City of
Manhattan Beach
User Fee Study
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 Manhattan Beach User Fees .................................................................................... 10 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................. 10 Subsidization .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 11 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Finance ................................................................................................................ 12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Parks and Recreation Fees (Non-program / Activity Related) ...................................... 13 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Management Services - City Clerk’s Office ................................................................ 14 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Citywide Fees ........................................................................................................ 15
ii Comprehensive User Fee Study
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Police ................................................................................................................... 16 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Fire ...................................................................................................................... 17 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Public Works ......................................................................................................... 18 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Community Development – Traffic Engineering ......................................................... 19 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Community Development - Planning ........................................................................ 20 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Building ................................................................................................................ 21 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered .................................................. 22 Appendix B –Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ................................................................ 24 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis ....................................................................... 29
1 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of Manhattan Beach 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.
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”) take- away 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.
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, Information Technology, Human Resources, and others 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 exceed 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.
4 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of Manhattan Beach 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
Comprehensive list of fees that can be updated in the future to reflect any MOU adjustments 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 Manhattan Beach departments and fee groups:
Finance
Parks and Recreation Fees (Non-program / Activity Related) Management Services – City Clerk’s Office
Citywide Fees
Police
Fire
Public Works
Community Development – Traffic Engineering
Community Development - Planning
Community Development - Building
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.
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 non- billable 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.
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
8 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Methodology
The two 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. Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit a program’s cost 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.
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
Reasonable 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:
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
9 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Changes in the demand for services in a City may have also changed the staffing or cost structure of departments over time
Service enhancements and/or efficiencies realized through technological advancements through the City's Energov permitting system
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.
10 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Manhattan Beach 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 time study analysis conducted by 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 Manhattan Beach, 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.
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 have 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 are 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 have 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.
12 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Finance
The Finance Department’s responsibilities include accounting, budgeting, payroll, investments, and procurement, as well as business licensing, accounts receivable, cashiering and utility billing. These services are provided through the following department functions: Administration and Budget, Accounting, Purchasing, Revenue Services, Business Licensing, Water, and Sewer Billing.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Finance Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
Many of the fees and services listed under Finance Fees are return check fees, business, custom, and dog license fees. For the user fees evaluated as part of this study the analysis we 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 one of the fees’ full costs have decreased, and one fee is currently charged below full cost. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C to achieve full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 5 fees;
1 fee would decrease, and;
11 fees would remain as currently set.
13 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Parks and Recreation Fees (Non-program / Activity
Related)
The Parks and Recreation Department, consisting of 21 full-time and over 150 seasonal and part-time staff, provides a wide variety of innovative, collaborative, and impactful recreational, cultural, and educational programs and services for all ages. Department divisions include Administration, Recreation Services, Cultural Arts, Sports and Aquatics, Volunteers, Older Adults, and Transportation.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Parks and Recreation Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The services included in the analysis of Parks and Recreation are banner installation, special events, and film permits. The analysis 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 all of the fees are currently set below the full cost of providing service. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C to achieve full cost recovery. As a result, most fees would retain some level of subsidy and there would be:
An increase to 6 fees, and;
5 fees would remain as currently set.
14 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Management Services - City Clerk’s Office
The City Clerk's Office is dedicated to collaborating with City officials and the public to ensure that open and effective government standards are in place to secure the public trust, and provide a system of transparency, public participation and accountability. The City Clerk serves as the greatest resource of information for the public, City Council, City staff and other governmental agencies; manages legal requirements for public notices and the filing of referendums and initiatives; and keeps complete and accurate records of City Council proceedings.
The City Clerk's Office works diligently with the City's Information Technology Department to provide broadcasting of City Council and Planning Commission meetings on Manhattan Beach Local Community Cable, Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Communications Channel 35, and the City Website Live Streaming Video, and YouTube to ensure access to public information and the local government process. As the custodian of the City's official records, the office maintains all official City archives and legislative history, and ensures the preservation, protection and integrity of the public records.
The City Clerk is also the City's Election Officer, and as such, conducts and certifies the City's municipal elections for six elected offices (5 City Council and 1 City Treasurer).
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the City Clerk’s Office. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
Many of the fees and services listed under City Clerk fees are reproduction services, regulated fees, or fees not otherwise recommended to be changed.
15 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Citywide Fees
The Citywide fee table includes the Finance penalty, Administrative Citation Appeal, and Technology Fee.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Citywide fees. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
Staff are recommending adding a new fee, Administrative Citation Appeal Fee, which would be set as a $500 deposit fee. The Finance late penalty fee will remain at 5%. Based on the technology costs utilized in providing Planning and Building services, the technology fee will increase from 3% to 13%. 16 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Police
The Manhattan Beach Police Department is a premier, full-service law enforcement organization. The dedicated men and women of this Police Department are an integral part of this community, and the community is an integral part of the Police Department. We count on each other to keep this community safe and to work on quality-of-life issues so that residents love living here, businesses thrive, and visitors enjoy their stay. The Police Department operates under two Bureaus - Administration/Investigations and Field Operations
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Police 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 to achieve full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 18 fees;
1 fee would decrease; and
5 fees would remain as currently set.
17 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Fire
The Fire Department’s area of responsibilities include fire suppression, emergency medical services, fire prevention, plan checks, permits and code enforcement, fire investigation, emergency preparedness, and public education. These services are provided through the following department divisions: Administration, Fire Operations, Community Risk Reduction, Emergency Medical Services, and Support Services The Fire Department provides local, regional, and state-level leadership through participation in various organizations and committees. This includes participation in the California Fire Chiefs Association, Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs, South Bay Area Fire Chiefs, League of California Cities, Los Angeles Area Fire Marshals, Southern Division of the Fire Prevention Officers, Los Angeles Area G Operations and Training Committees, Area G and Los Angeles County Emergency Managers group, and many more.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Fire Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Fire 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 currently not in line with the cost of providing service.
Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C to achieve full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 5 fees;
29 fees would decrease;
14 new fees would be added; and
7 fees would remain as currently set.
18 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Public Works
Public Works is one of the City's largest departments, responsible for the operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure located in the public right-of-way and City properties. Public Works is composed of four divisions: Administration, Engineering, Utilities, and Field Operations. In general, Administration manages the day-to-day departmental operations such as payroll, tracking of service requests, clerical, overall customer service, and the City's refuse hauling contract, including waste hauling and recycling programs in conformance with State laws. Engineering develops and manages the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The Utilities Division operates and maintains the City's sewer, storm drain, and water systems. Field Operations oversees the upkeep of City streets, parks, facilities, fleet, and street sweeping.
The Public Works Department is essential to the quality of life experienced by the Manhattan Beach community. Standard elements of urban living such as access to high-quality running water, a reliable sewer system, well-maintained roads and cleanliness through convenient refuse and street sweeping programs are crucial. A superior level of service is provided by the Public Works Department and its contractors, which sets Manhattan Beach apart from other communities.
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 the current fees are currently not in line with the cost of providing service.
Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C to achieve full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 13 fees;
4 fees would decrease;
2 new fees;
1 fee would change from an actual cost fee to a flat amount;and 5 fees would remain as currently set.
19 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Community Development – Traffic Engineering
The Traffic Engineering Division is responsible for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on the City's transportation system. It is the Division's objective to provide a balanced and accessible multi- modal network that serves all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders. The Division oversees the proper application of traffic control devices, including traffic signals, stop signs, striping and markings, as well as determines proper road geometry, speed limits and pedestrian infrastructure. The Division conducts neighborhood traffic-calming studies, crosswalk studies, collision studies, parking studies and prepares and reviews traffic control plans. Some of the traffic related programs supported by the Division include School Area Safety Studies, crosswalk flashing beacons and signs, bike safety plans, special event plans, and the Electric Vehicle (EV) charging network. The Division is responsible for most parking related regulations in the City, including parking meter zones, loading zones, parking permits, overnight parking permits, moving van permits and no parking zones. Traffic Engineering works cooperatively with the Police Department to enforce traffic laws by conducting traffic safety studies and speed limit surveys as well as collecting traffic volume data.
The Traffic Engineering Division implements the policies and objectives of the City's General Plan Mobility Plan, Bike Master Plan and Living Streets Manual. The Division is working in collaboration with other departments to expand the bikeway network, add bike racks and bike corrals, install EV charging stations, install accessible public amenities, and construct new sidewalk segments to enhance mobility and equity for all users.
The Traffic Engineering Division is also responsible for the City's traffic signal maintenance and is the liaison for the Parking and Public Improvements Commission (PPIC). The Division reviews and issues over 1,100 right-of-way permits, traffic control plans, POD permits, temporary loading zones, moving van and oversize vehicle permits each year.
Analysis
The analysis of Traffic Engineering 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 with most services going to full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 4 fees;
2 fees would decrease;
1 new fee would be added; and
4 fees would remain as currently set.
20 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Community Development - Planning
The Planning Division is responsible for reviewing all discretionary land use applications, including coastal permits, as well as developing policy and updating City documents such as the General Plan, Zoning Code and Map, Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Planning staff review plan checks, entitlement applications, and permits to ensure conformance with local zoning and State and Federal regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Planning prides itself on quality customer service, working on balanced, creative solutions to help homeowners, business owners, neighbors, architects, and contractors achieve their goals while complying with the City's regulations.
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 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 with most services going to full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 63 fees;
23 fees would decrease;
33 new fees would be added; and
9 fees would remain as currently set.
21 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Building
The Building and Safety Division regulates building construction activity through plan review, permit processing, inspection and education to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Building Division staff review plans for compliance with all applicable local and state codes. Building Inspectors perform daily inspections throughout the construction life-cycle to ensure conformity with approved plans, codes, and regulations.
The Citizen Self Service (CSS) website serves as a single location for permit issuance for all construction activity throughout the City, as well as permits, fees, and applications used by Public Works, Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation and Finance Departments. The CSS website services include intake and plan review, building and planning permit issuance, scheduling and documentation of inspections, and all other matters related to construction activity.
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 currently set below the updated cost of service. Staff is recommending the fees be adjusted as detailed in Appendix C with most services going to full cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
An increase to 90 fees;
27 fees would decrease;
28 new fees would be added;
10 fees would remain as currently set; and
The Combination Permit fees would be set at full cost recovery. 22 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. 23 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Manhattan Beach - User Fee
Overhead Rate Calculations
Department
Total
Personnel
Services
Department
Operations &
Administration
Department
Overhead %
Indirect
Allocation
%
100: Accounting 818,837 167,219 20% 0%
100: Business Licensing 93,596 43,100 46% 17%
100: City Clerk 606,230 216,115 36% 0%
100: City Manager 789,132 244,334 31% 0%
100: Civic Engagement 435,641 188,050 43% 0%
100: Community Development 4,397,873 1,297,476 30% 34% 100: Community Development Admin 751,178 80,222 11% 0% 100: Finance Admin 739,799 458,473 62% 0%
100: Fire 9,698,160 2,377,506 25% 58%
100: Fire Admin 2,979,239 1,351,961 45% 0%
100: Human Resources 1,027,782 467,006 45% 0%
100: Parking Citations 75,556 41,301 55% 0%
100: Parks and Rec Admin 807,457 262,420 32% 0%
100: Parks and Recreation 4,023,637 2,133,616 53% 53% 100: Police 19,959,793 6,603,470 33% 60%
100: Police Admin 4,517,151 209,294 5% 0%
100: Public Works 4,231,551 3,163,308 75% 26%
100: Public Works Admin 1,584,287 119,914 8% 0%
100: Purchasing 391,279 102,144 26% 0%
100: Revenue Services 478,146 113,896 24% 0%
100: Utility Billing 100,610 81,064 81% 0%
230: Prop. A Fund 498,104 180,305 36% 12%
501: Water Fund 2,099,506 826,483 39% 17%
502: Stormwater Fund 253,808 193,785 76% 19%
503: Sewer Fund 791,464 536,626 68% 38%
520: Parking Fund 283,117 267,713 95% 34%
521: County Parking Lots Fund 86,612 36,127 42% 33% 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun 69,484 21,661 31% 25% 601: Insurance Reserve Fund 533,053 121,182 23% 0%
605: Information Technology Fund 1,737,465 691,682 40% 0% 610: Fleet Management Fund 390,259 181,165 46% 0%
615: Building Maintenance & Operati 626,586 404,040 64% 0% 24 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix B –Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Below are fully burdened hourly rates (FBHR) of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in Appendix C. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position. 25 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Manhattan Beach - User Fee A B C Ax(1 +B)x(1 +C) Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department/Fund Title
S&B
Hourly
Rate
Department
OH %
Indirect
OH %
Fully
Burdened
Hourly Rate
Blended Rates
Permit Tech / Sr. Permit Tech $128.18
Sr. / Bldg Inspector $160.95
Assistant / Assoc. Planner $164.76
Planning Technician/Assistant Planner $144.71
Plan Check Eng / Sr Plan Check Eng $203.85
Position Rates
100: Accounting Accounting: Accountant $94.37 20% 0% $113.65 100: Accounting Accounting: Accounting Supervisor $111.23 20% 0% $133.95 100: Accounting Accounting: Accounting Technician $71.26 20% 0% $85.81 100: Accounting Accounting: Financial Controller $154.31 20% 0% $185.82 100: Accounting Accounting: Grants & Financial Analyst $103.28 20% 0% $124.37 615: Building Maintenance & Operati Bldg Maint Fund: Building Maintenance Technician $73.05 64% 0% $120.15 615: Building Maintenance & Operati Bldg Maint Fund: Electrician $79.49 64% 0% $130.75 615: Building Maintenance & Operati Bldg Maint Fund: Facilities Supervisor $105.85 64% 0% $174.10 615: Building Maintenance & Operati Bldg Maint Fund: Maintenance Assistant $47.25 64% 0% $77.71 615: Building Maintenance & Operati Bldg Maint Fund: Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 64% 0% $174.10 615: Building Maintenance & Operati Bldg Maint Fund: Maintenance Worker II $64.70 64% 0% $106.41 100: Business Licensing Business License: Account Specialist II $67.53 46% 17% $115.02 100: Community Development Admin CD Admin: Administrative Analyst $79.06 11% 0% $87.51 100: Community Development Admin CD Admin: Administrative Assistant $65.50 11% 0% $72.49 100: Community Development Admin CD Admin: Community Development Director $198.78 11% 0% $220.01 100: Community Development Admin CD Admin: Executive Assistant $74.05 11% 0% $81.96 100: Community Development Admin CD Admin: Senior Busines Services Analyst $111.23 11% 0% $123.11 100: Community Development Admin CD Admin: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 11% 0% $117.15 100: Community Development CD: Administrative Analyst $79.06 30% 34% $137.51 100: Community Development CD: Administrative Assistant $65.50 30% 34% $113.91 100: Community Development CD: Assistant Planner $87.80 30% 34% $152.71 100: Community Development CD: Associate Planner $101.67 30% 34% $176.82 100: Community Development CD: Building Inspector $85.08 30% 34% $147.97 100: Community Development CD: Building Official $162.02 30% 34% $281.78 100: Community Development CD: Code Enforcement Officer II $84.58 30% 34% $147.11 100: Community Development CD: Code Enforcement Supervisor $105.85 30% 34% $184.09 100: Community Development CD: Environmental Programs Administrator $126.24 30% 34% $219.56 100: Community Development CD: Office Assistant $53.40 30% 34% $92.88 100: Community Development CD: Permits Technician $71.93 30% 34% $125.09 100: Community Development CD: Plan Check Engineer $108.18 30% 34% $188.14 100: Community Development CD: Planning Manager $154.30 30% 34% $268.36 100: Community Development CD: Planning Technician $78.61 30% 34% $136.72 100: Community Development CD: Plans Examiner $97.36 30% 34% $169.33 100: Community Development CD: Senior Building Inspector $100.00 30% 34% $173.93 100: Community Development CD: Senior Busines Services Analyst $111.23 30% 34% $193.46 100: Community Development CD: Senior Permits Technician $75.48 30% 34% $131.27 100: Community Development CD: Senior Plan Check Engineer $126.24 30% 34% $219.56 100: Community Development CD: Senior Planner $126.24 30% 34% $219.56 100: Community Development CD: Traffic Engineer $132.55 30% 34% $230.53 100: City Manager City Manager: Assistant To The City Manager $126.24 31% 0% $165.33 100: City Manager City Manager: City Manager $260.04 31% 0% $340.56 100: City Manager City Manager: Executive Assistant To The City Manager/City Council $86.96 31% 0% $113.89 100: City Manager City Manager: Management Analyst $94.37 31% 0% $123.60 100: Civic Engagement Civic Engagement: Communications & Civic Engagement Manager $154.31 43% 0% $220.92 100: Civic Engagement Civic Engagement: Digital Communications & Graphics Coordinator $94.37 43% 0% $135.11 100: Civic Engagement Civic Engagement: Marketing & Communications Coordinator $94.37 43% 0% $135.11 26 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Manhattan Beach - User Fee A B C Ax(1 +B)x(1 +C) Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department/Fund Title
S&B
Hourly
Rate
Department
OH %
Indirect
OH %
Fully
Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
100: City Clerk Clerk: Assistant City Clerk $126.24 36% 0% $171.24 100: City Clerk Clerk: City Clerk $198.78 36% 0% $269.65 100: City Clerk Clerk: Deputy City Clerk $79.06 36% 0% $107.25 521: County Parking Lots Fund County Parking Fund: Maintenance Assistant $47.25 42% 33% $89.26 521: County Parking Lots Fund County Parking Fund: Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 42% 33% $199.97 521: County Parking Lots Fund County Parking Fund: Maintenance Worker II $64.70 42% 33% $122.22 521: County Parking Lots Fund County Parking Fund: Meter Repair Worker $66.27 42% 33% $125.21 100: Finance Admin Finance: Budget And Financial Analyst $105.85 62% 0% $171.44 100: Finance Admin Finance: Executive Assistant $74.05 62% 0% $119.94 100: Finance Admin Finance: Finance Director $198.78 62% 0% $321.98 100: Finance Admin Finance: Financial Services Manager $138.88 62% 0% $224.94 100: Fire Admin Fire Admin: Administrative Assistant $65.50 45% 0% $95.22 100: Fire Admin Fire Admin: Deputy Chief (Fire) $231.10 45% 0% $335.97 100: Fire Admin Fire Admin: Fire Chief $270.87 45% 0% $393.79 100: Fire Admin Fire Admin: Management Analyst $94.37 45% 0% $137.20 100: Fire Fire: Division Chief (Fire) $213.03 25% 58% $418.23 100: Fire Fire: Emergency Preparedness Administrator $126.24 25% 58% $247.84 100: Fire Fire: Fire Captain/Paramedic $152.71 25% 58% $299.80 100: Fire Fire: Fire Engineer/Paramedic $131.19 25% 58% $257.56 100: Fire Fire: Fire Inspector $85.15 25% 58% $167.17
100: Fire Fire: Fire Marshal $154.30 25% 58% $302.92
100: Fire Fire: Firefighter $94.58 25% 58% $185.67
100: Fire Fire: Firefighter/Paramedic $111.69 25% 58% $219.27 100: Fire Fire: Senior Fire Inspector $100.00 25% 58% $196.33 610: Fleet Management Fund Fleet Fund: Equipment Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 46% 0% $154.98 610: Fleet Management Fund Fleet Fund: Equipment Mechanic Ii $78.59 46% 0% $115.07 100: Human Resources HR: Executive Assistant $74.05 45% 0% $107.70 100: Human Resources HR: Human Resources Analyst $102.87 45% 0% $149.61 100: Human Resources HR: Human Resources Director $198.78 45% 0% $289.11 100: Human Resources HR: Human Resources Manager $154.31 45% 0% $224.43 100: Human Resources HR: Human Resources Technician $82.23 45% 0% $119.60 100: Human Resources HR: Senior Human Resources Analyst $118.30 45% 0% $172.06 601: Insurance Reserve Fund Insurance Fund: Executive Assistant $74.05 23% 0% $90.89 601: Insurance Reserve Fund Insurance Fund: Human Resources Director $198.78 23% 0% $243.97 601: Insurance Reserve Fund Insurance Fund: Human Resources Technician $82.23 23% 0% $100.93 601: Insurance Reserve Fund Insurance Fund: Risk Manager $154.31 23% 0% $189.39 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Applications Analyst $105.85 40% 0% $147.98 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Geographic Information Systems Administrator $126.24 40% 0% $176.50 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Information Technology Director $198.78 40% 0% $277.92 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Office Assistant $53.40 40% 0% $74.66 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 40% 0% $147.98 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Technology Specialist $93.32 40% 0% $130.47 605: Information Technology Fund IT Fund: Technology Systems Engineer $126.24 40% 0% $176.50 100: Parks and Rec Admin P&R Admin: Administrative Analyst $79.06 32% 0% $104.76 100: Parks and Rec Admin P&R Admin: Administrative Assistant $65.50 32% 0% $86.78 100: Parks and Rec Admin P&R Admin: Marketing Specialist $64.55 32% 0% $85.53 100: Parks and Rec Admin P&R Admin: Parks And Recreation Director $198.78 32% 0% $263.39 100: Parks and Rec Admin P&R Admin: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 32% 0% $140.25 100: Parks and Recreation P&R: Administrative Assistant $65.50 53% 53% $153.31 100: Parks and Recreation P&R: Cultural Arts Manager $126.24 53% 53% $295.51 100: Parks and Recreation P&R: Recreation Coordinator $64.55 53% 53% $151.11 100: Parks and Recreation P&R: Recreation Supervisor $80.66 53% 53% $188.82 100: Parks and Recreation P&R: Senior Recreation Manager $154.30 53% 53% $361.20 100: Parks and Recreation P&R: Senior Recreation Supervisor $108.53 53% 53% $254.06 27 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Manhattan Beach - User Fee A B C Ax(1 +B)x(1 +C) Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department/Fund Title
S&B
Hourly
Rate
Department
OH %
Indirect
OH %
Fully
Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
520: Parking Fund Parking Fund: Electrician $79.49 95% 34% $207.36 520: Parking Fund Parking Fund: Maintenance Assistant $47.25 95% 34% $123.25 520: Parking Fund Parking Fund: Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 95% 34% $276.12 520: Parking Fund Parking Fund: Maintenance Worker II $64.70 95% 34% $168.77 520: Parking Fund Parking Fund: Meter Repair Worker $66.27 95% 34% $172.89 100: Parking Citations Parking: Account Specialist II $67.53 55% 0% $104.44 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun Pier Parking Fund: Maintenance Assistant $47.25 31% 25% $77.25 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun Pier Parking Fund: Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 31% 25% $173.05 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun Pier Parking Fund: Maintenance Worker II $64.70 31% 25% $105.77 522: State Pier and Parking Lot Fun Pier Parking Fund: Meter Repair Worker $66.27 31% 25% $108.36 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Administrative Assistant $65.50 5% 0% $68.53 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Background Investigator $85.05 5% 0% $88.99 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Executive Assistant $74.05 5% 0% $77.48 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Police Captain $182.39 5% 0% $190.84 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Police Chief $270.87 5% 0% $283.42 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Police Lieutenant $166.18 5% 0% $173.88 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Police Sergeant $137.24 5% 0% $143.60 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Public Safety Systems Specialist $93.32 5% 0% $97.65 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 5% 0% $110.75 100: Police Admin Police Admin: Technology Specialist $93.32 5% 0% $97.65 100: Police Police: Administrative Assistant $65.50 33% 60% $139.04 100: Police Police: Community Services Officer $65.29 33% 60% $138.61 100: Police Police: Crime Analyst $94.37 33% 60% $200.34 100: Police Police: Lead Community Services Officer $71.82 33% 60% $152.47 100: Police Police: Lead Police Records Technician $68.73 33% 60% $145.89 100: Police Police: Office Assistant $53.40 33% 60% $113.37 100: Police Police: Park Services Enforcement Officer $84.58 33% 60% $179.56 100: Police Police: Police Captain $182.39 33% 60% $387.18 100: Police Police: Police Lieutenant $166.18 33% 60% $352.77 100: Police Police: Police Officer $103.95 33% 60% $220.68 100: Police Police: Police Records Manager $126.24 33% 60% $267.99 100: Police Police: Police Records Specialist $65.45 33% 60% $138.95 100: Police Police: Police Records Technician $65.45 33% 60% $138.95 100: Police Police: Police Sergeant $137.24 33% 60% $291.33 100: Police Police: Police Services Officer $71.20 33% 60% $151.14 100: Police Police: Police Support Supervisor $99.10 33% 60% $210.38 100: Police Police: Property & Evidence Officer $74.75 33% 60% $158.68 230: Prop. A Fund Prop A Fund: Recreation Supervisor $80.66 36% 12% $122.55 230: Prop. A Fund Prop A Fund: Transportation Services Operator $61.86 36% 12% $93.98 100: Purchasing Purchasing: Purchasing Analyst $94.37 26% 0% $119.01 100: Purchasing Purchasing: Purchasing Assistant $65.50 26% 0% $82.59 100: Purchasing Purchasing: Purchasing Supervisor $108.53 26% 0% $136.86 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Administrative Assistant $65.50 8% 0% $70.45 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Executive Assistant $74.05 8% 0% $79.66 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Field Operations Manager $154.30 8% 0% $165.98 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Maintenance Inspector $82.67 8% 0% $88.93 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Public Works Director $198.78 8% 0% $213.83 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Solid Waste Administrator $126.24 8% 0% $135.80 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Utilities Manager $154.30 8% 0% $165.98 100: Public Works Admin PW Admin: Wastewater Supervisor $105.85 8% 0% $113.86 100: Public Works PW: Administrative Analyst $79.06 75% 26% $173.49 100: Public Works PW: Associate Engineer $113.47 75% 26% $248.99 100: Public Works PW: City Engineer $187.98 75% 26% $412.48 100: Public Works PW: Engineering Technician II $82.52 75% 26% $181.07 28 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Manhattan Beach - User Fee A B C Ax(1 +B)x(1 +C) Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department/Fund Title
S&B
Hourly
Rate
Department
OH %
Indirect
OH %
Fully
Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates
100: Public Works PW: Field Operations Supervisor $116.44 75% 26% $255.50 100: Public Works PW: Lead Maintenance Worker $73.02 75% 26% $160.22 100: Public Works PW: Maintenance Assistant $47.25 75% 26% $103.68 100: Public Works PW: Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 75% 26% $232.26 100: Public Works PW: Maintenance Worker II $64.70 75% 26% $141.96 100: Public Works PW: Management Analyst $94.37 75% 26% $207.08 100: Public Works PW: Principal Civil Engineer $154.30 75% 26% $338.58 100: Public Works PW: Public Works Inspector $82.67 75% 26% $181.40 100: Public Works PW: Senior Civil Engineer $126.24 75% 26% $277.01 100: Public Works PW: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 75% 26% $232.26 100: Public Works PW: Urban Forester $105.85 75% 26% $232.26 100: Revenue Services Revenue: Account Specialist II $67.53 24% 0% $83.62 100: Revenue Services Revenue: Lead Account Specialist $75.00 24% 0% $92.87 100: Revenue Services Revenue: Revenue Services Supervisor $108.53 24% 0% $134.38 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Administrative Assistant $65.50 68% 38% $151.47 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Electrician $79.49 68% 38% $183.83 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Lead Maintenance Worker $73.02 68% 38% $168.87 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Lead Sewer Maintenance Worker $74.72 68% 38% $172.80 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 68% 38% $244.79 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Sewer Maintenance Worker $67.92 68% 38% $157.06 503: Sewer Fund Sewer Fund: Water Compliance Supervisor $108.53 68% 38% $250.99 502: Stormwater Fund Storm Fund: Administrative Assistant $65.50 76% 19% $137.11 502: Stormwater Fund Storm Fund: Maintenance Assistant $47.25 76% 19% $98.91 502: Stormwater Fund Storm Fund: Maintenance Supervisor $105.85 76% 19% $221.59 502: Stormwater Fund Storm Fund: Maintenance Worker II $64.70 76% 19% $135.44 502: Stormwater Fund Storm Fund: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 76% 19% $221.59 502: Stormwater Fund Storm Fund: Sewer Maintenance Worker $67.92 76% 19% $142.18 100: Utility Billing Utility Billing: Account Specialist II $67.53 81% 0% $121.94 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Administrative Assistant $65.50 39% 17% $107.18 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Electrician $79.49 39% 17% $130.08 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Lead Water System Operator $84.20 39% 17% $137.78 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Lead Water Treatment Operator $80.86 39% 17% $132.31 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Senior Management Analyst $105.85 39% 17% $173.21 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Utilities Technician $82.52 39% 17% $135.03 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Water Compliance Supervisor $108.53 39% 17% $177.60 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Water Meter Technician $60.22 39% 17% $98.54 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Water Supervisor $105.85 39% 17% $173.21 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Water System Operator II $71.20 39% 17% $116.51 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Water System Operator III $76.54 39% 17% $125.26 501: Water Fund Water Fund: Water Treatment Operator $74.70 39% 17% $122.24 29 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.
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