TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE October 7, 2026
PREPARED FOR Mayor and Town Council
PREPARED BY Heather Abrams, Town Manager
Jeffery Beiswenger, Planning and Building Service Director Michael Vivrette, Finance Director
SUBJECT Discuss the Draft Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study, prepared by Government Consulting Partners, Inc., and Establish a Council Subcommittee for Review Prior to Council Adoption of the Proposed Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the Draft Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study, prepared by Government Consulting Partners, Inc and establish a Council Subcommittee for review prior to Council adoption of updated fees. Adoption is anticipated on or before the November 4, 2026 Town Council Meeting, with updated fees becoming effective 60-days after adoption.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2026, Council approved agreement with Government Consulting Partners in an amount not to exceed $34,500 for an updated Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study. The previous time that the Town conducted a user fee study and cost allocation plan was in 2019 which was an update to fees adopted in 2009.
The purpose of a fee study is to identify the costs of all operational services that are either currently charged a fee or could be charged a fee. A cost allocation plan (CAP) identifies the indirect costs (e.g., departmental overhead, finance services) associated with the provision of the direct services (staff salary & benefits). The objective is to identify the “true or full” cost (direct and indirect costs) for staff to provide the services. While operational costs have increased since the 2019 fee schedule was adopted, other than increases to facility rental fees, almost all the Town fees have remained at the same level since 2019.
In June 2026, the Town Manager issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) with one month for proposers to respond. In addition to posting the RFP publicly, staff directly sent the RFP to 5 possible prospers. One response was received, from Government Consulting Partners, Inc, (GCP). The GCP proposal was reviewed by staff to ensure that it was complete, and that the proposer had the experience and skill needed to perform the project, and that the costs proposed are well supported and within reason. Council approved an agreement with GCP on July 22, 2026.
DISCUSSION
Throughout July, August and September, Town staff met with GCP to provide data and necessary documentation to the consultants. Staff who met with the contractors included staff members from Planning and Building Services, Public Works, Finance, Recreation, and the Town Manager and Clerk’s Offices. Both staff and consultants understood the accelerated timeline and worked diligently to complete the task in record time.
Next Steps
Staff requests that the Council decide whether to appoint a two-Council-Member subcommittee to further review the draft fee study, and if so appoint the two members at this October 7, 2026 Council Meeting. Following appointment of the subcommittee, staff will schedule subcommittee meetings and prepare recommendations of the subcommittee to come back to the full Council for presentation and adoption of the new fee amounts. A 10-day notice and a 5-day notice will be posted in advance of the October 21, 2026 special meeting. Once Council approves the updated fees, they will become effective 60-days later, per state law.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fee study was budgeted in 01-715-881 Non-Departmental for $25,000, an additional $9,500 was approved by the Council which will be absorbed by the non-departmental budget.
Most importantly, timely implementation of an accurate fee schedule can ensure the Town recovers its costs of providing services to developers and the community. Table 1 shows current annual fee revenue of $913,337 against associated costs of $1,295,254, for an overall cost recovery rate of 71%. This leaves $381,917 (29%) in unrecovered costs. If recommended fee adjustments are adopted, annual revenues are projected to increase to $1,295,254, representing a $381,917 increase in annual fee revenue. GCP recommends monitoring these fees over the coming years to ensure they remain aligned with actual staff time and service delivery costs.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study, prepared by Government Consulting Partners, Inc
GOVERNMENT CONSULTING PARTNERS, INC.
Town of Fairfax
User Fee Study Report
Cost of Services and User Fee Analysis
PREPARED FOR
Town of Fairfax
PREPARED BY
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
DATE
September 2026
www.governmentconsultingpartners.com
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Table of Contents
01 BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 3 State Law ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 3 02 APPROACH & METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 4 Fee Schedule Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Costing Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4 03 FISCAL IMPACT ....................................................................................................................................... 5 04 ANALYSIS AND HIGHLIGHTS .................................................................................................................... 5 Planning and Building ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Cost vs. Revenue Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 6 Proposed Fee Adjustments ........................................................................................................................... 7 Comparison Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Technology Fee .................................................................................................................................................. 7 General Plan Maintenance Fee .......................................................................................................................... 8 Recreation and Community Services ................................................................................................................. 8 05 COMPARISON SURVEY RESULTS............................................................................................................ 10 06 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 12 Planning and Building Fee Schedule ................................................................................................................ 12 Recreation and Community Services: Facility Rental Fee Schedule ................................................................ 15 APPENDIX B: COMPARISON SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................ 16 Planning and Building Fee Survey .................................................................................................................... 16 Planning and Building: Engineering Services Fee Survey ................................................................................. 17 Recreation and Community Services: Facility Rental Fee Survey .................................................................... 18 APPENDIX C: PLANNING & BUILDING COST VS REVENUE ANALYSIS ............................................................ 19 Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
01 BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES
In June of 2026, the Town of Fairfax (Town) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified consulting firms to prepare a comprehensive cost of services and cost allocation study. Following the evaluation process, the Town Council approved an agreement with Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP) to perform these services.
The Town delivers a broad range of services to residents, businesses, and visitors. Many of these services are supported through user fees, which are charges applied when an individual or business voluntarily requests a service that provides a direct and specific benefit. These user fee services are the focus of this report.
As fiscal constraints on local governments continue to increase, user fees have become an increasingly important revenue source. A user fee is a charge paid by an individual or business that receives the primary benefit of the service, rather than the community. Public agencies may assess user fees when (1) the decision to use the service is voluntary, and (2) the fee is related to the level and cost of the service provided.
State Law
User fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218 (1996), and the California Code of Regulations, including Government Code 66000 et seq. By law, user fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which they were levied, unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. Proposition 218 ensures user fees are fair, transparent, and directly connected to the actual cost of the service provided.
Proposition 26, passed in 2010, limits user fees to the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service," as reflected in Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. Proposition 26 exempts fees charged for the use of government property, including fees for parks, facility rentals, and equipment rentals. These fees may be set at the price the market will bear.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 66017, any development-related fee or charge that a local agency adopts or increases, including building, planning, engineering, and other community development fees, may not take effect until 60 days after final action by the governing body. This requirement promotes transparency and provides a defined implementation period following Council adoption. Accordingly, approved fee adjustments cannot be implemented immediately and must be scheduled to take effect at least 60 days after adoption.
Study Objectives
GCP’s primary objective in this user fee study was to:
1. Provide the Town's decision-makers with a cost analysis that provides a clear picture of the cost recovery as it relates to the Town’s user fees.
2. Align the Town’s user fees with the Town’s cost recovery goals and recommend defensible adjustments that contribute to overall fiscal sustainability.
3. Provide a comparison survey to help guide the Town’s fee recommendations.
This report presents GCP’s comprehensive review of the Town of Fairfax’s user fees, with the goal of aligning fees with the Town’s cost recovery goals and Council priorities.
The study analyzed user fees charged by the following departments and divisions:
Planning and Building Services Recreation and Community Services Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
02 APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
At the outset of the study, GCP met with Town Management to review and confirm the scope. Following this, GCP met individually with department representatives. These discussions helped GCP understand departmental goals, Town priorities, and the desired outcomes for the updated fee schedule, which helped define the overall project goals.
Fee Schedule Structure
A key component of the work plan was reviewing the Town’s existing fees and restructuring them where necessary. GCP worked with each department to identify areas where improvements could be made to fee structures. The review identified opportunities to better align fees with the range of services provided.
As part of the review process, GCP surveyed fee schedules from comparable cities to identify regional best practices and emerging trends. This analysis was shared with staff, along with the compiled fee schedules, to inform decision-making.
The effort provided Town staff with an overview of alternative fee structures used by peer agencies and established industry norms. Several guiding principles shaped the updated fee structure:
Reflect Modern Practices: Fee structures evolve as service delivery models and customer expectations change. GCP worked with staff to develop a structure that aligns with Fairfax’s current service mix.
Transparency: Linking each fee clearly to its corresponding service enhances transparency, making it easier for users to understand costs and the rationale behind them. Gap Analysis: GCP worked with staff to determine whether fee eligible services were provided without a corresponding fee. Part of this effort included a review of regional fee schedules to understand how other agencies offset service costs. This analysis produced several new fee proposals to help reduce the General Fund subsidy.
Costing Methodology
GCP analyzed the Town’s user fees using a program-level, or “top-down,” methodology. The program-level methodology has three steps:
Step 1: Calculate the annual cost of providing fee-related services.
GCP identified the salary and benefits for each staff position and interviewed management to determine what percentage of each position is devoted to providing fee-related services. Next, contract staffing costs related to fee work was incorporated. Finally, a fair-share of Townwide overhead (Attorney, Personnel, Finance, etc.) was allocated to each department and incorporated into the annual cost calculations.
Step 2: Identify annual user fee revenue.
GCP reviewed FY 25/26 revenue generated by each department and extracted non user-fee revenues (e.g. impact fee revenues).
Step 3: Calculate the current cost recovery rate.
GCP divided annual user fee-related revenue (Step 2) by annual user fee-related cost (Step 1) to determine the current cost recovery rate. For the Planning and Building Services department, this yielded a 78% cost Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
recovery rate, indicating that revenues/fees need to be increased by 29% to achieve 100% cost recovery. See Appendix C for detailed calculations.
03 FISCAL IMPACT
In cooperation with Town staff, GCP developed cost and revenue projections for each area under study. Costs and revenues were primarily projected by extrapolating individual per-unit results for an entire year of demand activity. The combined findings show an overall $381,917 net revenue increase on an annual basis, assuming historic demand remains level. Table 1 summarizes the fiscal impact of GCP’s findings and recommendations for each fee area under study.
Table 1: Fiscal Impact of Proposed Fee Adjustments
FEE AREA
COST OF FEE
RELATED
SERVICES
CURRENT
USER FEE
REVENUE
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
GENERAL
FUND
SUBSIDY
PROJECTED
REVENUE
FROM
PROPOSED
FEES
COST
RECOVERY
RATE AT
PROPOSED
FEES
PROJECTED
REVENUE
INCREASE
Planning and Building $1,037,502 $807,000 78% $230,502 $1,037,502 100% $230,502 Recreation and
Community Services* $30,252 $25,637 85% $4,615 $30,252 100% $4,615 Technology Fee $60,000 $40,350 67% $19,650 $60,000 100% $19,650 General Plan
Maintenance Fee $167,500 $40,350 24% $127,150 $167,500 100% $127,150 TOTAL $1,295,254 $913,337 71% $381,917 $1,295,254 100% $381,917 * Recreation and Community Services analysis is limited to facility rentals. The revenue data available was not segregated by facility or type of fee charged. Accordingly, GCP took a conservative approach to projecting revenues, estimating an 18% increase based on the recommended percentage increase for the resident youth fee. These fees are Proposition 26 exclusions from the estimated reasonable cost test under the Use of Public Property exclusion.
Because of fee restructuring and fluctuations in the construction cycle, the fiscal projections in this study are approximations and should be treated conservatively. GCP recommends that staff monitor actual fiscal impacts beginning with the first six months of revenue data to confirm that the fees are performing as intended.
Table 1 shows current annual fee revenue of $913,337 against associated costs of $1,295,254, for an overall cost recovery rate of 71%. This leaves $381,917 (29%) in unrecovered costs.
If recommended fee adjustments are adopted, annual revenues are projected to increase to $1,295,254, representing a $381,917 increase in annual fee revenue. GCP recommends monitoring these fees over the coming years to ensure they remain aligned with actual staff time and service delivery costs. 04 ANALYSIS AND HIGHLIGHTS
This section summarizes the recommended adjustments to each fee schedule, including eliminating outdated fees, introducing new fees, and combining similar charges to enhance transparency and consistency. It presents the key financial results and outlines the recommended fee structure, which is aligned with actual Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
service costs and supports each department’s broader fiscal and policy objectives. The full list of proposed fees appears in Appendix A.
Planning and Building
The Town of Fairfax Planning and Building Division plays a critical role in ensuring safe, code-compliant development across the community. The Division manages comprehensive plan review and inspection services for all new construction projects, verifying compliance with applicable building codes at every stage. In addition, staff provides guidance and support to residents, contractors, and developers regarding home improvement regulations, permitting requirements, and code compliance, helping to ensure projects are completed safely and efficiently. The Division also reviews and processes land use entitlements, including use permits, design review, variances, subdivisions, and environmental review. The Planning and Building division provides these services at the request of property owners and developers seeking to build or enhance and change the current use of their property.
Building plan check and permit fees are charged as flat fees based on the type of project, such as a new home, major remodel, kitchen or bath remodel, or individual installations such as water heaters, furnaces, and electrical service. Encroachment fees are the exception and are charged as a percentage of project valuation.
Flat fees provide applicants with predictable, easy-to-understand costs at the time of application.
Planning fees are charged as flat fees for routine entitlements, such as use permits, design review, variances, and sign permits, and as deposits billed against actual staff and consultant costs for complex applications, such as environmental review, subdivisions, general plan amendments, rezoning, and development agreements.
Separate fees are charged for individual electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits as well.
GCP used a variety of methods to test whether the division’s fees meet the cost vs revenue standards of Government Code 66014 et seq. which states that revenue received in return for a particular service must not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing that service.
Cost vs. Revenue Analysis
GCP evaluated the Planning and Building Division’s fees using the program-level, or “top-down,” methodology described in Section 02 of this report. First, GCP calculated the annual cost of providing fee-related services, including the salary and benefits for the portion of each staff position devoted to fee-related work, contract staffing costs and a fair share of Townwide overhead. Next, GCP identified FY 25/26 user fee revenue, excluding non-user-fee revenues such as impact fees. Finally, GCP compared annual cost to annual revenue to determine the current cost recovery rate.
The annual cost of providing Planning and Building user fee-related services is $1,037,502. Current annual user fee revenue is $807,000 (after deducting development impact fee revenue), for a 78% cost recovery rate, leaving $230,502 in annual costs subsidized by the General Fund. A detailed breakdown of the costs and user fee revenues underlying this analysis is provided in Appendix C.
If the proposed fees are adopted, annual Planning and Building fee revenue is projected to increase to $1,037,502, a $230,502 or 29% increase, achieving 100% cost recovery and eliminating the General Fund subsidy for these services, assuming demand remains at historic levels.
The Town also charges a Technology Fee and a General Plan Maintenance Fee (GPMF) on development permits. GCP proposes increasing the Technology Fee from 5% to 7% and the GPMF from 5% to 21%, and applying both fees to all development user fees rather than to building permit fees only. Together, these changes are projected to generate $146,800 in additional annual revenue ($19,650 from the Technology Fee and $127,150 from the GPMF). Each fee is discussed in its own section below.
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Proposed Fee Adjustments
GCP recommends adjusting the Planning and Building fee schedule to achieve full cost recovery. Most existing flat fees would increase by approximately 29%. This increase is supported by the cost vs. revenue analysis in Appendix C, which shows the fee increase required to achieve fiscal sustainability. For example, the Use Permit fee increases from $1,474 to $1,901, the New Home building permit from $6,968 to $8,989, and the singlefamily resale inspection from $469 to $605. The Appeal fee increases from $625 to $1,000 and would be waived if the appeal is successful.
Key structural changes include consolidating the minor residential, minor commercial, and major Use Permit fees into a single $1,901 Use Permit fee; restructuring the Grading fee from a flat $700 to $1,327 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $433 for each additional 100 cubic yards ($20 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards over 1,000); replacing the $1,000–$3,000 Engineering Plan Check deposit with a sheet-based fee ($3,180 for up to five sheets plus $350 per additional sheet); increasing the penalty for work without a valid permit or entitlement from 1.5 to 2 times the permit fee; and deleting the Large Roof permit fees. The $6,500 Multiresidential Design Review deposit is waived for developments qualifying under AB 2011, SB 423, SB 4, SB 6 or similar legislation.
New fees include a Ministerial Project Approval deposit ($2,000), Concurrent Application Processing (100% of the most expensive application and 50% of each additional application), a Small Wireless Cell Permit deposit ($5,000), Expedited Processing (1.25 times the standard plan check fee), a 3% Credit Card Convenience Charge, re-check, re-inspection, and cancellation fees ($328 per hour), permit extension (50% of the permit fee) and re-activation (100% of the permit fee) fees, fees for use or blockage of the public right-of-way, and a refund policy.
Comparison Survey
GCP compared select Planning and Building fees with five peer agencies: Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, San Anselmo and San Rafael. The proposed $1,901 Use Permit fee remains below peer Conditional Use Permit fees, which range from $2,460 (Novato, Zoning Administrator) to $9,712 (San Rafael, Planning Commission). The proposed penalty of 2 times the permit fee for unpermitted work matches Larkspur, Mill Valley, and Novato, while San Anselmo and San Rafael charge 3 times the fee. Peer General Plan Maintenance Fees range from 10% (Novato and San Anselmo) to 35% (San Rafael), with Mill Valley at 19%; the proposed 21% falls within this range. Peer Technology Fees range from 3% to 10%, with most agencies at 5%. Three of the five peers charge a credit card convenience fee of 2.8% to 4%, consistent with the proposed 3%. The complete survey appears in Appendix B.
GCP recommends the Town monitor Planning and Building fee revenue at six months and one year following implementation to confirm that the new and restructured fees are performing as intended.
Technology Fee
The Town charges a Technology Fee on development permits to recover the cost of the technology systems that support development review, permitting, and inspection services. The current fee is 5% of building permit fees.
GCP identified $60,000 in annual development-related technology costs:
$50,000 for the permit tracking system and $10,000 for GIS/Marin Maps.
Dividing these costs by the $807,000 in development revenue subject to the fee yields a proposed Technology Fee of 7% (Table 2). The proposed fee would apply to all development user fees rather than to building Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
permit fees only. Development impact fees, General Plan Maintenance and Technology fees, and Short Term Rental fees are excluded from the fee base.
Current Technology Fee revenue is estimated at $40,350 (5% of $807,000), for a 67% cost recovery rate. The proposed fee is set to recover the full $60,000 annual cost, a $19,650 increase in annual revenue.
General Plan Maintenance Fee
The Town charges a General Plan Maintenance Fee (GPMF) on development permits to recover a share of the long-range planning costs required to keep the General Plan, Housing Element, and related policy documents current. The current fee is 5% of building permit fees.
GCP identified $335,000 in annual long-range planning costs: $110,000 for the General Plan ($1,100,000 over a 10-year update cycle), $75,000 for the Housing Element ($600,000 over an 8-year cycle) and $150,000 for annual mini-updates.
Because long-range planning also benefits the community at large, GCP allocated 50% of these costs ($167,500) to development.
Dividing $167,500 by the $807,000 in development revenue subject to the fee yields a proposed GPMF of 21% (Table 3). Like the Technology Fee, the proposed fee would apply to all development user fees, excluding development impact fees, General Plan Maintenance and Technology fees, and Short Term Rental fees.
Current GPMF revenue is estimated at $40,350 (5% of $807,000), for a 24% cost recovery rate on the $167,500 development share.
The proposed fee is set to recover the full development share, a $127,150 increase in annual revenue. The remaining $167,500 reflects the community benefit of long-range planning and would continue to be funded by the General Fund.
GCP also compared the GPMF with the five peer agencies surveyed (Table 2). Peer fees range from 10% (Novato and San Anselmo) to 35% (San Rafael), with Mill Valley at 19%. Larkspur charges 0.25% of building permit valuation rather than a percentage of permit fees. The proposed 21% fee falls within the peer range.
Table 2: General Plan Maintenance Fee Comparison Survey
AGENCY GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
Fairfax (Current) 5%
Fairfax (Proposed) 21%
Larkspur 0.25% of building permit valuation
Mill Valley 19%
Novato 10%
San Anselmo 10%
San Rafael 35%
Recreation and Community Services
The Town of Fairfax Recreation and Community Services Department provides year-round recreational, educational, and social programs, services, and events for Fairfax residents. In delivering these offerings, the Department collaborates with numerous community partners, including the Parks and Recreation Commission, Artist in Residence Collaborative, Age Friendly Fairfax, and the Chamber of Commerce, among others.
Together, these groups help foster and sustain Fairfax’s unique community spirit.
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Recreation programs such as classes and camps are delivered by various contractors under a 70/30 revenuesharing arrangement. GCP did not evaluate those services; instead, this analysis focuses on the Town’s park and facility rental fees.
Under Proposition 26, fees charged for the use of government property, including park, facility, and equipment rental fees, are exempt from its requirements. Accordingly, these fees may be set at rates the market will bear.
To benchmark Fairfax’s fees, GCP surveyed rates charged by neighboring agencies with facilities that Town staff identified as comparable. The analysis also considered the age and condition of each facility to support reasonable recommendations. The comparison included:
Town of San Anselmo
Town of Corte Madera
City of Larkspur
Dance Palace, Point Reyes Station (private facility)
The complete comparison survey is provided in Appendix B.
The survey indicates that Fairfax’s published rental rates are competitive with those of neighboring agencies.
However, the published rates do not reflect the rates most renters actually pay. At the Pavilion, most reservations are made at the youth rate, primarily for youth sports groups and birthday parties. At the Women’s Club, most reservations are made by nonprofit and community groups for uses such as celebrations of life and recovery meetings. Few rentals at either facility are booked at the private-event rate. Although the Pavilion’s private rate of $190 per hour and the Women’s Club’s private rate of $110 per hour compare reasonably with the peer average of approximately $123 per hour, the rates most commonly paid are substantially lower: $55 per hour at the Pavilion and $55 to $80 per hour at the Women’s Club. By comparison, the Corte Madera Community Center charges nonprofit groups $130 per hour. Fairfax’s picnic-area rates, at $75 to $80 per hour, already exceed those of every agency surveyed.
GCP’s recommendations therefore focus on the rate categories that account for most of the Town’s rental activity. For the Pavilion, the resident youth rate would increase from $55 to $65 per hour, and a new nonresident youth rate of $80 per hour would be established because residents and nonresidents currently pay the same youth rate. The DIY Birthday Party Package would follow the same rate structure. For the Women’s Club, the nonprofit rate would increase from $55 to $70 per hour for residents and from $80 to $85 per hour for nonresidents. These proposed rates remain within the peer nonprofit range of $35 to $130 per hour and close to the peer average of approximately $75 per hour.
Private-event rates would increase more modestly, to $200 and $250 at the Pavilion and to $120 and $145 at the Women’s Club. These rates would continue to serve as the full-rate benchmark from which discounted rates are established. The recommended increases reflect the age and condition of both buildings. No changes are recommended for picnic-area rates, deposits, or maintenance fees. The proposed fee schedule is provided in Appendix A. Table 3 shows the proposed fees and the percentage increase from current fees.
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Table 3: Proposed Facility Rental Rates and Percent Increase from Current Fees 05 COMPARISON SURVEY RESULTS
It is common practice for agencies to compare their fees with those of other jurisdictions; however, such comparisons are not always directly comparable. For example, an appeal fee at another agency may be subsidized, meaning the full cost of service is not reflected. While a comparison survey can offer helpful context and highlight key considerations when setting fees, it should serve as a reference point rather than the sole basis for fee decisions. The comparison survey results appear in Appendix B.
Consider the following when reviewing the comparison survey results:
Service Costs Vary: Differences in staffing, operations, and overhead costs mean fees are not always directly comparable.
Policy Choices Matter: Some agencies keep fees low by subsidizing them to support access or other goals.
Different Services: Fees may reflect different levels or types of service, even if the name is the same.
Compliance: Fees must reflect actual costs to remain legally compliant, regardless of what other agencies charge.
06 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. GCP recommends that Fairfax update its user fees in non-study years using an annual inflation index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), to keep fees closely aligned with staffing costs.
Certain fees are exempt from these annual adjustments, such as fees that the State or federal government limits to a specific dollar amount. CPI should not be applied to these fees.
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
2. GCP recommends that the Town monitor revenue from new and adjusted fees and review it at six months and one year to confirm that new or restructured fees are performing as intended and that recreation fee increases do not reduce participation.
3. GCP recommends that Fairfax conduct a detailed analysis at least every three to five years and incorporate minor adjustments, such as new fees arising from new legislation, as needed.
Individual proposed fees appear in Appendix A.
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
Planning and Building Fee Schedule
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Recreation and Community Services: Facility Rental Fee Schedule Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
APPENDIX B: COMPARISON SURVEY RESULTS
Planning and Building Fee Survey
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Planning and Building: Engineering Services Fee Survey
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
Recreation and Community Services: Facility Rental Fee Survey Facility Tier City / Agency Facility Name Max Capacity (people) Billing Unit Hours per Billing Unit Resident Rate ($, as published) Non-Resident Rate ($, as published) Non-Profit Rate ($, as published) Commercial Rate ($, as published) Notes Large Halls & Gyms Fairfax Fairfax Pavilion 1,130 Hour 1 $190 $225 $80 Youth $55/hr. Non-resident non-profit
rate is $135/hr; resident non-profit rate shown. Large Halls & Gyms Fairfax Fairfax Women's Club 115 Hour 1 $110 $135 $55 Youth $55/hr. Non-resident non-profit
rate is $80/hr; resident non-profit rate shown. Large Halls & Gyms Corte Madera Corte Madera Community Center 150 Hour 1 $235 $295 $130 $335 Capacity published as 150 to 300 (seated vs standing) Large Halls & Gyms Corte Madera Neil Cummins Elementary School - Gymnasium Not provided Hour 1 $52 $52 $35 $100 School gymnasium. Capacity and square footage not provided by the town. Large Halls & Gyms Larkspur Hall Middle School Gym 500 Hour 1 $119 $119 $59 Agency publishes one adult rate; applied to resident and non-resident. Capacity is approximate. Large Halls & Gyms Point Reyes Station Carol J. Friedman Main Hall 180 Hour 1 $85 $85 One rate published for all users. Liability insurance required. Capacity 180 with theater seating. Small Indoor Rooms San Anselmo Robson-Harrington House (indoor facility) 50 Hour 1 $47 $47 Weekday (Mon to Thu) rate shown. Weekend half-day rate is $97/hr with a 4-hour minimum. Small Indoor Rooms San Anselmo Isabel Cook Community Center (1st Floor) "Vista Room" 50 Hour 1 $39 $57 Small Indoor Rooms Point Reyes Station Church Space 80 Hour 1 $60 $60 One rate published for all users. Liability insurance required. Capacity 80 with moveable seating. Small Indoor Rooms Point Reyes Station Boardroom 10 Hour 1 $45 $45 One rate published for all users. Liability insurance required. Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites Fairfax Bolinas Park 15 Hour 1 $80 $80 $55 Private rate applies to all users. Capacity published as 10 to 15; upper figure shown. Flat day rate alternative not used. Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites Fairfax Picnic Area 15 Hour 1 $80 $80 $75 Private rate applies to all users. Non- profit rate differs from Bolinas Park ($55/hr) in the source; verify. Flat day rate alternative not used. Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites San Anselmo Robson-Harrington Park – Upper Picnic Area 45 Day 10 $75 $95 Full-day block, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., converted at 10 hours. Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites San Anselmo Robson-Harrington Park – Lower Picnic Area 60 Day 10 $75 $95 Full-day block, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., converted at 10 hours. Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites San Anselmo Memorial Park – Large Group Picnic Area 75 3-hr block 3 $85 $95 Per 3-hour block. Additional hours are $30 (resident) and $33 (non-resident). Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites San Anselmo Memorial Park – Small Group Picnic Area 30 3-hr block 3 $69 $79 Per 3-hour block. Additional hours are $20 (resident) and $23 (non-resident). Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites Corte Madera Town Park - Picnic Areas Not provided Hour 1 $35 $45 $35 $50 Groups of 10 or more require a permit. Capacity not published. Outdoor Picnic & Park Sites Corte Madera Menke Park - Piccolo Pavillion Whole Area Not provided Hour 1 $60 $75 $60 Commercial: no rate published. Capacity not published.
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
APPENDIX C: PLANNING & BUILDING COST VS REVENUE ANALYSIS
USER FEE COSTS
USER FEE REVENUES
Town of Fairfax | User Fee Study Report
FEE ADJUSTMENT TO ACHIEVE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY