REVISED 11/7/2024 3:00 PM
City of Capitola
City Council Workshop Agenda
Thursday, November 07, 2024 – 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010
Mayor: Kristen Brown
Vice Mayor: Yvette Brooks
Council Members: Joe Clarke, Margaux Morgan, Alexander Pedersen Special Meeting of the Capitola City Council – 6 PM
All correspondence received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding a Council Meeting will be distributed to Councilmembers to review prior to the meeting. Information submitted after 5 p.m. on that Wednesday may not have time to reach Councilmembers, nor be read by them prior to consideration of an item.
1. Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
Council Members Joe Clarke, Margaux Morgan, Alexander Pedersen, Yvette Brooks, and Mayor Kristen Brown.
2. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda
3. Additional Materials
Additional information submitted to the City after distribution of the agenda packet.
A. Item 6A - Correspondence Received
4. Oral Communications by Members of the Public
Oral Communications allows time for members of the Public to address the City Council on any “Consent Item” on tonight’s agenda, or on any topic within the jurisdiction of the City that is not on the “General Government/Public Hearings” section of the Agenda. Members of the public may speak for up to three minutes, unless otherwise specified by the Mayor. Individuals may not speak more than once during Oral Communications. All speakers must address the entire legislative body and will not be permitted to engage in dialogue. A maximum of 30 minutes is set aside for Oral Communications.
5. Staff / City Council Comments
Comments are limited to three minutes.
6. General Government / Public Hearings
All items listed in “General Government / Public Hearings” are intended to provide an opportunity for public discussion of each item listed. The following procedure pertains to each General Government item: 1) Staff explanation; 2) Council questions; 3) Public comment; 4) Council deliberation; 5) Decision.
A. 2024 Special Event Report
1 City Council Workshop Agenda – November 07, 2024
City of Capitola Page 2
Recommended Action: Receive a report highlighting special events held in the City in 2024; provide feedback, specific changes, or direction for recurring Special Event Permits; and approve recurring minor and general special events for 2025.
B. Comprehensive User Fee Study
Recommended Action: Receive a report on the Comprehensive User Fee Study conducted by Willdan Financial Services; provide direction to staff on the updates to the City of Capitola FY 2024-25 Fee Schedule, with adoption of the fee schedule scheduled for November 14, 2024.
7. Adjournment - The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is on November 14, 2024, at 6:00 PM.
_____________________________________________________
How to View the Meeting
Meetings are open to the public for in-person attendance at the Capitola City Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, 95010.
Other ways to Watch:
Spectrum Cable Television channel 8
City of Capitola, California YouTube Channel
To Join Zoom Application or Call in to Zoom:
Meeting
link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83328173113?pwd=aVRwcWN3RU03Zzc2dkNpQzRWVXAydz09 Or dial one of these phone numbers: 1 (669) 900 6833, 1 (408) 638 0968, 1 (346) 248 7799 Meeting ID: 833 2817 3113
Meeting Passcode: 678550
How to Provide Comments to the City Council
Members of the public may provide public comments to the City Council in-person during the meeting.
If you are unable to attend in-person, please email your comments to [email protected] and they will be included as a part of the record for the meeting. Please be aware that the City Council will not accept comments via Zoom.
Notice regarding City Council: The City Council meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola.
Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials: The City Council Agenda and the complete Agenda Packet are available for review on the City’s website and at Capitola City Hall prior to the meeting. Need more information? Contact the City Clerk’s office at 831-475-7300.
Agenda Materials Distributed after Distribution of the Agenda Packet: Pursuant to Government Code §54957.5, materials related to an agenda item submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Reception Office at City Hall, 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California, during normal business hours.
Americans with Disabilities Act: Disability-related aids or services are available to enable persons with a disability to participate in this meeting consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Assisted listening devices are available for individuals with hearing impairments at the meeting in the City Council Chambers. Should you require special accommodations to participate in the meeting due to a disability, please contact the City Clerk’s office at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting at 831-475-7300. In an effort to accommodate individuals with environmental sensitivities, attendees are requested to refrain from wearing perfumes and other scented products.
2 City Council Workshop Agenda – November 07, 2024
City of Capitola Page 3
Si desea asistir a esta reunión pública y necesita ayuda - como un intérprete de lenguaje de señas americano, español u otro equipo especial - favor de llamar al Departamento de la Secretaría de la Ciudad al 831-475-7300 al menos tres días antes para que podamos coordinar dicha asistencia especial o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected].
Televised Meetings: City Council meetings are cablecast “Live” on Charter Communications Cable TV Channel 8 and are recorded to be rebroadcasted at 8:00 a.m. on the Wednesday following the meetings and at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday following the first rebroadcast on Community Television of Santa Cruz County (Charter Channel 71 and Comcast Channel 25). Meetings are streamed “Live” on the City’s website by clicking on the Home Page link “Meeting Agendas/Videos.” Archived meetings can be viewed from the website at any time. 3 1
Gautho, Julia
From: michael routh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 1:24 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 6A
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Council members,
When discussing the special events, please include the Monte Fireworks. The crowds aƩempƟng to drive through the Jewel Box neighborhood to access Prospect Ave and the bluff overwhelmed the Jewel Box streets. There needs a be a plan for the event to control and limit vehicle access to the Jewel Box.
Mick Routh
Sent from my iPad
4 Item 3 A.
11/6/24, 3:16 PM No more Fireworks please!...Replace with Drones - Gautho, Julia - Outlook about:blank 1/1
Outlook
No more Fireworks please!...Replace with Drones
From Gail LoBello <[email protected]>
Date Wed 11/6/2024 3:06 PM
To City Council <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 14:55:22 -0800
Subject: No More Fireworks please! ...replace with Drones Dear Council Members,
I respectfully request that you prevent any future use of fireworks in our lovely coastal town of Capitola.
1) There are many other healthy ways to raise funds and entertain people. The smoke and toxic fumes are very unhealthy to our community, residents, and other attendees.
2) Seems ironic we live in a marine sanctuary, yet we cause much upset to our marine life and our domestic cats and dogs.
3) I strongly suggest we use drones as has been done in Dubai for years and recently in our own Santa Cruz County Fair.
Please halt the pollution that is detrimental to our community for the sake of entertainment. Let's get more creative in finding a solution. I will be happy to participate in a survey regarding my request.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Gail LoBello.
831-462-4825
[email protected]
5 Item 3 A.
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: November 7, 2024
From: Police Department
Subject: 2024 Special Event Report
Recommended Action: Receive a report highlighting special events held in the City in 2024; provide feedback, specific changes, or direction for recurring Special Event Permits; and approve recurring minor and general special events for 2025.
Background: In March 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1065, updating the City’s special event ordinance. That update established clear criteria for types of special event permits, and the process for issuance.
Special events are divided into two categories: major special events and minor special events. Major special events are those with more than 200 attendees, involve the closure of a Major Street (as defined by Ordinance No. 1065), or notable impacts on City services or a neighborhood. Minor special events are activities with between 75 to 200 people, not requiring closure of a major street, and can be approved by the City Manager, or his/her designee. All applications for new major special events must be presented to the City Council for review and consideration.
If there are no significant modifications and there are no major problems with the event, recurring special events may be approved by the City Manager for the upcoming calendar year. The City Council has the discretion to request a review of a recurring special event if there is an identifiable concern related to past events.
The purpose of this report is to review the 2024 special events, identify any issues, and determine if any additional review should be required for recurring events in 2025. If no issues are identified for an event, and the event organizer proposes no significant changes, staff will issue permits for the recurring special events in 2025.
Discussion: In 2024, staff issued 13 major special event permits and 32 minor special event permits.
Below are the planned recurring events for 2025. The following Major and Minor Special Events are being presented for approval for 2025.
Planned Public 2025 Major Special Events
Surfer’s Path 5K/10K Capitola Art & Wine Festival
Surfer’s Path Half Marathon Capitola Beach Festival VDUBs in the Village Mermaid Triathlon & Duathlon
Capitola Custom Classic Car Show Monte Fireworks Extravaganza Wharf to Wharf Race Women on Waves Surf Contest
Capitola 5K/10K
6 Item 6 A.
Planned Public 2025 Minor Special Events
Village Sip & Stroll #1 Strawberry Fields Forever Ride Operation Surf Veteran Surf Alliance Paddle Out
Good Friday Paddle Out AIDS/Lifecyle Bicycle Ride
Veteran Surf Alliance Learn to Surf (5) California Coast Classic Village Sip & Stroll #2 Halloween Parade
5K Walk for Angelman’s Syndrome Village Sip & Stroll #3 Fill the Boot for MDA Surfing Santa
City Organized Special Events
Skate-Tola Movies at the Beach (2)
Food Truck Fridays (4) Plein Air
Sunday Art at the Beach (4) First Responder’s Surf Contest Twilight Concerts (12)
Fiscal Impact: Staff invoices costs to event organizers for each event. Below is a summary of Police Department staff time per 2024 event.
Event Name Staff Costs Amount
Surfer’s Path 5K/10K Police Department $1,229
Surfer’s Path Half Marathon Police Department $1,144
Capitola Custom Classic Car
Show
Police Department $2,423
Wharf to Wharf Race Police Department
Public Works Department
$9,641
$4,187
Capitola 5K/10K Police Department $350
Capitola Art & Wine Festival Police Department $28,405
Capitola Beach Festival Police Department
Public Works Department
Rec. Department
$3,179
$276
$210
Mermaid Triathlon & Duathlon Police Department
Rec. Department
$2,795
$921
Monte Fireworks Extravaganza Police Department $5,473
Total $60,233
7 Item 6 A.
Attachments: None
Report Prepared By: Sarah Ryan, Administrative Captain
Reviewed By: Esmeralda Gonzalez, Administrative Records Analyst; Julia Gautho, City Clerk Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
8 Item 6 A.
4872-1858-5842 v1
Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: November 7, 2024
From: Finance Department
Subject: Comprehensive User Fee Study
Recommended Action: Receive a report on the Comprehensive User Fee Study conducted by Willdan Financial Services; provide direction to staff on the updates to the City of Capitola FY 2024-25 Fee Schedule, with adoption of the fee schedule scheduled for November 14, 2024.
Background: The City of Capitola contracted Willdan Financial Services to conduct a comprehensive User Fee Study. The study aimed to analyze and recommend fee adjustments for City services to ensure full cost recovery while maintaining compliance with state laws. The report recommends updated fees across various departments based on the actual costs of delivering services. These adjustments are necessary to align with the City's cost-recovery goals, reduce reliance on the General Fund, and ensure that user-specific services are appropriately funded by the beneficiaries.
Discussion: User fees fund City services that benefit specific users. California law mandates that fees must not exceed the cost-of-service provision, governed by regulations such as Proposition 218 and Proposition 26. Capitola's fees were assessed in furtherance of the cost-recovery goals established by the City Council to maintain financial sustainability.
Since the last study in November 2015, costs to provide certain City services have increased due to inflation, salary increases, and changes in service delivery. The current fee structure is outdated, with many fees set below full cost recovery, leading to a higher dependence on the General Fund.
The purpose of the fee study is to determine the City’s actual cost to provide the services and recommend a cost recovery rate. It is worth noting that different cities take different approaches to cost recovery based on local priorities. For example, some cities will only recover 25-30% of costs for recreation programs, while other cities will strive for 100% cost recovery for those same programs. While this study includes a recommended rate for all fees, the Council may establish a lower cost recovery rate for any fee, in effect using tax revenue to help fund the cost for that service. Due to Proposition 218, fees cannot be greater than the amounts identified in the report.
Study Methodology: The study used three key methods:
1. Case Study Method: This estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with specific services.
2. Program Cost Approach: Used for services where individual cost data isn't available, such as recreational programs.
3. Valuation-Based Fees: Applied for building permits, where project valuation reflects the effort required to provide the service.
9 Item 6 B.
4872-1858-5842 v1
These methods were completed by meeting with City staff to gather accurate data on time and resource allocation for each service.
Key Study Findings:
1. Cost Recovery: The study determined the fee amount to achieve full cost recovery for services across various departments, with recommendations to either increase, decrease, or maintain fees. Many current fees in the Public Works, Police, Planning, and Building departments are below full recovery levels.
2. Elasticity of Demand: Increased fees could reduce demand for some services, while lowering fees could encourage usage and demand on City services. However, these economic impacts were not the primary focus of the study.
3. Subsidization: Some services that provide broad public benefits are proposed to continue to be subsidized by the General Fund, such as community services and certain public safety measures.
Recommendations by Department:
1. Public Works:
o Significant fee increases are recommended to cover the costs of traffic control plan reviews, construction parking permits, and stormwater development reviews required for development in the City.
o Several new fees for inspection and permit services have been introduced.
2. Police Department:
o A 38% average fee increase is proposed, with adjustments to fees imposed to review and issue special event permits and amplified sound permits, and various other administrative fees.
o New fees for services like vehicle boot removal and tow hearings are introduced to align with full cost recovery.
3. Planning Division:
o Adjustments reflect a 3% average decrease due to revised cost estimates for services like tree removal permits and accessory dwelling unit reviews. o The Planning Division recommends new fees for complex planning applications and environmental reviews to capture full-service costs.
4. Building Division:
o Proposed increases for building plan checks and inspection fees to reflect the additional staff time required for larger and more complex projects. o New fees for permit extensions and reinstatements are also introduced.
5. Community Services and Recreation Department:
o Adjustments aim to keep programs affordable while improving cost recovery. The average recommended increase in fees for facility rentals and recreation programs is approximately 2%.
6. Historical Museum:
o No changes recommended; fees will remain at current levels.
7. Miscellaneous:
10 Item 6 B.
4872-1858-5842 v1
o Increase Outdoor dining space rent by 2023 CPI amount of 3.67% increasing from $1.50 per square foot to $1.56 per square foot and from $3,400 annually per parking space to $3,524.78 annually per parking space.
1. This increase was not included in the attached User Fee Study Report and was added by staff.
Policy Considerations: The City Council should consider the following when deciding on fee adjustments:
Public vs. Private Benefit: Services that solely benefit individuals should aim for full cost recovery, while services benefiting the broader public may justify some level of subsidization.
Affordability and Access: Certain services, particularly recreational and community programs, may require subsidization to ensure equitable access for all residents. Inflationary Adjustments: It is recommended to include an inflationary factor in future fee schedules to account for rising service costs without requiring comprehensive fee reviews each year.
Conclusion: This comprehensive User Fee Study ensures that Capitola has the necessary tools to manage its resources effectively. By adopting the proposed fee schedule, the City can improve cost recovery, reduce General Fund subsidies, and maintain compliance with state regulations.
Fiscal Impact: None at this time, staff anticipates returning to City Council on November 14, 2024, with a resolution to adopt the FY 2024-25 Fee Schedule.
Attachments:
1. User Fee Study
2. Cost Allocation Plan
Report Prepared By: Jim Malberg, Finance Director
Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk; Sam Zutler, City Attorney Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
11 Item 6 B.
City of Capitola
User Fee Study
October 1, 2024
12 Item 6 B.
i Comprehensive User Fee Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. i Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1 User Fee Background ............................................................................................... 2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 California User Fee History .......................................................................................................................... 2 Additional Policy Considerations ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objective ....................................................................................................... 4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Aim of the Report......................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Approach and Methodology ........................................................................... 6 Conceptual Approach................................................................................................................................... 6 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates........................................................................................................................ 6 Summary Steps of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 7 Allowable Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Quality Control/Quality Assurance .............................................................................................................. 8 Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees............................................................................. 8 City Staff Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 9 Capitola User Fees ................................................................................................. 10 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................. 10 Subsidization .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 11 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Miscellaneous Fees ................................................................................................ 12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Public Works ......................................................................................................... 13 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Police ................................................................................................................... 14 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Planning ............................................................................................................... 15 13 Item 6 B.
ii Comprehensive User Fee Study
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Building ................................................................................................................ 16 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Community Services and Recreation ...................................................................... 17 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Historical Museum................................................................................................ 19 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered .................................................. 20 Appendix B – Salary and Benefit Hourly Rates ........................................................... 21 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis ....................................................................... 24
14 Item 6 B.
1 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of Capitola engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identify 100% full cost recovery for City services. Appendix C details the full cost and suggested fees as determined through discussion with departmental staff. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.
15 Item 6 B.
2 Comprehensive User Fee Study
User Fee Background
Background
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole (“User Fees”). As cities struggle to maintain levels of service and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented cost-recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community-wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefits. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.
Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee. There are no fees suggested to be set above the cost of service and as such a public vote is not required.
California User Fee History
Before Proposition 13, in times of fiscal shortages, California cities were able to raise property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to development-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote to enact or increase taxes. Due to the thresholds needed to increase local taxes, cities have less control and very few successful options for new revenues. The State of California took a series of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation, at the expense of local governments. In 2004-05, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) takeaway of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees further reduced local tax revenues.
In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative”, which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two-thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The fees analyzed as part of a User Fee study typically fall under categories one through five consisting of charges for specific benefits, government service, regulatory need, for use of government property, or a fine/penalty.
16 Item 6 B.
3 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Additional Policy Considerations
State regulations require that municipalities update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefiting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby typically reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.
In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover reasonable support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government’s central service departments that are allocable to the local government’s operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead percentages determined through the City’s Cost Allocation Plan. A Cost Allocation Plan identifies the central service functions of the City such as Finance, City Manager, and Human Resources and allocates their cost to the departments and funds of the City that they support. This plan was used in the User Fee study to account for the burden placed upon central services by the operating departments to allocate a proportionate share of central service cost through the study.
As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City to annually increase or decrease the fees by changes in a pre-approved inflationary index, as described below. However, such inflationary increases shall not exceed the reasonable estimated cost of providing the services each year.
The City may employ many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same “basket” of goods and services every year, the price deflators’ “basket” can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor that connects more directly to the personnel costs can also be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.
Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs but cannot rely solely on the CPI increase as it is incumbent upon each agency to ensure the amount of the fees charged does not exceeds the reasonable estimated costs of providing the services. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every five years, which would include adding, amending, or removing fees for programs/services.
17 Item 6 B.
4 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of Capitola seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. A User Fee Study provides assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a User Fee Study is a very cost-effective way to understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a User Fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.
The principal goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
Developing a rational basis for setting fees
Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model Ensuring compliance with State law
Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the following Capitola departments and fee groups:
Miscellaneous Fees
Public Works
Police
Planning
Building
Community Services and Recreation
Historical Museum
18 Item 6 B.
5 Comprehensive User Fee Study
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels.
Aim of the Report
The User Fee Study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provide them at existing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff level needs. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule. The report is not intended to document all the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provide an influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or alternative approaches.
19 Item 6 B.
6 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.
The standard fee limitation established in California law for such fees is the “estimated, reasonable cost” principle. To maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits (see Appendix B), but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
Operating costs applicable to fee operations
Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead Central service overhead costs allocated through the Cost Allocation Plan A key factor in determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel.
This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to 1,650 productive or billable hours to account for calculated or anticipated hours’ employees engage in nonbillable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, holidays, and other considerations, as necessary. Dividing the full cost, including overhead, of a position by the number of productive hours provides the FBHR.
The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate for how a service is provided, to calculate a fee’s cost based on the personnel and the amount of their time providing each service.
20 Item 6 B.
7 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Summary Steps of the Study
The process of the study is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:
Allowable Costs
This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service (Appendix A). Costs are defined as
direct labor, including salary and benefits,
departmental overhead costs, and the City’s
central services overhead, where
departmental and central service overhead
costs constitute support costs. These cost
types are defined as follows:
Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The
costs related to staff salaries for
time spent directly on fee-related
services.
Departmental Overhead: A
proportional allocation of
departmental overhead costs,
including operation costs such as
supplies and materials that are necessary for the department to function. Central Services Overhead: These costs, as provided via the City’s Cost Allocation Plan, represent services provided by those Central Services Departments whose primary function is to support other City departments.
Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Cost Allocation Plan
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy
21 Item 6 B.
8 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Methodology
The three methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:
Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build-Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis.
Program Cost Approach: In some instances, the underlying data is not available or varies widely, leaving a standard unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence rental based fee levels more than other types of services. Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit a programs’ needs and goals. Typical programmatic approach cases are valuation-based fees, Recreation programs, and instances where a program cost is divided over the user base to obtain a per applicant cost for shared cost services.
Valuation Based Fees: This manner of collection is used when the valuation of the improvement can be used as a proxy for the amount of effort it would take for City staff to complete the service provided. More specifically, this approach is commonly used for certain User Fees in the Building Division. It is generally accepted that as a project’s size scales up, the cost of the project increases, and the amount of effort needed to review and inspect also increases. Using a valuation-based fees provides for a system that can adjust as project sizes scale. Land is not included in the valuation.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for User Fee calculations include:
Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
Reasonableness tests and validation
Internal and external reviews
Cross-checking
Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees
Within the fee tables in Appendix C, the differences are identified between the full costs calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of possible factors including:
22 Item 6 B.
9 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
Position staffing levels, seniority, and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated
Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study
Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the City as a whole Changes in the demand for services in a City may have also changed the staffing or cost structure of departments over time
City Staff Contributions
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, which contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
Budget and other cost data
Staffing structures
Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions Direct work hours (billable/non-billable)
Time estimates to complete work tasks
Review of draft results and other documentation
A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation. 23 Item 6 B.
10 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Capitola User Fees
Cost Recovery
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C. Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were obtained through interviews conducted with City staff for each department/division fee included in the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City’s current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.
It is important to note that the time data used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service and will differ from City to City depending on staffing, positions involved, experience of staff, the use of consultants, and the policies and procedures in place for each City.
Specifically, in providing services, a number of employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.
The primary goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility of determining the final fee levels is a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.
City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no fixed rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of Capitola, and administrative and political discretion. However, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community.
Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) who receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers, some services fall into the range between these two extremes.
Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City, but it is important to distinguish the difference between any purported possible benefits that may be conveyed through the result of activities of the service receiver and the direct benefit being conveyed through the City providing the service to the requestor.
It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels. 24 Item 6 B.
11 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as to ensure public safety) or allow some people to be able to afford to receive services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies can be an appropriate and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without overburdensome costs.
Despite the intent, it is important for the City and public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, typically the General Fund’s other unrestricted funds.
Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is largely unknown. The cost of service study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.
Summary
City staff is recommending setting user fees at suggested fee amounts as detailed in Appendix C. City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past performance, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors should influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and the update to a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule were the primary objectives of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the recommended fee levels for consideration by City Council.
The following sections provide background for each department, division, and fee group and the results of this study’s analysis of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report. 25 Item 6 B.
12 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Miscellaneous Fees
Miscellaneous fees include appeals, copies, film permits, business license, outdoor dining, notary services, and other services.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Miscellaneous fees. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis Miscellaneous services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved in providing services to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most fees are currently set below the full cost of providing service. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 2 fees;
2 fees would decrease;
3 new fees would be added, for marriage licenses;
21 fees would remain as currently set, and;
the average fee change would be an increase of 5% for current fees. 26 Item 6 B.
13 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Public Works
The Public Works Department is divided functionally into Streets, Facilities, Parks, and Fleet Maintenance.
The Department combines administration, engineering, and maintenance activities into a cohesive unit to develop and maintain a responsive and coordinated team.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Public Works Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Public Works services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved in providing services to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most of the current fees are underfunding the cost of most of the services.
Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 10 fees;
2 fees would decrease;
18 new fees would be added;
2 fees would change to flat plus deposit base from a flat fee; 8 fees would remain as currently set, and;
the average fee change would be an increase of 80% for current fees.
27 Item 6 B.
14 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Police
The Capitola Police Department prides itself in providing the highest level of safety and service to enhance the quality of life of our community through professional, engaged, and empowered employees.
The department has 31.5 positions – 22 sworn officers, 2 Community Service Officers, 3 Parking Enforcement Officers, and an administrative support staff of 4.5 total positions. A recent city-wide survey conducted by FM3 found that greater than 92% of Capitola residents indicated that they were satisfied with the services provided by our police department.
Capitola also offers an active Police Explorers Program to educate and involve local youth in police service and community engagement, and a valuable Volunteers in Policing (VIP) which provides critical support to the department and the city.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Capitola Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Police services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved in providing services to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that the current fees are under funding the cost for most of the services. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 13 fees;
6 fees would decrease;
6 new fees would be added;
25 fees would remain as currently set, and;
The average fee change would be an increase of 38%.
28 Item 6 B.
15 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Planning
The Community Development Department is dedicated to providing responsive, high-quality services and programs which enhance the quality of life for the City's residents, businesses, and visitors. The Community Development Department includes the Building and Planning divisions and administers the land use policies and standards adopted by the City Council, including the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, Building Codes, and affordable housing policies.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Planning Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Planning services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved in providing services to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that the current fees are under funding the cost for most of the services. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 23 fees;
1 fee would change from a deposit-based fee to Consultant Cost + 21%; 22 fees would decrease;
47 fees would remain as currently set, and;
The average fee change would be a decrease of 3%.
29 Item 6 B.
16 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Building
The Community Development Department is dedicated to providing responsive, high-quality services and programs which enhance the quality of life for the City's residents, businesses, and visitors. The Community Development Department includes the Building and Planning divisions and administers the land use policies and standards adopted by the City Council, including the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, Building Codes, and affordable housing policies.
The City of Capitola Building Department provides plan checking and building inspection services to assure compliance with the California Building Code. The Building Department enforces the provisions of the State Housing Code and the International Existing Building Code. In addition, the Building Official serves as the City of Capitola's Americans with Disabilities Act compliance officer.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Building Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Building services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved in providing services to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most current fees are under funding the cost for most of the services. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 18 fees;
1 fee would decrease;
2 fees would change to Cost + 21% from a no charge fee, and; 11 fees would remain as currently set.
In addition to the above referenced fees listed under Building, the Building Permit fees are also provided by this division. For the Building Permit fees, valuation is used as a proxy for measuring the effort needed to provide services on a case-by-case basis. This method is an industry standard widely used by other jurisdictions to evaluate the cost of providing service. It is generally understood that the larger and more complex a project is, the more time and effort that is required to provide the service. Project valuation also follows that trend. By using a combination of either project valuation or historical revenue figures along with a multiplier or cost recovery analysis for historical and anticipated future trends, current cost recovery along with variability in charges due to project type and scale is determined. The result of the cost analysis completed for the Building Permit program found that the program is currently operating at 70% cost recovery based on activity level averages over three years. Staff are not recommending any changes to the Building Permit Table as detailed in Appendix C.
30 Item 6 B.
17 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Community Services and Recreation
The Recreation Department provides City-staffed activities, including the Afterschool Program, Junior Lifeguards and Camp Capitola, as well as adult and youth sports leagues. In addition to providing Lifeguards on Capitola Beach, they also manage rental of Jade Street Community Center, the tennis courts, softball field, soccer field, and Monterey Park.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Community Services and Recreation Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of most Community Services and Recreation programs encompassed facility rentals and other recreation services. The fee for use of government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City per Proposition 26 to reduce the cost to the public for related facilities costs, and because there is market availability for facility use elsewhere. The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is partially offset by rental or use fee revenue. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, and market factors when desirable. It is generally accepted that many Community Services and Recreation programs provide a measure of public benefit to the residents and City as a whole. In addition, cities want to ensure that their programs and services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and private businesses. A time based cost analysis were performed on some of the fees in the schedule that have direct staff involvement identified to determine the direct cost for each. City staff has suggested reasonable fee adjustments to the fee schedule, and they are detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
An increase for 2 fees;
14 fees will decrease;
7 new fees would be added;
29 fees would remain as currently set, and;
The average change in fees would be a 2% increase.
While most of the fees included in this study for the department are rent or use fees which did not include individual full cost determination, a cost recovery analysis of the department groups was performed and is shown below.
31 Item 6 B.
18 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Subdept # Subdept Desc
FY2024 Exp
Budget
Admin
Allocation
Indirect
Allocation (26%] Total Exp
FY 23
Revenues Cost Recovery %
510 Admin 718,031 (718,031) - - - NA
515 Classes 105,000 104,513 53,911 263,424 224,903 85%
520 Jr. Guards 263,458 262,237 135,268 660,963 263,302 40% 530 Sports 16,022 15,948 8,226 40,196 22,465 56%
540 Camp Capitola 141,090 140,436 72,440 353,966 150,173 42% 545 Afterschool Program 56,856 56,592 29,192 142,640 48,338 34% 555 Events 7,147 7,114 3,670 17,930 1,249 7%
560 Community Center 62,158 61,870 31,914 155,942 - 0%
Total Dept $1,369,762 $334,621 $1,635,062 $710,430 43%
32 Item 6 B.
19 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Historical Museum
The Capitola Historical Museum preserves and promotes the history of Capitola through creating exhibitions, maintaining a collection of historic photographs and artifacts, conducting oral histories, and participating in special events.
Analysis
No analysis was made of the Historical Museum fees and are recommended to remain as currently set. 33 Item 6 B.
20 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered
Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through User Fees; however, only a portion of the total allowable cost is recovered as staff not only works on services related to User Fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. The direct overhead percentages below are derived by dividing operational costs by personnel cost. The indirect allocation percentages are provided through the Cost Allocation Plan). The amounts listed below will not reconcile to City budgets as costs that should not be included in overhead for personnel in the application of determining fully burdened hourly rates were excluded. Examples of these costs are capital, debt, monetary transfers, contract costs, and other costs that are charged directly to the service requestor.
City of Capitola- User Fee
Overhead Rate Calculations
Department
Total
Personnel
Services
Department
Operations
Direct
Overhead
%
Indirect
Allocation
%
1000: City Manager 788,744 85,550 11% 0%
1000: Community Development & Building 906,715 77,800 9% 32% 1000: Culture & Leisure 1,155,283 360,500 31% 23%
1000: Finance 617,735 262,450 42% 0%
1000: Fleet 112,513 83,500 74% 0%
1000: Parks 292,010 280,100 96% 26%
1000: Personnel 374,469 67,200 18% 0%
1000: Public Safety 5,830,173 1,409,290 24% 20%
1000: Public Works 1,600,391 596,650 37% 35%
34 Item 6 B.
21 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix B – Salary and Benefit Hourly Rates
Below are Salary and Benefit hourly rates of staff positions. The hourly rates were used in the study to determine the full cost of each service when combined with the associated overhead rates. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position based on the City’s salary step schedule for positions as well as the appropriate benefits depending on each position’s bargaining unit. The total salary and benefits are then divided by 1,650 productive or billable hours to reduce the total 2,080 workable hours in a year to remove hours when positions are paid but not on the job such as holidays, paid leave, and sick pay. A further reduction of under 10% is made for administrative, general, or non-specific work hours. When a position is used in the study to identify direct work hours spent on a fee or service the applicable overhead rates of the operating unit (shown in Appendix A) is applied to that positions’ salary and benefit rate to determine full cost recovery. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope of the fees detailed in Appendix C, or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge up to the full cost of the service by using the salary benefit rate of the positions below along with the appropriate overhead factors from Appendix A.
35 Item 6 B.
22 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Capitola- User Fee
Salary & Benefit Hourly Rate Calculation
Position S&B Hourly Rate
ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN $46.68
ACCOUNTANT I $56.37
ACCOUNTANT II $62.16
ACCOUNTS CLERK $42.33
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS ANALYST $49.81
ASSIST TO CITY MGR $76.56
ASSISTANT PLANNER $54.43
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62.55
BUILDING INSPECTOR I $48.77
BUILDING INSPECTOR II $56.89
BUILDING OFFICIAL (CAPITOLA) $86.02
CHIEF OF POLICE $125.02
CITY CLERK $70.69
CITY MANAGER $146.76
CIVIL ENGINEER/PROJECT MANAGER $71.92
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER $50.89
CUSTOMER SERVICE - OFFICE COORDINATOR $37.05
DEPARTMENT HEADS $107.79
DEPUTY CITY CLERK $45.87
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICIAN $45.87
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS MANAGER $66.31
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR $44.15
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $55.35
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST $54.60
MAINTENANCE WORKER I $32.18
MAINTENANCE WORKER II $43.13
MAINTENANCE WORKER III $47.55
MECHANIC $46.15
MUSEUM CURATOR $41.83
OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR $61.54
PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $39.41
POLICE CAPTAIN $100.28
POLICE OFFICER $70.35
POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE $52.49
POLICE RECORDS TECHNICIAN $41.17
RECORDS MANAGEMENT CLERK $41.27
RECORDS MANAGER $61.86
36 Item 6 B.
23 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Capitola- User Fee
Salary & Benefit Hourly Rate Calculation
Position S&B Hourly Rate
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSISTANT $31.98
RECREATION COORDINATOR $47.54
RECREATION DIVISION MANAGER $70.69
RECREATION FACILITY CUSTODIAN $30.88
SENIOR ACCOUNTANT $71.92
SENIOR MECHANIC $54.33
SENIOR PLANNER $71.92
SERGEANT $86.16
37 Item 6 B.
24 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis
The following tables provide the results of the analysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees. For fees, services, and penalties in which the full cost, existing fee, and suggested fee is listed as “NA,” the amount or percentage was not calculable. This is most common when either the current or the suggested fee includes a variable component that is not comparable on a one-to-one basis, a full cost was not calculated (for penalties, fines, market-based fees, or items not included in the study), or when there is not a current fee amount to compare against. 38 Item 6 B.
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 Appeal Fee Appeals to City Council (CMC 2.52) $593.47 NA NA $593.00 $02 Capitola Municipal Code $0.15 page NA NA $0.15 $03 Capitola Municipal Code Supplement Service (Per year) $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $0 4 Copies:
5 1-5 copies $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $06 6 or more copies (per copy) $0.25 page NA NA $0.25 $07 Gov’t Code § 81008 (Political Reform Act) statements/reports (Per copy) $0.10 page NA NA $0.10 $0 8 Simple film permit $54.49 $58.77 1% $58.00 $49 Major film permit $272.47 $682.37 0% $682.00 $410 10 Returned Check Fee $43.60 NA NA
$25 first check, $35 after
-$19
11 Business License Overpayment Refund Fee (resolution 3532, ord 871) $0.00 (Set to -0- by Council in 2011) NA NA $0.00 $0 12 Business License Late Payment Penalty Admin. Fee $35.00 + 10% each month late NA NA $35.00 $013 Business License Application Fee (Reso. 3532) $25.00 NA NA $25.00 $014 Business License - Disability Access and Education Fee (State) $4.00 NA NA $4.00 $0 15 Temporary, Publicly Attended Activities, Application Fee (Municipal Code § 9.36.040) $34.00 NA NA $34.00 $0 16 Public Art (Total Building Valuation $250,000 or more) (Municipal Code Chapter 2.58) 2% of TBV or 1% in lieu to City NA NA 2% of TBV or 1% in lieu to City $0 17 Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Petition (Elections Code § 9103(b)) $200.00 NA NA $200.00 $0 18 Outdoor Dining Rental Fees
19 Parking Spaces $3,400.00
annually for each space or partial space
NA NA $3,400.00 $0
25 39
Item 6 B.
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 20 Sidewalks and non-parking spaces $18.00 per square foot annually NA NA $18.00 $021 Outdoor Dining Maintenance Deposit22 Sidwalks and non-parking spaces $500.00 NA NA $500.00 $023 1-2 parking spaces $1,000.00 NA NA $1,000.00 $024 3-5 parking spaces $1,500.00 NA NA $1,500.00 $025 Notary Service Fees (State Code)26 Acknowledgment or proof of a deed, or other instrument, to include the seal and writing of the certificate $15.00 signature NA NA $15.00 $0
27 Administering an oath or affirmation to one person and executing the jurat, including the seal $15.00 signature NA NA $15.00 $0 28 Credit Card Transaction Fee 3% NA NA 3% $029 Passport Acceptance Fee $35.00 NA NA $35.00 $030 Marriage License New $42.79 18% $35.00 NA31 Marriage Ceremony New City Hall - $100; $103.79 4% $100.00 NA 32 Marriage Ceremony - Witness Fee New $25.75 3% $25.00 NA 26 40
Item 6 B.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Notes Fee Δ 1 Encroachment Permits2 Application Fee New $127.07 0% $127.00 NA3 Traffic Control Plan Review - Local Street New $63.53 1% $63.00 NA4 Traffic Control Plan Review - Collector Street New $302.24 0% $302.00 NA5 Traffic Control Plan Review - Arterial Street New $453.36 0% $453.00 NA6 Inspection - Local Street New $63.53 1% $63.00 NA7 Inspection - Collector Street New $169.43 0% $169.00 NA8 Inspection - Arterial Street New $254.14 0% $254.00 NA9 Revocable Encroachment Permit Application- Outdoor Dining $230.00 $1,203.08 0% $1,203.00 $97310 Temporary (includes materials storage within right- of-way road and sidewalk closures $74.85 $21.18 1% $21.00 $011 Village Sidewalk Sign Encroachment Permit $43.76 $206.13 0% $206.00 $16212 Construction Parking Permit - Village New daily $42.36 43% $24.00 NA13 Construction Parking Permit - City Lot New daily $42.36 72% $12.00 NA14 Construction Parking Permit - Neighborhood New monthly $42.36 41% $25.00 NA15 Blanket Permits (repair and maintenance of existing facilitiesm encompassing up to 20 utility instances per year) $2,512.68 $2,880.23 0% $2,880.00 $367
16 Revocable Encroachment for Private Improvements 17 Applications for Minor Revocable Encroachment $251.04 $422.82 0% $422.00 $17118 Applications for Major Revocable Encroachment $628.75 $1,348.57 0% $1,348.00 $71919 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION PERMIT – OVERSIZE LOAD - Single $16.00 Set by state NA NA $16.00 Set by state $020 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION PERMIT – OVERSIZE LOAD - Single $90.00 Set by state NA NA $90.00 Set by state $021 New Memorial Bench $1,137.47 $2,560.48 0% $2,560.00 $1,42322 Replacement Memorial Bench $554.32 $2,509.77 0% $2,509.00 $023 Memorial Plaque $853.66 $598.58 0% $598.00 -$25624 Replacement Plaque $277.16 $429.00 0% $429.00 $15225 Overhead Banner (ourtisde of special event) New $144.29 0% $144.00 NA26 Stormwater Development Review Fee27 Application Fee $124.37 $122.45 0% $122.00 -$228 Large Project Plan Review Deposit29 Tier 1 New $306.12 0% $306.00 NA30 Tier 2 $3,771.32 $612.24 0% $612.00 plus deposit ($2,000) NA 31 Tier 3 & 4 $5,027.66 $612.24 0% $612.00 plus deposit ($5,000) NA 32 Research Fee - 1/2 hour minimum charge Cost NA NA Cost $0 27 41
Item 6 B.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Notes Fee Δ 33 Information Technology Fee (Resolution No. 3786 adopted 11/12/09) 5% of Permit Fee NA NA 5% of Permit Fee $034 Final Parcel Map Cost; $3,000 min. deposit $4,143.32 0% $4,143.00 surveyor deposit ($2,500) included $0 35 Final Tract Map Cost; $3,000 min. deposit $5,735.79 0% $5,735.00 surveyor deposit ($2,500) included $0 36 Certificate of Compliance & Lot Merger $628.87 $2,362.42 0% $2,362.00 surveyor deposit ($1,000) included $1,733 37 Boundary Line Adjustment $1,003.80 $2,362.42 0% $2,362.00 surveyor deposit ($1,000) included $1,358 38 Separate Instrument Dedication Fee New $2,710.20 0% $2,710.00 surveyor deposit ($1,000) included NA 39 Abandon Excess Public Right-of-Way & Public
Easement New $2,710.20 0% $2,710.00 surveyor deposit ($1,000) included NA 40 Improvement Plan Review
41 Design Permits - Residential Single Family New $208.01 0% $208.00 NA42 Design Permits - Residential Multi- Family/Commercial New $873.57 0% $873.00 NA43 Building Permits - Residential Single Family New $347.72 0% $347.00 NA44 Building Permits - Residential Multi- Family/Commercial New $894.50 0% $894.00 NA 28 42
Item 6 B.
POLICE DEPARTMENT FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 Special Event Permit $67.74 $371.84 0% $371.00 $3032 Recurring Special Event Permit - Major $67.74 $632.50 0% $632.00 $5643 New Major Special Event Permit $67.74 This requires City Council Approval $1,911.91 0% $1,911.00 $1,843 4 Neighborhood Special Event/Block Party $67.74 $195.07 0% $195.00 $1275 Closure of Village for Special Event -full day New $4,584.00 0% $4,584.00 NA6 Closure of Village for Special Event -half day New $2,292.00 0% $2,292.00 NA7 Closure of Village for Special Event -full day (nonprofit) New $4,584.00 40% $2,750.40 NA 8 Closure of Village for Special Event -half day (nonprofit) New $2,292.00 40% $1,375.20 NA 9 Amplified Sound Permit (Municipal Code 9.12.040) $31.68 $83.49 1% $83.00 $5110 Bandstand Rental Fee $246 / 4 hrs or $492 all day / deposit $1,500
$371.84 34%
$246 / 4 hrs or $492 all day / deposit $1,500
$0
11 Single Entertainment Permit $43.60 $195.07 0% $195.00 $15112 Minor Entertainment Permit $184.19 $195.07 0% $195.00 $1113 Regular Entertainment Permit $688.82 $688.02 0% $688.00 -$114 Bingo Permit $70.84 $83.49 1% $83.00 $1215 DUI Cost Recovery Fee (Res. 3533) Not to exceed $12,000 NA NA Not to exceed $12,000 $0 16 Copies of reports: Crime Reports, Special Reports, etc. (Regardless of number of pages) $0.25 page NA NA $0.25 $0 17 Copies of: Citations, Code sections, Ordinances,
etc. $0.25 page NA NA $0.25 $0
18 Postage (for copies of reports, citations, code sections, etc, if over 15 pages) Current Postal Rate NA NA Current Postal Rate $0 19 Photographs $20.00 + administration fees $30.61 18% $25.00 $520 Video Tapes, Flash Drive, CD/DVD Production Cost + $57.21 1st Hour (Minimum) + $28.60 / hour
$68.98 3% $67.00 $10
21 Firearm Dealer License - City Application $100.00 $82.57 1% $82.00 -$18 29 43
Item 6 B.
POLICE DEPARTMENT FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 22 Local Firearm dealers (set by state)23 New application set by state NA NA set by state $024 Renewal set by state NA NA set by state $025 Second Dealers License (set by state)26 Application set by state NA NA set by state $027 Renewal set by state NA NA set by state $028 Taxi Fee per application set by state NA NA set by state $029 Tobacco retail license $289.36 $316.70 0% $316.00 $2730 Cannabis Annual License Fee $2,827.19 $2,738.94 0% $2,738.00 -$8931 Retail Cannabis Application Fee $1,843.02 $1,859.25 1% $1,843.00 $032 Civil Subpoena (per case) (set by state) set by state NA NA set by state $033 Parking Permits (separate action by the Council)34 Neighborhoods per year $25.00 NA NA $25.00 $035 Village Preferential Permit $50.00 per year NA NA $50.00 $036 Village Preferential Permit - Hotels/Motels $365.00 per year NA NA $365.00 $037 Village Employer/Employee Permit $50.00 per year NA NA $50.00 $038 Morning Village Parking Permit $55.00 per year NA NA $55.00 $039 Electric Vehicle Charging Fee $0.50 hour NA NA $2.00 $240 Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW) Permit - City Application $115.00 $260.67 45% $143.00 $28 41 Concealed Weapon Permits (set by state)
42 Application43 Standard set by state NA NA set by state $044 Judicial set by state NA NA set by state $045 Employment set by state NA NA set by state $046 Renewal47 Standard set by state NA NA set by state $048 Judicial set by state NA NA set by state $049 Employment set by state NA NA set by state $050 Firearm Surrender Fees (set by state law)51 1-5 guns set by state NA NA set by state $052 6+guns set by state NA NA set by state $053 Administrative fee to release Impounded / Stored Vehicle $144.98 $135.21 0% $135.00 -$10 54 Surf School Permit Fee $594.20 NA NA $594.00 $055 Parking Permit Replacement (Lost/Stolen) $15.00 Each Includes Materials $15.30 2% $15.00 $0 30 44
Item 6 B.
POLICE DEPARTMENT FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 56 Boot Removal New
Can take 30min60min, depending on the quantity of tickets $109.78 1% $109.00 NA
57 Tow Hearing New $143.41 0% $143.00 NA
31 45
Item 6 B.
PLANNING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ 1 Administration/Documents2 Continuance Request - Applicant (2+) $185.28 $156.01 4% $150.00 -$353 Staff Billing Rate Cost NA NA Cost $04 Appeals-by Applicant Cost NA NA Cost $05 Appeals- by City Officials $0.00 $2,679.23 100% $0.00 $06 Appeals- by Other $593.99 $2,679.23 63% $1,000.00 $4067 Coastal Development Permit Appeal $0.00 $1,133.48 100% $0.00 $08 Appeals -Building/Zoning Code Violations $593.99 $2,679.23 63% $1,000.00 $4069 Records Search/Research/Special Report Cost NA NA Cost $010 Administrative Permits11 Tree Remova l- Staff Review $150.41 $312.02 52% $150.00 $012 Tree Removal -- 3 or more trees on a property $322.61 $624.05 52% $300.00 -$2313 Tree Installation Deposit (Refundable) $500.00 deposit NA NA $500.00 deposit $014 Tree replacement in-lieu fee (if available) $600.00 per tree NA NA $600.00 per tree $015 Tree removal w/ PC approval $1,000.00 deposit $2,282.29 50% $1,150.00 deposit $15016 Commercial Sidewalk/Parking Lot Sale Permit $89.37 $156.01 0% $156.00 $6717 Tenant Use Permit (MCUP)--Staff approval $90.46 $156.01 0% $156.00 $6618 Transient Rental Occupancy Use Permit $628.87 $312.02 0% $312.00 -$31719 Home Occupation Use Permit $188.55 $156.01 0% $156.00 -$3320 Fence Permit- Staff approval $50.14 $78.01 0% $78.00 $2821 Fence Permit- PC approval $942.76 $1,313.05 1% $1,300.00 $35722 Sidewalk vendor permit $138.42 $156.01 0% $156.00 $1823 Temporary Use Administrative Permit $90.46 $156.01 0% $156.00 $6624 Sign Permits25 Temporary Signs and Banner Permits $44.69 $39.00 0% $39.00 -$626 Signs permit - Staff Review $151.50 $156.01 0% $156.00 $527 Signs permit - PC Review $628.87 $1,001.03 37% $630.00 $128 Master Sign Program Cost; $3,000 min deposit NA NA Cost; $3,000 min deposit $029 Village Sidewalk Sign Permit $77.38 $78.01 4% $75.00 -$230 Design Permits31 Residential Single Family/Minor Design Permit - Staff Review $918.78 $865.60 0% $865.00 -$54 32 Residential Single Family - PC Review $3,143.26 $2,849.03 0% $2,849.00 -$294 33 Residential Multi-Family - PC Review $4,397.74 NA NA $5,000.00 deposit $60234 Commercial - PC Review $4,000.00 deposit NA NA $4,000.00 deposit $0 35 Accessory Dwelling Unit- Staff Review $628.87 $432.80 3% $420.00 -$209 32 46
Item 6 B.
PLANNING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ 36 Accessory Dwelling Unit- PC Review $1,886.61 $1,457.76 4% $1,400.00 -$48737 Residential Multi-Family/Minor Design Permit - Staff Review $2,000.00 deposit NA NA $2,000.00 deposit $0 38 Commercial Minor Design Permit $2,000.00 deposit NA NA $2,000.00 deposit $0 39 Historic In-Kind Replacement Design Permit $500.00 deposit $309.20 3% $300.00 deposit -$20040 Sidewalk & Street Dining Desing Permit $1,000.00 deposit $1,045.50 4% $1,000.00 flat $041 Use Permits 42 Master Conditional Use Permit Cost; $3,500 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $3,500 min. deposit deposit $0 43 Conditional Use Permit/Minor Use Permit - Staff
Review $1,853.92 $865.60 0% $865.00 -$989
44 Conditional Use Permit - PC approval Cost; $3,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $3,500 min. deposit deposit $500 45 Temporary Use Permit $93.73 $103.07 0% $103.00 $946 Subdivisions 47 Tentative Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision) Cost; $2,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $3,500 min. deposit $1,50048 Tentative Map (Major Subdivision) Cost; $5,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $5,000 min. deposit $049 Revised Map $2,000.00 deposit NA NA $2,000.00 deposit $050 Time Extension $2,000.00 deposit NA NA $2,000.00 deposit $051 Subdivision Modification $2,000.00 deposit NA NA $2,000.00 deposit $052 Plan Amendments53 General Plan Amendment Cost; $5,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $5,000 min. deposit $054 Local Coastal Plan Amendment Cost; $5,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $5,000 min. deposit $055 Rezone Cost; $5,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $5,000 min. deposit $056 Planned Development Rezone Cost; $3,500 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $3,500 min. deposit $057 Other Discretionary Permits58 Variance $1,886.61 $1,199.97 0% $1,199.00 -$68859 PC review of minor modifications $1,695.88 $839.36 0% $839.00 -$85760 Coastal Development Permit $942.76 $633.23 0% $633.00 -$31061 Coastal Permit Exclusion $105.72 $633.23 0% $633.00 $52762 Mobile home Park Change of Use or Closure $5,000.00 deposit NA NA $5,000.00 deposit $0 33 47
Item 6 B.
PLANNING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ 63 Development Agreement $10,000.00 min deposit NA NA $1,000.00 min deposit -$9,00064 Developer agreement annual review $2,500.00 deposit NA NA $2,500.00 deposit $065 Specific Plan Cost; $5,000 min. deposit NA NA $5,000.00 $066 Permit Time Extension -Staff Review $628.87 $360.61 0% $360.00 -$26967 Permit Time Extension - PC Review $1,886.61 $1,045.50 0% $1,045.00 -$84268 Permit Amendment (any permit) 50% of original cost NA NA 50% of original cost $069 Annexation Costs+ overhead / $3,000 min. deposit NA NA Costs+ overhead / $5,000 min. deposit $2,000 70 Environmental Review
71 Negative Declaration (and Mitigated ND) Cost; $2,000 min deposit NA NA Cost; $5,000 min deposit $3,00072 EIR Processing Cost; + 21% of consultant; $10,000 min deposit
NA NA
Cost; + 21% of consultant; $10,000 min deposit
$0
73 Mitigation/Condition Monitoring Program Cost + 21% NA NA Cost + 21% $074 NEPA Compliance Cost + 21% NA NA Cost + 21% $075 Other Permits/Fees76 Conceptual Review Fee- PC $1,886.61 $2,591.24 0% $2,591.00 $70477 Conceptual Review Fee- PC and CC $2,828.28 $3,533.43 0% $3,533.00 $70578 Technical Study Preparation and Review Cost + 21% NA NA Cost + 21% $079 NOTE: Third party review costs to be required as necessary
Cost + 21% NA NA Cost + 21% $0
80 Code Compliance Double Application Fees NA NA Double Application Fees $0 81 Code Compliance confiscated property recovery fee $297.54 $206.13 0% $206.13 -$9182 Research Fee - 1/2 hour minimum charge Cost NA NA Cost $083 Pre-Application Review $263.76 $156.01 0% $156.01 -$10884 Building Plan Check & Final Inspection 20% of Building Permit Fee NA NA 20% of Building Permit Fee $0 34 48
Item 6 B.
PLANNING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ 85 Major Development Project Fee Cost; $5,000 min. deposit NA NA Cost; $5,000 min. deposit $086 Historical significance determination $4,250.00 deposit NA NA Cost + 21% NA87 Inclusionary Housing88 Inclusionary Housing - Unit Sale $628.87 $675.92 0% $675.00 $4689 Inclusionary Housing - Unit Refinance $251.77 $675.92 0% $675.00 $42390 Other Fees and Assessments91 General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.5% of Total Building Valuation 0.78% 3% 0.75% of Total Building Valuation 0.25% 92 Information Technology Fee (Resolution No. 3786 adopted 11/12/09) 5% of Permit Fee 3.6% 2% 3.5% -2% 93 Green Building Educational Resource Fund Fee (Municipal Code 17.10.080) Fee equals .0025 times the overall building permit valuation of the project.
NA NA
Fee equals .0025 times the overall building permit valuation of the project. $0
94 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees
95 For Sale Housing Developments of two to six units (Municipal Code Chapter 18.02) :96 All Units $25 per sq. ft. NA NA $25 per sq. ft. $097 For Sale Housing Developments of Seven or more units98 #Units: 7 #Units Built 1 $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $099 #Units: 8-13 #Units Built 1 Total # units minus 7 @ $25 per avg. sq. ft. per unit
NA NA
Total # units minus 7 @ $25
per avg. sq. ft. per unit
$0
100 #Units: 14 #Units Built 2 $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $0101 #Units: 15-20 #Units Built 2 Total # units minus 14 @ $25 per avg. sq. ft. per unit
NA NA
Total # units minus 14 @ $25 per avg. sq. ft. per unit
$0
102 #Units: 21 #Units Built 3 $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $0
35 49
Item 6 B.
PLANNING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ 103 #Units: 22-27 #Units Built 3
Total # units minus 21 @ $25 per avg. sq. ft. per unit
NA NA
Total # units minus 21 @ $25
per avg. sq. ft. per unit
$0
104 #Units: 28 #Units Built 4 $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $0105 Rental Multi-Family $6 per sq. ft. NA NA $6 per sq. ft. $0106 Affordable Housing Impact Fees 107
For Sale Housing Developments of Six or Less Units:
New housing units that are constructed to replace housing units that were demolished less than two years before the project developer applied for a permit to construct the housing development project are exempt $25 per square foot NA NA $25 per square foot $0
108 Rental Multi-Family $6 per square foot NA NA $6 per square foot $0109 Additional to Housing Units of 50% or more (charged to additional square footage only) $2.50 per square foot NA NA $2.50 per square foot $0 NOTES:1. All Fees are non-refundable. 2. Deposit accounts are billed on a time and material basis. Additional deposits may be necessary depending on the complexity of the project. Any unused monies in a deposit account will be refunded following case closure.
3. The Community Development Director may reduce the total fee/deposit requirements for applications which are unlikely to require the full deposit amounts established herein.
4. Applications which include a fee and a deposit payment will be processed with a single deposit account.5. Outside agency fees, including but not limited to County recordation fees, State Fish and Wildlife fees, etc. are charged at cost.6. The Community Development Director may establish a reasonable fee or deposit amount for permit types required by the Capitola Municipal Code or State law which are not included in the fee schedule.
7. Flat fee applications are entitled up to two public hearings. Additional public hearings shall becharged to the applicant at cost8. The Community Development Director may designate a project as a Major Development Project if it has a valuation of $2M+ or is considered technically 36 50
Item 6 B.
BUILDING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ123 Building Plan Check Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee NA NA 65% of Building Permit Fee $04 Reinspection Fee $0.00 $189.01 0% $189.00 $1895 Resubmitted Plan Check Fee $122.30 hr $189.01 0% $189.00 hr $676 Building Permit Extension Fee $0.00 $287.62 0% $287.00 $2877 Building Permit Reinstatement Fee 50% of the original, singular building permit fee or combo building permit fee, whichever is applicable to the permit being reinstated NA NA
50% of the original, singular building permit fee or combo building permit fee, whichever is applicable to the permit being reinstated $0
8 Stop Work Order Fee 2x the singular building permit fee NA NA 2x the singular building permit fee $09 Greywater System Permit $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $010 Home battery permit (usually with solar) $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $01112 a. Level I (120 volts) $0.00 $156.14 0% $156.00 $15613 b. Level II (208-240 volts) $0.00 $156.14 0% $156.00 $15614 c. Level III (480 volts) $0.00 $279.40 0% $279.00 $27915 Solar P.V. System $0.00 $378.01 0% $378.00 $37816 Solar P.V. System (Commercial Sale/Distribution) $0.00 $378.01 0% $378.00 $37817 Solar Hot Water Heater $0.00 $156.14 100% $0.00 $018 Research Fee - 1/2 hour minimum charge Cost NA NA Cost $019 Information Technology Fee (Resolution No. 3786 adopted 11/12/09) 5% of Permit Fee 3.6% 2% 3.5% -2% 20 Temporary Trailer/Mobile Home Occupancy Permit $0.00 $279.40 0% $279.00 $27921 Structural Review of Engineered Plans cost + 21% NA NA cost + 21% $022 Outside Consultant Plan Review cost + 21% NA NA cost + 21% $023 Grading Plan Review Fees 24 50 cubic yard or less $0.00 $312.27 0% $312.00 $31225 51 to 100 cubic yard $0.00 $312.27 0% $312.00 $31226 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $0.00 NA NA Cost +21% NA27 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $0.00 NA NA Cost +21% NA28 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $60.36 for first 10,000 plus $30.81 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards
$434.72 0% $434.72
for first 10,000 plus $246.53 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards $374
29 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $337.69
for first 100,000 plus $16.65 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards
$2,653.53 0% $2,653.53
for first 100,000 plus $129.75 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards $2,316
30 200,001 cubic yards or more $487.57
for first 200,000 plus $9.12 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards
$5,118.87 0% $5,118.87
for first 200,000 plus $71.07 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards $4,631
31 Grading Permit Fees
32 50 cubic yard or less $0.00 $156.14 100% $0.00 $033 51 to 100 cubic yard $0.00 $156.14 100% $0.00 $0 The cost of a “combination building permit” shall be 1.5 times the amounts shown in Table 1-A. A “combination building permit” is defined as a permit for a scope of construction work regulated by two or more of the model codes. The model codes are the building code, the plumbing code, the mechanical code and the electrical code.The cost of a “building permit”shall be the amounts shown in Table 1-A. A “building permit” is defined as a permit for a scope of construction work regulated solely by a single model code. The model codes are the building code, the plumbing code, the mechanical code and the electrical code.
Electric Vehicle Charging Permits (* Note: These fees were added to the fee schedule for FY2011-12, but will be waived per the Green Energy Increntive Program) 37 51
Item 6 B.
BUILDING FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ34 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $46.51 for first 100 plus $22.01 for each additional 100 cubic yards $189.01 0% $189.01
for first 100 plus $27.30 for each additional 100 cubic yards $142
35 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $244.60
for first 1,000 plus $18.23 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards $434.72 0% $434.72
for first 1,000 plus $7.30
for each additional 1,000 cubic yards
$190
36 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $408.67
for first 10,000 plus $82.97 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards
$500.46 0% $500.46
for first 10,000 plus $246.53 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards $92
37 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $1,155.40
for first 100,000 plus $45.88 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards
$2,719.27 0% $2,719.27
for first 100,000 plus $136.33 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards $1,564
38 52
Item 6 B.
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Current Base
Rate
Suggested Base
Rate
Current
Plus $$
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
$0 $500 $29.55 $29.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0
$501 $2,000 $29.55 $29.55 $3.83 $3.84 $100
$2,001 $25,000 $87.00 $87.00 $17.59 $17.59 $1,000
$25,001 $50,000 $491.57 $491.57 $12.69 $12.69 $1,000
$50,001 $100,000 $808.82 $808.82 $8.81 $8.81 $1,000
$100,001 $500,000 $1,249.32 $1,249.32 $7.05 $7.05 $1,000 $500,001 $1,000,000 $4,069.32 $4,069.32 $5.97 $5.97 $1,000 $1,000,001 and up $7,054.32 $7,054.32 $3.23 $3.23 $1,000 Percent Change = 0%
Cost Recovery Level = 70%
TABLE 1-A
Building Permit Table
39 53
Item 6 B.
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 All fees are evaluated annually to determine if they are competitive with other recreation programs in Santa Cruz County2 Classes3 Activity Fee (Instructor receives 65% of this fee, Department retains 35%)4 Registration Fee - Resident - Department retains this fee $20.06 $29.93 33% $20.00 $0 5 Drop-in and Workshop Registration Fee - Department retains this fee $9.50 $14.97 33% $10.00 $1 6 Online Class Registration fee-Department retains this fee 5.5% of Activity Fee NA NA 5.5% of Activity Fee $0 7 Non-Resident Fee: in addition to Registration Fee - Department retains this fee $16.90 $29.93 33% $20.00 $3 8 Drop-in Activity Fee Prorated cost of Session Activity Fee NA NA Prorated cost of Session Activity Fee $09 Senior Discount 10% of Activity Fee NA NA 10% of Activity Fee $0 10 Change is registration/reservation New changing registered sessions or reservation details $29.93 16% $25.00 NA11 Negotiated Instructor of Private Tennis Lessons Activity Fee (Instructor receives 75% of this fee, Department retains 25%) 12 Sports13 League Fees Costs + 30% admin fee NA NA $645/team NA1415 After School 16 Resident/non resident $5.45/$6.18 per hour *Hourly rate used only to calculate monthly fee amount * Scholarships may be available NA NA $5.45/$6.18 $0 17 Registration/Change Fee - Resident - Department retains this fee New $30.00 0% $30.00 NA 18 Late Pick-Up Fee $1.00 per minute NA NA $1.00 $019 Parent's Night Out $25/$31 NA NA $25/$31 $020 Junior Guards * Scholarships may be available 21 Resident/non resident $303 / $378 NA NA $303 / $378 $022 U-19 resident/non resident $190.00 NA NA $190.00 $023 Registration/Change Fee - Resident - Department retains this fee New $30.00 0% $30.00 NA 24 Late Pick-Up Fee $1.00 per minute NA NA $1.00 $025 Regionals $103.00 NA NA $103.00 $026 Camp Capitola * Scholarships may be available 27 *Daily rate used only to calculate program fee $34/$42 NA NA $34/$42 $028 All day 2 week session, resident/non resident $336 / $420 NA NA $336 / $420 $029 1/2 day 2-week session, resident/non resident $170 / $210 NA NA $170 / $210 $030 All day 1 week session, resident/non resident $170 / $210 NA NA $170 / $210 $0 League fees will change depending upon number and type of leagues offered, number of games per league, number of officials, amount of equipment needed, field/site prep and maintenance, and whether or not playoffs & awards are offered. Fees are calculated based on direct costs + 30% admin fee.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND RECREATION FEES
40 54
Item 6 B.
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 31 All day 1 week teen session, resident/non resident $303/ $378 NA NA $303/ $378 $032 Junior Leader program $72.86 NA NA $72.00 -$133 Registration/Change Fee - Resident - Department retains this fee New $30.00 0% $30.00 NA 34 Late Pick-Up Fee $1.00 per minute NA NA $1.00 $035 Extended Care--daily add on, resident/non resident $12.67 NA NA $12.00 -$1 36 AM Extended Care--per 2 week session resident/non resident or AM & PM for 1 week long session $58.08 NA NA $58.00 $0
37 PM Extended Care--per 2 week session resident/non resident $58.08 NA NA $58.00 $0 38 Transportation/Lunch Break fee $63.36 NA NA $63.00 $039 Family Camp 40 3 night family camp Adult (13+) / Child (3-12) $358 / $244 per night NA NA $358 / $244 $041 Rapid Weddings * Scholarships may be available42 Event Fee per registration New $709.84 44% $400.00 NA43 plus civil ceremony fees found in Admin Fee section New NA NA Cost NA44 Facility Rentals45 Field and Courts hourly rental; non profit youth groups/other non profit & Cap residents/all others $15/ $29 / $38 NA NA $15/ $29 / $38 $0 46 Jade Street Community Center
47 Rooms A&B hourly rent $48.58 NA NA $48.00 -$148 Room C hourly rent $66.53 NA NA $66.00 -$149 Patio hourly rent $9.50 NA NA $9.50 $050 Kitchen hourly rent $24.29 NA NA $24.00 $051 Entire Center hourly rent $173.18 NA NA $173.00 $052 Non profit discount of Jade Street Facility rents 25% NA NA 25% $053 Community Center Deposit54 1 to 50 people $110.88 NA NA $110.00 -$155 51 to 150 people $276.67 NA NA $276.00 -$156 151 to 250 people $554.40 NA NA $554.00 $057 Lost key fee $27.46 NA NA $27.00 $058 Event vendor fee $110.88 NA NA $110.00 -$159 Staffing required to prepare for or supervise recreation activities Cost NA NA Cost $0
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND RECREATION FEES
41 55
Item 6 B.
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 60 Park Rental Fees61 Park Space Reservation (hourly) $10.00 NA NA $10.00 $062 Barbeque permit $10.00 NA NA $10.00 $063 Bounce House / Powered Equipment permit $60.00 NA NA $60.00 $064 Temporary Structures (more than 100 sq ft) permit $60.00 NA NA $60.00 $065 Notes: Resident include Soquel Union Elementary School District 666768 Art & Cultural 69 Merchandise Fee Cost + 50% administration fee NA NA Cost + 50% administration fee $0 70 Art at the Beach Artist Booth Fee New NA NA $60.0071 Plein Air Artist Application Fee $50.00 NA NA $50.00 $072 Plein Air Art Exhibition service fee 30% retained by City, 70% paid to Artist
NA NA
30% retained by City, 70% paid to Artist
$0
Costs mean staff costs adjusted for benefits, department overhead, and City overhead as calculated by the City Manager. Costs can also mean direct cost of a consultant. When consultant costs are included 21% of such costs will be charged to cover staff time for contract management. Staff costs do not accrue during an appeal unless appeal is made by applicant.
Deposits are stated as minimums. Actual deposits depend on the evaluation by staff of an individual project or application. The City Manager may lower minimum deposits if the application or project justifies a lower deposit. When an application involves multiple minimum fees the highest minimum fee applies.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND RECREATION FEES
42 56
Item 6 B.
HISTORICAL MUSEUM FEES
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Subsidy % Suggested Fee Fee Δ 1 Research Fee - 1/2 hour minimum charge Cost NA NA Cost $02 Print of an electronically available Photograph in Collection $8.00 NA NA $8.00 $0 3 Digital Copies of Collection Items $22.00 NA NA $22.00 $04 Scan High Resolution Tiff File of any collection item for a customer $26.00 NA NA $26.00 $0 43 57
Item 6 B.
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com
58 Item 6 B.
CITY OF CAPITOLA
Cost Allocation Plan
October 27, 2023
59 Item 6 B.
i Cost Allocation Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... ii Certification of Cost Allocation Plan ................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Applications .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200 ....................................................................................................................... 7 Central Service Departments ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Distribution Bases ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases .......................................................................................................... 10 Allocable Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Central Service Allocation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 11 Section 1: City Attorney ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Section 2: City Council ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Section 3: City Manager ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Section 4: Facilities – Facilities ............................................................................................................................... 13 Section 5: Facilities - Museum ............................................................................................................................... 13 Section 6: Facilities – City Hall ................................................................................................................................ 13 Section 7: Facilities – PW Corporate Yard .............................................................................................................. 14 Section 8: Facilities – Jade St. Community Center ................................................................................................. 14 Section 9: Finance .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Section 10: Fleet .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Section 11: Personnel ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Iterative Allocation ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
60 Item 6 B.
ii Cost Allocation Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................... 3 Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP) ........................................................................ 4 Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary ................................................................................................................... 10 Table A-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) ................................................................... 19 Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) .................................................................... 20 Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) ......................................................................... 21 Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP) ............................................................................................. 23 61 Item 6 B.
1 Cost Allocation Plan
Certification of Cost Allocation Plan
This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal 10/27/2023 to establish cost allocations or billings for FY 2022/2023 are allowable in accordance with the requirements of this Part and the Federal award(s) to which they apply.
Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan. (2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the Federal awards to which they are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Governmental Unit: City of Capitola
Signature: ___________________________________________________________________ Name of Official: ___________________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________________ Date of Execution: ___________________________________________________________________ 62 Item 6 B.
2 Cost Allocation Plan
Executive Summary
This cost allocation plan (“CAP”) summarizes a comprehensive analysis that has been completed for the City of Capitola, California (the “City”) to determine the appropriate allocation of costs from central service departments to the operating departments. The primary objective is to allocate costs from departments that provide services internally to operating departments that conduct the day-to-day operations necessary to serve the community. The internal service costs typically represent (a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. The term "indirect costs," as used herein, applies to costs of this type originating in the central service departments.
To ensure central service department costs are appropriately allocated to the operating departments, Willdan analyzed the City’s cost code structure to determine which types of costs are allowable versus unallowable in accordance with standard and accepted cost allocation principles. The term “allocable costs” as used herein, applies to costs that are allowable for allocation.
The study is comprised of two separate allocation plans. Table 1 is the summary results of the allocation in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles). Table 2 that follows is the summary results of the full plan. The report below includes descriptions of the differences between the two plans, their separate purposes, and specific details of when the plans deviate from each other.
63 Item 6 B.
3 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 1: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments
(OMB Compliant CAP)
Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2023-24
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department / Division / Fund
Total
Allocation
Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$3,165,251 $15,645,641 20%
1000: Community Development & Building $298,916 $1,060,010 28% 1000: Community Grants $9,547 $125,000 8%
1000: Culture & Leisure $349,240 $1,636,442 21%
1000: Parks $152,009 $659,126 23%
1000: Public Safety $1,465,511 $8,124,310 18%
1000: Public Works $765,305 $2,419,794 32%
1300: SLESF - Supl Law Enfc $6,989 $36,000 19%
1305: Restricted TOT $9,853 $151,667 6%
1310: Gas Tax $21,314 $283,000 8%
1311: Wharf $6,579 $17,500 38%
1313: General Plan Update and Maint $11,342 $175,500 6% 1314: Green Building Education $1,188 $21,000 6%
1315: Public Art Fee Fund $4,624 $75,500 6%
1317: Technology Fee Fund $1,103 $13,250 8%
1321: BIA - Capitola Village-Wharf BIA $18,531 $157,500 12% 1350: CDBG Grants $17,513 $273,335 6%
1370: HOME Reuse, $303 $4,100 7%
1373: Permanent Local Housing Alloca $14,526 $256,800 6% 5552: Cap Hsg Succ- Program Income $10,857 $155,807 7%
64 Item 6 B.
4 Cost Allocation Plan
Table 2: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments (Full CAP) Allocated Cost Summary Fiscal Year 2023-24
Direct Cost Base
Operating Department / Division / Fund
Total
Allocation
Modified Total Direct
Cost
Indirect Cost
Rate
$3,439,982 $15,645,641 22%
1000: Community Development & Building $336,506 $1,060,010 32% 1000: Community Grants $10,467 $125,000 8%
1000: Culture & Leisure $374,711 $1,636,442 23%
1000: Parks $167,166 $659,126 25%
1000: Public Safety $1,588,313 $8,124,310 20%
1000: Public Works $826,151 $2,419,794 34%
1300: SLESF - Supl Law Enfc $7,359 $36,000 20%
1305: Restricted TOT $10,926 $151,667 7%
1310: Gas Tax $23,389 $283,000 8%
1311: Wharf $6,838 $17,500 39%
1313: General Plan Update and Maint $12,582 $175,500 7% 1314: Green Building Education $1,332 $21,000 6%
1315: Public Art Fee Fund $5,152 $75,500 7%
1317: Technology Fee Fund $1,203 $13,250 9%
1321: BIA - Capitola Village-Wharf BIA $19,851 $157,500 13% 1350: CDBG Grants $19,441 $273,335 7%
1370: HOME Reuse, $333 $4,100 8%
1373: Permanent Local Housing Alloca $16,289 $256,800 6% 5552: Cap Hsg Succ- Program Income $11,974 $155,807 8%
65 Item 6 B.
5 Cost Allocation Plan
Introduction
In the early 1970s, the cost allocation plan concept was introduced to many government agencies. The purpose of a typical cost allocation plan is to identify costs related to rendering internal central support services and allocate those costs to operating departments or programs that utilize and benefit from them, in a fair and equitable manner.
Before indirect costs and central support service charges may be claimed for reimbursement by an operating department, there must be some formal means of identifying, accumulating and distributing these types of costs to all benefiting departments. Regardless of whether an agency has a formal comprehensive cost accounting system, the best method of accumulating, identifying, and determining a distribution of indirect costs is a cost allocation plan.
A City is made up of many departments, each with their own specific purposes or functions. Departments whose primary function is to provide support internally to other City departments are called central services.
Examples of central services are Personnel, City Attorney, Finance, and City Council. Within these groups there are numerous functions performed that provide support to the direct cost centers. The direct cost centers, or departments and funds, that require support from Central Services and provide services directly to the community through their day-to-day operations, are called operating departments. Examples of operating departments are Public Safety, Public Works, Community Development & Building, and Parks. The Cost Allocation Plan allocates the costs of the central services to the operating departments based on the nature of the functions of each central service, upon which the operating departments depend. This is done to determine the total cost associated with providing direct services. The overall goal of the cost allocation plan process is to allow cities to allocate a portion of the central service costs to the operating departments, thus 1) accounting for “all” costs, direct and indirect, for each operating department, and 2) facilitating the calculation of a fully burdened cost estimate of providing services to the public.
The purpose of this study is to:
Identify the central support and operating departments in the City; Identify the functions and services provided by the central departments; Identify allocable and non-allocable costs associated with the City’s central service departments; and
Distribute those costs to operating entities in a fair and equitable manner.
66 Item 6 B.
6 Cost Allocation Plan
Approach
Methodology
The way in which each Indirect Service provides support to the operating departments is determined in order to perform allocations in a manner consistent with the nature of that Indirect Service. This ensures that the costs can be allocated to each operating department in a fair and equitable way. The Cost Allocation Plan identifies the functions of each central service department, and then determines a methodology to allocate or spread the central service costs in a manner that best represents the nature of those functions.
The mathematical representations of central service functions used to allocate indirect costs are commonly called distribution bases. A distribution basis is a set of data displayed as the level of measure of each department’s participation in a specific activity or City function. This basis is then used to distribute costs that reasonably relate to the activity or City function that the basis represents. Some examples of distribution bases are salary and benefits costs, number of full-time equivalent employees, frequencies of city council agenda items, and number of processed transactions. The data sets associated with these distribution bases for each department are collected to facilitate the allocation of indirect costs.
The methodology used for this Cost Allocation Plan is the iterative method, which is one of the most equitable methods for allocating costs from central services to operating departments. While not used as prevalently as simpler allocation methods, it is widely considered to be the most accurate. The iterative method utilizes a recursive application of central service cost distribution to allocate indirect costs. In the first step, the allocable costs of central service departments are identified and distributed to all departments including the central service departments themselves, based on the appropriate allocation bases that were selected to represent the manner in which central services are utilized. This is repeated ad infinitum until all costs have been distributed to the operating departments, and none remain with the central service departments.
As an example, consider the allocation of central service costs associated with Facilities. The function of Facilities is identified, and the appropriate distribution basis is determined to be the total square footage per department and fund. The allowable costs are then distributed to all City departments and funds based on their proportional share of square footage, including other central services. The costs allocated from central service to central service in the initial allocation are then allocated out using the same distribution methodology. This function is performed as many times as necessary until all costs for Facilities have been allocated.
All central service departments are treated equally. That is to say, this method is performed concurrently for the allowable costs in each of the central service departments for each iteration until all costs associated with the central service departments have been allocated to each direct service department. The method is complete when the total amount of allocable costs remaining in the central service departments is equal to zero.
67 Item 6 B.
7 Cost Allocation Plan
Applications
Public agencies use cost allocation plans for many purposes such as internal accounting, the justification of user fees, application for reimbursement from federal programs or the determination of administrative effort associated with special districts and/or municipal service activities. In many of these cases, the agency will be required to certify that the costs identified are “reasonable”. Per the Code of Federal Regulations, a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when determining the amount that a public agency should be reimbursed for central service overhead activities associated with a federally funded program. Additionally, public agencies should consider special care to only identify the portion of central service costs that have not been reimbursed through other means (such as grants, user fee revenues, transfers from other departments or internal service funds) to avoid double-counting. These cost reductions are done before the allocation methodologies are used and are detailed within the model itself.
OMB Super Circular and 2 CFR Part 200
This report details the allocations for two separate cost allocation plans. The primary model, presented in text and tables in the below sections and in Appendix A, provides a plan that complies with the Office of Management and Budget Super Circular (the OMB Super Circular) and CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles) that are used to determine central overhead costs incurred while carrying out activities associated with Federal awards, cost reimbursement contracts and some other intergovernmental agreements (as required). The secondary model presented in Appendix B of this report is the full cost allocation plan, which the City should use for standard City operations and budgeting. Unless otherwise indicated, the details of this report and Appendix A contain the OMB compliant allocation plan. The Appendix B tables contain the full cost plan, and utilize the same distribution methodology as the OMB Compliant plan. While the overall methodology used for both plans is the same, there are specific guidelines that require additional cost exemptions for OMB Super Circular compliance outside of what was done for the full cost plan. Where such exemptions are done in the methodology has been explained below. Some commonly encountered examples that are usually exempt under OMB Super Circular guidelines are:
General Advertising
Bad Debt
Contingencies
Litigation
Debt Service
Entertainment
Capital
Lobbying
Legislative Body (City Council)
Promotional Items
68 Item 6 B.
8 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Departments
Eleven (11) central service functions were identified for the purposes of this cost allocation plan:
City Attorney
City Council
City Manager
Facilities - Facilities
Facilities - Museum
Facilities – City Hall
Facilities – PW Corporate Yard
Facilities – Jade St. Community Center
Finance
Fleet
Personnel
69 Item 6 B.
9 Cost Allocation Plan
Distribution Bases
Distribution bases are the allocation factors that may be used to distribute the allocable costs to all departments and funds. As discussed previously, distribution bases are measurable and readily available data that are utilized to represent activities or functions, and which are then used to distribute costs matching that activity or function. Below are the bases that were analyzed in this study and used to allocate Central Services costs to operating departments. Number of FTE Employees – The number of full-time equivalent personnel for each department and fund.
Modified Total Direct Cost – The total allowable expenditures budgeted for each department and fund for FY2024 which excludes capital and debt., non-operational transfers, and grant subaward costs greater than $25,000.
City Council Agenda Frequency – City Council agendas spanning a 12-month period were used to determine the number of times each department and fund had matters brought before the City Council.
Total Purchase Orders – The total number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund in a year.
Total Accounts Payable – The total number of accounts payable processed for each department and fund in a year.
Total Salaries & Benefits – The total salary & benefit expenditures for each department and fund for FY2024.
Total Square Footage – The total square footage for each department and fund. Total City Hall Square Footage – The total City Hall square footage for each department and fund. Total Vehicles – The total number of vehicles for each department and fund. Direct Allocations– Specific personnel or a percentage of a specific personnel’s labor within certain central services were identified by the City to be allocable directly to other departments. 70 Item 6 B.
10 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocable Costs and Distribution Bases
Allocable Costs
Table 3 identifies the allocable cost of each central service department for the OMB compliant allocation plan, with the total allocable costs for this study being $3,165,251. The total expenditures from the central service departments were $3,439,982. However, $274,731 of the expenditures identified as unallowable by the 200 CFR Part 200 and have been excluded from allocation for the OMB compliant plan. The primary exclusions were related to City Council, recognition and awards, legal services, City events, and advertising expenses. The remaining amount was distributed to the operating departments and the central services departments by distribution factor(s) that best represents the functions of each central service department and the demand placed on that central service by all City departments, as previously described in the Methodology section of this report. The allocation methodology for each central service is detailed in the following section of this report.
Table 3: Allocable Cost Summary
Allocable Cost Summary - Central Services Fiscal Year 2023-24 Total Cost
Unallocable
Cost
Allocable
Cost
Summary $ 274,731 3,439,982 $ 3,165,251 $
Central Service
1000: City Attorney 288,000 50,000 238,000
1000: City Council 202,431 202,431 -
1000: City Manager 998,253 20,800 977,453
1000: Facilities - Facilities 78,343 - 78,343
1000: Facilities - Museum 1,800 - 1,800
1000: Facilities - City Hall 59,000 - 59,000
1000: Facilities - PW Corporate Yard 22,500 - 22,500
1000: Facilities - Jade St. Community Center 29,500 - 29,500 1000: Finance - 967,309 967,309
1000: Fleet - 334,573 334,573
1000: Personnel 458,273 1,500 456,773
71 Item 6 B.
11 Cost Allocation Plan
Central Service Allocation Methodology
The first step of the iterative allocation method is to distribute the allocable costs of the central service departments to other central service departments and operating departments based on the distribution methodology and bases that best represent the activity of the central service, and the functions it serves.
The sections below describe each central service and the methodology used to allocate their costs.
Corresponding tables detailing each distribution are attached in the Appendices as tables A-1 through A-3 for the OMB compliant plan and B-1 for the full cost plan.
Section 1: City Attorney
The City Attorney represents the City as primary Counsel in all legal matters. The City Attorney is appointed by the City Council. The City Attorney provides legal analysis and advice on interpretation and application of municipal code, State law, and Federal law, drafting legal documents, and labor related issues. The City Attorney is currently a contract position with the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Attorney, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund
Section 2: City Council
The City Council is composed of five generally elected Council Members, serving four-year staggered terms.
Council members select a Mayor and Vice Mayor annually. In 2002, the voters approved a consecutive term limit of two terms for Council Members. The City's Municipal elections are held the first Tuesday of November in even-numbered years. The Council meets regularly twice monthly, on the second and fourth Thursday.
The City Council establishes local law, sets policy, approves programs, allocates funds, and provides direction to the City Manager and staff to implement its policy. Council also appoints members to local and regional committees, commissions, and boards. Capitola is a General Law City, organized under the general laws of the state. Local laws are established by ordinance, compiled in the Municipal Code, and enforceable 1000: City Attorney
Total FTE's 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
Total Agendas 33%
72 Item 6 B.
12 Cost Allocation Plan
by the City. Other directives and policies of the City Council are implemented through Council Resolutions and recorded in Council Minutes.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Council, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund
For the OMB plan the costs of City Council are not allocated to ensure OMB compliance Section 3: City Manager
The City Manager Department is responsible for the overall administration of City objectives. The City Manager is the lead position within the City administrative structure and is appointed by the Council. The City Manager provides administrative direction and leadership to all City departments, and directly oversees Human Resources, City Clerk, Information Systems, and the Assistant to the City Manager.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the City Manager Department, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund
One third percent (33%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Council agendas for each department and fund
1000: City Council
Total FTE's 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
Total Agendas 33%
1000: City Manager
Total FTE's 33%
Modified Total Direct Cost 33%
Total Agendas 33%
73 Item 6 B.
13 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 4: Facilities – Facilities
The Maintenance Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the public infrastructure and facilities including streets and medians, streetlights and traffic signals, street trees, sidewalks and pathways, parks, public buildings, and maintains the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Facilities – Facilities, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total square footage maintained for each department and fund
Section 5: Facilities - Museum
The Maintenance Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the public infrastructure and facilities including streets and medians, streetlights and traffic signals, street trees, sidewalks and pathways, parks, public buildings, and maintains the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Facilities - Museum, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the support directly to the Culture and Leisure Department
Section 6: Facilities – City Hall
The Maintenance Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the public infrastructure and facilities including streets and medians, streetlights and traffic signals, street trees, sidewalks and pathways, parks, public buildings, and maintains the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Facilities – City Hall, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total City Hall square footage maintained for each department and fund
1000: Facilities - Facilities
Total Sq Ft 100%
1000: Facilities - Museum
Direct to Culture & Leisure 100%
74 Item 6 B.
14 Cost Allocation Plan
Section 7: Facilities – PW Corporate Yard
The Maintenance Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the public infrastructure and facilities including streets and medians, streetlights and traffic signals, street trees, sidewalks and pathways, parks, public buildings, and maintains the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Facilities – PW Corporate Yard, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the support directly to the Public Works Department
Section 8: Facilities – Jade St. Community Center
The Maintenance Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the public infrastructure and facilities including streets and medians, streetlights and traffic signals, street trees, sidewalks and pathways, parks, public buildings, and maintains the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Facilities – Jade St. Community Center, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below. One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the support directly to the Culture and Leisure Department
Section 9: Finance
The Finance Department oversees all financial transactions of the City to ensure legal and accounting policies are adhered to. The Department maintains all City funds and oversees budget development, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, accounts payable, payroll, accounts receivable, cash receipts, 1000: Facilities - City Hall
Total City Hall Sq Ft 100%
1000: Facilities - PW Corporate Yard
Direct to Public Works 100%
Direct to Culture & Leasure 100%
1000: Facilities - Jade St. Community
Center
75 Item 6 B.
15 Cost Allocation Plan
banking, business licenses, and transient occupancy tax. The Department provides quarterly and annual financial reports to City Council and the public.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Finance Department, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund
Thirty percent (30%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of accounts payable processed for each department and fund
Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of purchase orders processed for each department and fund
Forty percent (40%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of modified total direct cost for each department and fund
Section 10: Fleet
The Maintenance Division is responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the public infrastructure and facilities including streets and medians, streetlights and traffic signals, street trees, sidewalks and pathways, parks, public buildings, and maintains the City's fleet of vehicles and equipment.
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of the Fleet, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
One hundred percent (100%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the total number of Vehicles for each department and fund
Section 11: Personnel
Personnel functions are the responsibility of the City Manager. Functions include employee recruitment and selection, benefits coordination, insurance and retirement programs, labor negotiations, compensation plan maintenance, regulatory training, and risk management. 1000: Finance
Total FTE's 15%
Total Accounts Payable 30%
Total Purchase Orders 15%
Modified Total Direct Cost 40%
1000: Fleet
Total Vehicles 100%
76 Item 6 B.
16 Cost Allocation Plan
Allocation Method
Based on the assessment of the functions of Personnel, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost by using the method(s) described below.
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents for each department and fund
Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost was allocated based on the amount of salaries and benefits for each department and fund
1000: Personnel
Total FTE's 50%
Total Salaries and Benefits 50%
77 Item 6 B.
17 Cost Allocation Plan
Iterative Allocation
The total allocable expenditures of each central service department were allocated to other departments (including both operating departments and other central service departments) based on the individual methodologies outlined above in Sections 1 through 11 of the Allocation Percentages chapter. Any cost allocated from central service to central service is then reallocated out using the same methodology. This operation is done iteratively until all allocable cost is received by the operating departments and funds, and none remain with the central services. After completion of the iterative allocation method, a total combined allocable cost of $3,165,251 was distributed to all departments and funds until the allocable cost remained only in the operating departments and funds, and the amount of allocable costs remaining in central service departments was equal to zero.
The full cost plan follows the same methodology with the exception that all costs that were excluded solely for OMB compliance, but were reasonable for the full plan, were made allowable and included in the allocation. See Table B-1 for additional details for the full cost plan.
After implementing the iterative allocation methodology, all allocable central service costs have been distributed to the operating departments and funds. Table 1 in the Executive Summary of this report summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $3,165,251 to each recipient department for the OMB compliant CAP. Table 2 summarized the distribution of the total allocable cost of $3,439,982 to each recipient department for the full cost CAP.
78 Item 6 B.
18 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix A
Appendix A lists the tables detailing the allocation methodology performed in allocating central service costs for the OMB compliant cost allocation plan.
79 Item 6 B.
19 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-1: Initial Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) First Iteration
Central Service/Operating Departments 1000: City Attorney 1000: City Council 1000: City Manager 1000: Facilities - Facilities 1000: Facilities - Museum 1000: Facilities - City Hall 1000:
Facilities -
PW
Corporate
Yard
1000: Facilities
- Jade St.
Community
Center
1000:
Finance
1000:
Fleet
1000:
Personnel
1000: City Attorney 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%1000: City Council 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 2.1% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 3.3%1000: City Manager 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 2.7% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 7.1%1000: Facilities - Facilities 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - Museum 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - City Hall 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - PW Corporate Yard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - Jade St. Community Center 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Finance 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 1.7% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 5.2%1000: Fleet 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 6.6% 1.1%1000: Personnel 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%1000: Community Development & Building 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 2.3% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 10.5%1000: Community Grants 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Culture & Leisure 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 29.8% 100.0% 8.1% 0.0% 100.0% 9.1% 3.3% 8.7%1000: Parks 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 3.1%1000: Public Safety 29.3% 29.3% 29.3% 27.4% 0.0% 41.9% 0.0% 0.0% 31.3% 60.7% 44.4%1000: Public Works 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 34.2% 0.0% 21.7% 100.0% 0.0% 18.0% 29.5% 14.4%1300: SLESF - Supl Law Enfc 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%1305: Restricted TOT 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%1310: Gas Tax 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%1311: Wharf 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%1313: General Plan Update and Maint 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%1314: Green Building Education 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1315: Public Art Fee Fund 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%1317: Technology Fee Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%1321: BIA - Capitola Village-Wharf BIA 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%1350: CDBG Grants 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%1370: HOME Reuse, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1373: Permanent Local Housing Alloca 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%5552: Cap Hsg Succ- Program Income 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% Central Service Departments
80 Item 6 B.
20 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-2: Final Allocation Percentages (OMB Compliant CAP) Central Service/Operating Departments 1000: City Attorney 1000: City Council 1000: City Manager 1000: Facilities - Facilities 1000: Facilities - Museum 1000: Facilities - City Hall 1000:
Facilities -
PW
Corporate
Yard
1000:
Facilities -
Jade St.
Community
Center
1000:
Finance
1000:
Fleet
1000:
Personnel
1000: City Attorney 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: City Council 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: City Manager 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - Facilities 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - Museum 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - City Hall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - PW Corporate Yard 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Facilities - Jade St. Community Center 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Finance 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Fleet 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Personnel 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1000: Community Development & Building 13.7% 13.7% 13.7% 3.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 12.5%1000: Community Grants 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1%1000: Culture & Leisure 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 30.4% 100.0% 10.2% 0.0% 100.0% 11.9% 3.5% 10.5%1000: Parks 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 0.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 4.1%1000: Public Safety 44.7% 44.7% 44.7% 30.2% 0.0% 51.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.3% 64.9% 53.1%1000: Public Works 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 35.6% 0.0% 26.4% 100.0% 0.0% 24.7% 31.6% 18.7%1300: SLESF - Supl Law Enfc 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%1305: Restricted TOT 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1%1310: Gas Tax 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.1%1311: Wharf 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%1313: General Plan Update and Maint 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1%1314: Green Building Education 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%1315: Public Art Fee Fund 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%1317: Technology Fee Fund 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%1321: BIA - Capitola Village-Wharf BIA 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.1%1350: CDBG Grants 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.1%1370: HOME Reuse, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%1373: Permanent Local Housing Alloca 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1%5552: Cap Hsg Succ- Program Income 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% Central Service Departments
81 Item 6 B.
21 Cost Allocation Plan
Table A-3: Final Allocation Amounts (OMB Compliant CAP) Department Classification Department 1000: City Attorney 1000: City Council 1000: City Manager 1000: Facilities - Facilities 1000: Facilities - Museum 1000: Facilities - City Hall 1000:
Facilities -
PW
Corporate
Yard
1000:
Facilities -
Jade St.
Community
Center
1000: Finance 1000: Fleet 1000: Personnel Total Allocation 238,000 0 977,453 78,343 1,800 59,000 22,500 29,500 967,309 334,573 456,773 3,165,251 Central Service 1000: City Attorney - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: City Council - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: City Manager - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - Facilities - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - Museum - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - City Hall - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - PW Corporate Yard - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - Jade St. Community Center - - - - - - - - - - - -Central Service 1000: Finance - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Fleet - - - - - - - - - - - -
Central Service 1000: Personnel - - - - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 1000: Community Development & Building 32,580 - 133,802 2,388 - 5,858 - - 67,008 - 57,280 298,916 Operating Department 1000: Community Grants 800 - 3,287 19 - 47 - - 5,103 - 290 9,547 Operating Department 1000: Culture & Leisure 22,049 - 90,554 23,829 1,800 6,015 - 29,500 115,574 11,739 48,180 349,240 Operating Department 1000: Parks - 13,148 53,998 292 - 717 - - 64,912 - 18,942 152,009 Operating Department 1000: Public Safety 106,275 - 436,464 23,652 - 30,165 - - 409,404 217,179 242,373 1,465,511 Operating Department 1000: Public Works 52,755 - 216,663 27,911 - 15,580 22,500 - 238,744 105,655 85,497 765,305 Operating Department 1300: SLESF - Supl Law Enfc 322 - 1,321 12 - 29 - - 5,112 - 193 6,989 Operating Department 1305: Restricted TOT 934 - 3,835 21 - 51 - - 4,704 - 308 9,853 Operating Department 1310: Gas Tax - 1,805 7,415 43 - 106 - - 11,295 - 650 21,314 Operating Department 1311: Wharf - 225 923 11 - 26 - - 5,219 - 176 6,579 Operating Department 1313: General Plan Update and Maint 1,079 - 4,432 24 - 59 - - 5,393 - 355 11,342 Operating Department 1314: Green Building Education 1 - 26 515 3 - 6 - - 500 - 38 1,188Operating Department 1315: Public Art Fee Fund 459 - 1,884 10 - 24 - - 2,101 - 146 4,624 Operating Department 1317: Technology Fee Fund 87 - 356 2 - 5 - - 619 - 33 1,103 Operating Department 1321: BIA - Capitola Village-Wharf BIA 1,148 - 4,716 34 - 84 - - 12,016 - 533 18,531 Operating Department 1350: CDBG Grants 1,678 - 6,890 37 - 91 - - 8,268 - 548 17,513 Operating Department 1370: HOME Reuse, - 26 107 1 - 2 - - 158 - 9 303Operating Department 1373: Permanent Local Housing Alloca 1,535 - 6,303 32 - 79 - - 6,112 - 465 14,526 Operating Department 5552: Cap Hsg Succ- Program Income 971 - 3,987 22 - 54 - - 5,067 - 757 10,857 Central Service Departments
82 Item 6 B.
22 Cost Allocation Plan
Appendix B
Appendix B provides the table detailing the allocation performed in allocating central service costs for the full cost allocation plan. The methodology for the full plan is the same as for the OMB compliant plan, as it is the most reasonable and represents how indirect support is provided in the City. The difference between the two plans, as has been described in this report, is in the costs that can be allocated. 83 Item 6 B.
23 Cost Allocation Plan
Table B-1: Final Allocation Amounts (Full CAP)
Department Classification Department 1000: City Attorney 1000: City Council 1000: City Manager 1000: Facilities - Facilities 1000: Facilities - Museum 1000: Facilities - City Hall 1000:
Facilities -
PW
Corporate
Yard
1000:
Facilities -
Jade St.
Community
Center
1000: Finance 1000: Fleet 1000: Personnel Total Allocation 288,000 202,431 998,253 78,343 1,800 59,000 22,500 29,500 967,309 334,573 458,273 3,439,982 Central Service 1000: City Attorney - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: City Council - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: City Manager - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - Facilities - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - Museum - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - City Hall - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - PW Corporate Yard - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Facilities - Jade St. Community Center - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Service 1000: Finance - - - - - - - - - - - -
Central Service 1000: Fleet - - - - - - - - - - - -
Central Service 1000: Personnel - - - - - - - - - - - - Operating Department 1000: Community Development & Building 39,424 27,711 136,650 2,388 - 5,858 - - 67,008 - 57,468 336,506 Operating Department 1000: Community Grants 968 681 3,357 19 - 47 - - 5,103 - 291 10,467 Operating Department 1000: Culture & Leisure 26,681 18,754 92,481 23,829 1,800 6,015 - 29,500 115,574 11,739 48,339 374,711 Operating Department 1000: Parks 11,183 15,910 55,147 292 - 717 - - 64,912 - 19,004 167,166Operating Department 1000: Public Safety 128,601 90,392 445,752 23,652 - 30,165 - - 409,404 217,179 243,168 1,588,313 Operating Department 1000: Public Works 63,838 44,871 221,274 27,911 - 15,580 22,500 - 238,744 105,655 85,778 826,151 Operating Department 1300: SLESF - Supl Law Enfc 389 274 1,349 12 - 29 - - 5,112 - 193 7,359 Operating Department 1305: Restricted TOT 1,130 794 3,917 21 - 51 - - 4,704 - 309 10,926 Operating Department 1310: Gas Tax 1,536 2,185 7,573 43 - 106 - - 11,295 - 652 23,389 Operating Department 1311: Wharf 191 272 943 11 - 26 - - 5,219 - 176 6,838 Operating Department 1313: General Plan Update and Maint 1,306 918 4,527 24 - 59 - - 5,393 - 356 12,582 Operating Department 1314: Green Building Education 1 107 52 526 3 - 6 - - 500 - 38 1,332 Operating Department 1315: Public Art Fee Fund 555 390 1,924 10 - 24 - - 2,101 - 146 5,152 Operating Department 1317: Technology Fee Fund 105 74 364 2 - 5 - - 619 - 33 1,203 Operating Department 1321: BIA - Capitola Village-Wharf BIA 1,389 977 4,816 34 - 84 - - 12,016 - 535 19,851 Operating Department 1350: CDBG Grants 2,030 1,427 7,037 37 - 91 - - 8,268 - 550 19,441 Operating Department 1370: HOME Reuse, 22 31 109 1 - 2 - - 158 - 9 333 Operating Department 1373: Permanent Local Housing Alloca 1,857 1,305 6,437 32 - 79 - - 6,112 - 467 16,289 Operating Department 5552: Cap Hsg Succ- Program Income 1,175 826 4,071 22 - 54 - - 5,067 - 759 11,974 Central Service Departments
84 Item 6 B.
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com 85
Item 6 B.
CITY OF CAPITOLA
USER FEE STUDY REPORT
Date: November 7, 2024
86 Item 6 B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Comprehensive study to
adjust user fees to ensure
full cost recovery.
Aim: Reduce reliance on the
General Fund.
Most fees are outdated
and below cost recovery
levels.
87 Item 6 B.
BACKGROUND
• User fees fund specific services
benefiting individual users.
• Fees must comply with California
regulations (Proposition 218 and 26)
• The study analyzes the actual cost of
providing services.
88 Item 6 B.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
• CASE STUDY METHOD: ESTIMATES
COST FOR SPECIFIC SERVICES.
• PROGRAM COST APPROACH:
FOR RECREATION AND SHARED
SERVICES.
• VALUATION-BASED FEES:
FOR BUILDING PERMITS BASED ON
PROJECT SIZE
89 Item 6 B.
KEY FINDINGS
•Many fees are below cost recovery
levels, impacting the General Fund
• Public Works and Police fees
require significant adjustments.
• Recreation services fees remain
competitive and affordable.
90 Item 6 B.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
• Full cost recovery for services that benefit individuals. - sets maximum fee amount
• Subsidization for public services may continue.
- ie. Recreation programs and community events
• Consider inflation adjustments for future fee reviews. 91 Item 6 B.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Miscellaneous:
• 3 new fees for marriage ceremonies
• Increase outdoor dining space rent by 3.67% CPI
Public Works:
• New fees for inspection & permit services
• Increases for traffic control plan reviews,
construction parking permits, & stormwater
development review
92 Item 6 B.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY
DEPARTMENT
•Police:
•Increase to Special event
permits
•Recurring vs. new major
special event
•New fee for closure of Village
(parking)
•Reduced rate for non-profits
•New fees for boot removal &
tow hearing
•Better align with full cost
recovery 93
Item 6 B.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Planning:
• Several fees decreasing
• Increase fees & deposits for complex planning
applications and environmental review
• General Plan Maintenance fee increasing
• Development Agreement deposit – remaining at $10,000
• Information Technology Fee remaining at 5% (Reso. 3786) Building:
• Increases for plan checks and inspections.
• New fees for permit extensions and reinstatements
• New fees for Electric Vehicle Charging Permits & Solar P.V.
Systems
• No fee for solar hot water heater
94 Item 6 B.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTMENT
• No increase to program fees to maintain
affordability
• New fee for changing registration or reservation
• New fee for Rapid Wedding Event
• Incorporates recently adopted park rental fees
Community Services & Recreation:
• No changes recommended
Museum
95 Item 6 B.
CONCLUSION
• Updated fee schedule improves cost
recovery and compliance.
• Reduces reliance on the General
Fund.
• City Council's approval is
recommended.
96 Item 6 B.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Conduct
Public Hearing
Provide direction
to staff
Staff to return to Council Nov. 14, 2024,
with fee schedule amendments, if any.
97 Item 6 B.