June 18, 2026, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Proposed Master Fee Schedule

Old Item No. New Item No. Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Recommended Fee Fee Type Building
Building permit fees - Alterations, repairs, and interior changes to existing structures & plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work BP-1.1 $800-$2,000
Base Each $35.00 $87.73 $87.73 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $3.83 $23.60 $23.60 User Fee
BP-1.2 $2,001-$25,000
Base Each $81.00 $263.18 $263.18 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $16.30 $26.19 $26.19 User Fee
BP-1.3 $25,001-$50,000
Base Each $456.00 $741.46 $741.46 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $12.35 $38.31 $38.31 User Fee
BP-1.4 $50,001-$100,000
Base Each $777.00 $1,052.71 $1,052.71 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $8.00 $26.88 $26.88 User Fee
BP-1.5 $100,001-$500,000
Base Each $1,000.00 $1,675.22 $1,675.22 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $6.12 $12.25 $12.25 User Fee
BP-1.6 $500,001+
Base Each $3,610.00 $4,686.65 $4,686.65 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $6.12 $6.12 $6.12 User Fee
New Structures and Additions
Assembly buildings, theaters, stadiums, reviewing stands, amusement park structures BP-2.1 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.89 $1.03 $1.03 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.77 $0.77 $0.77 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.71 $0.73 $0.73 User Fee
BP-2.2 5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.71 $0.85 $0.85 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.62 $0.70 $0.70 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.57 $0.57 $0.57 User Fee
BP-2.3 10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.57 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.49 $0.65 $0.65 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.46 $0.54 $0.54 User Fee
BP-2.4 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.89 $1.14 $1.14 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.77 $0.80 $0.80 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.83 $0.84 $0.84 User Fee
BP-2.5 5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.71 $0.85 $0.85 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.62 $0.64 $0.64 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.67 $0.75 $0.75 User Fee
BP-2.6 10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.57 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.49 $0.53 $0.53 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.53 $0.65 $0.65 User Fee
Education buildings, day care (more than 6 children - less than 6 use "R") BP-2.7 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $1.08 $1.25 $1.25 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.87 $0.91 $0.91 User Fee
Warehouses, gas stations, storage garages, open garages, wholesale/retail stores, churches, office buildings, bars/restaurants, printing plants, police, fire stations, factories, workshops, storage, sales, paint stores, ice plants, power plants, pumping plants, cold storage, creameries
1 of 21
Exhibit A

Old Item No. New Item No. Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Recommended Fee Fee Type BP-2.8 5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $1.00 $1.15 $1.15 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.88 $0.92 $0.92 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.80 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
BP-2.9 10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.69 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.61 $0.66 $0.66 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 User Fee
Includes hazardous materials storage, paint shops, box factories, repair garages BP-2.10 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $1.08 $1.25 $1.25 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.88 $0.91 $0.91 User Fee
BP-2.11 5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.87 $1.15 $1.15 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.76 $0.92 $0.92 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.70 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
BP-2.12 10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.69 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.61 $0.66 $0.66 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.56 $0.57 $0.57 User Fee
Private garages/carports, patio covers, greenhouses, water tanks, storage sheds, corrals, barns, towers, fences over 6 feet high BP-2.13 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.64 $0.74 $0.74 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.53 $0.55 $0.55 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.42 $0.42 $0.42 User Fee
BP-2.14 5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.51 $0.59 $0.59 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.42 $0.49 $0.49 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.34 $0.40 $0.40 User Fee
BP-2.15 10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.41 $0.51 $0.51 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.34 $0.41 $0.41 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.27 $0.33 $0.33 User Fee
Hotels, apartment houses, dwellings, duplexes, lodging houses, motels BP-2.16 0 - 5,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.89 $1.03 $1.03 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.77 $0.84 $0.84 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.74 $0.77 $0.77 User Fee
BP-2.17 5,001 - 10,000 sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.71 $0.85 $0.85 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.62 $0.72 $0.72 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.59 $0.59 $0.59 User Fee
BP-2.18 10,000+ sq. ft.

I & II Per Sq Ft $0.57 $0.83 $0.83 User Fee
IIB to V Per Sq Ft $0.49 $0.65 $0.65 User Fee
VB Per Sq Ft $0.47 $0.54 $0.54 User Fee
Swimming Pools (Including utilities)
BP-3 Swimming Pools Per Sq Ft $0.40 $1.39 $1.39 User Fee Decks
BP-4 Decks Per Sq Ft $0.16 $0.96 $0.96 User Fee
Termite Repair
BP-5.1 $1-$250 Each $80.00 $279.20 $279.20 User Fee
BP-5.2 $250-$20,000
Base Each $83.00 $311.25 $311.25 User Fee
Each Addl. $1,000 Each $13.45 $15.18 $15.18 User Fee
BP-5.3 $20,000+
Base Each $357.00 $611.10 $611.10 User Fee
2 of 21

Old Item No. New Item No. Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Recommended Fee Fee Type Misc Fees
MF-1 Reroofing Permit Per 1,000 Sq Ft $35 $52 $52 User Fee MF-2 Minimum Building Permit Fee Each $35 $160 $160 User Fee MF-3 Plan Checking Fees
MF-3a Minimum Plan Check Fee Each New $310 $310 User Fee MF-3b Commercial % of Bldg Permit 60% 70% 70% User Fee
MF-3c Residential % of Bldg Permit 50% 60% 60% User Fee MF-3d Fire Support % of Bldg Permit New 15% 15% User Fee MF-3e Planning Support % of Bldg Permit Modified 15% 15% User Fee MF-3f Expedited Plan Review % of Bldg Plan Review
Fee
New 1.5x Fee 1.5x Fee User Fee
MF-3g Engineering Review Each $461 $601 $601 User Fee
MF-4 Checking of plan revisions initiated by applicant (after issuance of building permit)
Per Hour $63 $248 $248 User Fee
MF-5 Energy code compliance plan review and inspection
(separate from Section 1 and 2 permits)
Per Hour $64 $248 $248 User Fee
MF-6 Pre-development conference Per Hour $76 $248 $248 User Fee MF-7 Technical Plan and Report Review Each Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Pass Through MF-8 Research Service Fee Per Site $1.63 $17.00 $17.00 User Fee MF-9 Penalty for Building without a Permit Per Violation Up to 10x Permit Fee Up to 10x Permit Fee Penalty Solar
Sol-1 Residential
15 kW or Less Each $266 $450 $450 GOV § 66015 (a)
More than 15 kW Base $266 $450 $450 GOV § 66015 (a)
Each kW above 15 kW Each kW above 15 kW $18 $15 $15 GOV § 66015 (a) Sol-2 Commercial
50kW or Less Base $971 $1,000 $1,000 Gov. Code 66015 (b) 51 kW - 250 kW Base $971 $1,000 $1,000 Gov. Code 66015 (b) Each kW above 50 kW but less than 250 kW Each kW above 50 kW $7 $7 $7.00 Gov. Code 66015 (b) > 250 kW Base $2,371 $2,400 $2,400 Gov. Code 66015 (b)
Each kW above 251 kW Each kW above 251
kW
$5 $5 $5.00 Gov. Code 66015 (b)
Sol-3 Energy Storage System
Application Fee Each New $105 $105 User Fee
Storage Unit Per Unit New $763 $763 User Fee
Sol-4 Thermal System - Residential
10 kWth or Less Each $450 $450 $450 GOV § 66015 (a)
More than 10 kWth Base $450 $450 $450 GOV § 66015 (a)
Each kWth above 10 kWth Each kWth above 10
kWth
$15 $15 $15 GOV § 66015 (a)
Sol-5 Thermal System - Commercial
30 kWth or Less Each $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Gov. Code 66015 (b) 30 kWth - 260 kWth Base $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Gov. Code 66015 (b) Each kWth above 30 kWth but less than 260 kWth Each kWth above 30 kWth
$7 $7 $7 Gov. Code 66015 (b)
More than 260 kWth Base $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 Gov. Code 66015 (b) Each kWth above 260 kWth Each kWth above 260
kWth
$5 $5 $5 Gov. Code 66015 (b)
3 of 21