Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 9, 2025

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: J Van Cott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Darrick Jacob Cc: Police; Community Affairs; Transportation Planning; Traffic Engineering Subject: Is it time for the Federal Government to be called for assistance in running the City of Santa Monica ???
Attachments: 2025-09-04 09-21.pdf

EXTERNAL
Subject: Urgent Safety Demands from North Santa Monica Residents Regarding FY 24-25 Road Construction and Neighborhood Safety Failures
Santa Monica City Council and Government Officials,
We, the tax-paying and voting citizens of North Santa Monica, are writing to express grave concern over the City’s continued inability to safeguard its residents — especially in the neighborhood north of Wilshire — as underscored by the upcoming road construction project outlined in Notice FY 24-25.

It is increasingly clear that the current leadership is failing to meet even the most basic standards of public safety and infrastructure maintenance. Key issues include:
 Untrimmed trees are dangerously encroaching on power lines and buildings — branches have fallen on cars and threaten pedestrians. With fire season approaching, this is an urgent issue.

Multiple reports to 311 have been ignored.
 A deep pothole next to the telephone pole at the southwest corner of 9th and Washington has been left unrepaired for over a year, despite repeated citizen complaints.  Lack of traffic enforcement, with rampant, unchecked speeding and illegal parking in red zones — violations that not only endanger lives but also result in lost City revenue that could help fund proper enforcement.

Before Any Roadwork Begins on California Avenue:

We demand a demonstration of real, active traffic control in the surrounding streets. This neighborhood is a walking community, with four schools and hundreds of children and families commuting on foot each day. The temporary closure of California Avenue will divert significant traffic onto Washington, Idaho, and Montana Avenues — streets already experiencing dangerous unchecked driving behavior.

Everybody speeds daily from east on Washington Ave from Ocean Ave to 26th Street as a route to gain freeway access. WHY DO THEY SPEED? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN GO UNCHECK BY SANTA MONICA POLICE>
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 Let us be clear: no roadwork is worth risking the life of a child — or any resident, is it? This neighborhood fought for years to get stop signs installed. While a few have been added, they are routinely ignored — often by City vehicles and employees rushing to and from work. We’ve even tracked patterns of violations that align with shift changes within the City worker shifts. There is a total lack of enforcement. Police drive through, witness violations, and continue on without intervening. This is unacceptable.

We do not need more drive-through patrols. We need on-foot officers making real traffic stops that save lives.

Washington Avenue Has Become a Raceway:
 Trucks servicing Pavilions on Montana routinely violate commercial traffic restrictions by using 7th and 9th Street, endangering residents and children. These violations happen daily, without any enforcement or consequence, and everyone knows the police DO NOTHING! They are abscent!
We are documenting these infractions daily with iPhones and are prepared to provide photo and video evidence — both to the City and, if needed, to Federal authorities.

Failed Urban Planning and Public Endangerment:

This crisis is exacerbated by unchecked development along Lincoln Boulevard, pushing overflow traffic into residential zones as drivers seek freeway access. This shows poor planning and a troubling disregard for citizen safety.

We believe all City development projects and non-essential programs should be suspended until public safety — especially traffic enforcement — is demonstrably under control. We are paying high taxes to live in a city that has become dangerously mismanaged.

If no meaningful corrective action is taken immediately, we will escalate these issues to Federal agencies, just as has occurred in Washington D.C., Chicago, and even here in Los Angeles. Federal intervention does not require local or state approval when public safety is at risk.

We Demand:
 A detailed traffic enforcement and safety plan before any construction begins on California Avenue
 Police presence, and ACTION, not passive drive-through patrols. They need to get out of their cars, enforce the laws, and engage with the community, or let us bring in federal assistance who can.
 A temporary suspension of autonomous vehicles in the area during construction This is not a matter of inconvenience — it is a matter of life and death. We expect a prompt and public response.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
From: Kim Koury
To: councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager"s Office; Lana Negrete Cc: Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: Re: Please consider OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival for an Item 16 Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:41:47 AM
Attachments: de1c3c64-156d-454e-9e50-3ed873045f05.png

EXTERNAL
Hi Mayor Negrete and City Council,
Please see below for our press release with more information about this year’s OFF THE HOOK SANTA MONICA SEAFOOD FESTIVAL on Sun. Oct. 19th. Thank you again for your consideration to add to Item 16.

Best, KIM KOURY
*** MEDIA ALERT ***

OFF THE HOOK SEAFOOD FESTIVAL RETURNS TO THE

ICONIC SANTA MONICA PIER TO CELEBRATE THE SEA AND
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA's 150TH ANNIVERSARY
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
WHO: OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival, City of Santa Monica, Heal the Bay, and Spin PR Group
EVENT DATE: Sunday, October 19, 2025
EVENT TIME: 4pm – 7pm (VIP 3pm entry)
WHERE: Santa Monica Pier Parking Deck
WHAT: OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival is returning to the iconic Santa Monica Pier on Sunday, October 19th to celebrate the sea AND the City's 150th Anniversary! Santa Monica's premier food festival brings together the city's top chefs and restaurants to showcase their favorite underwater ingredients. Attendees will enjoy all-youcan-eat seafood tastings, beer gardens, wine tastings, live music, oyster shucking and eating competitions, games, and more fun in the sun with the Pacific Ocean as the backdrop.

This year, OFF THE HOOK will also be the official closing event for LA Tech Week.

OFF THE HOOK is 100% free of single-use plastics and raises funds for Heal the Bay, supporting their efforts to help preserve our local ocean and beaches for future generations.

Heal the Bay remains committed to helping the people, ecosystems, and coastal waters impacted by the fires, ensuring we build L.A. back stronger and more resilient.

Guests will enjoy tastings from Westside favorites such as Santa Monica Seafood, Fitoor Santa Monica, Blue Plate Oysterette, Michael's Santa Monica, Mastro's, BOA, SOKO Sushi, Fogo de Chao, Sushi Roku, The Lobster, The Albright, Santa Monica Whaler, Al Dente Pasta Shop, The Surfing Fox, Cityclub LA, Emporium Thai, Sweetfin Poké, Feisty Fish Poke, The Butter End, and more!
OFF THE HOOK will also feature a Yacht Rock Party with live entertainment from cover band The Windbreakers, bringing the smooth rock sounds of the '70s and '80s to the Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Santa Monica Pier with quintessential yacht rock hits!
Tickets are all-inclusive and start at $80 for GA and $150 for the Sustainable VIP Lounge sponsored by Santa Monica Seafood, which includes 1-hour early entry (3pm), sustainable seafood tastings from additional top chefs and restaurants, curated cocktails, premier seating, swag from partners, and a free amusement park ride voucher to Pacific Park valid through the end of the year ($40 value).

TICKETS:

Little Fish (GA) tickets start at $80 and include seafood tastings, beverage tastings (liquor, beer & wine, non-alcoholic drinks), games, music & more. Cash bar and non-alcoholic options also available. 4pm entry.

Big Fish (VIP) tickets start at $150 and in addition to the GA offerings, VIP ticket holders will have access to the Sustainable VIP Lounge sponsored by Santa Monica Seafoodwith one-hour early entry (3pm), curated cocktails, full drinks from our beer & wine partners, exclusive seafood tastings from additional top chefs and restaurants, swag from partners, and a free amusement park ride voucher to Pacific Park valid through the end of the year ($40 value). Tickets are all-inclusive.

SPONSORS/PARTNERS: Santa Monica Seafood, City of Santa Monica, LA Magazine,KTLA, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Pacific Park, Buy Local Santa Monica, Office of Sustainability & Environment, Venice Paparazzi,Duvel, Subaru Santa Monica, Kaleo Marketing, Yelp, SMDP, Syndicate and Spin PR Group
WEBSITE: For more info, visit www.offthehookseafoodfest.com or @OTHseafoodfest on Instagram.

ABOUT HEAL THE BAY:

Heal the Bay is the leading ocean protection group in greater Los Angeles. The grassroots nonprofit uses science, advocacy, and community action to keep Santa Monica Bay and the surrounding watershed healthy, safe, and clean. In 2011 it helped establish several Marine Protected Areas off the Southern California coast – no-extraction zones that allow threatened fish species and marine mammal populations to recover and thrive. To learn more about its monthly beach cleanups and other volunteer opportunities, please visit https://healthebay.org/.

Interested in getting involved? Contact [email protected].

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Kim Koury / [email protected] / 310-497-6324
Carl Larsen / [email protected] / 310-210-7018
###
Social Links
Instagram - @othseafoodfest
Facebook - @offthehookfest
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025

KIM KOURY
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
President
s p i n
public relations | marketing | social media | promotions | events [email protected]
www.spinPRgroup.com
P: 323-330-9559 C: 310-497-6324
FACEBOOK | INSTAGRAM | LINKEDIN
Click Here to Join our VIP List
On Aug 28, 2025, at 12:57 PM, Kim Koury <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Manager, Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torsos, and City Council; I am reaching out to regarding the OFF THE HOOK Santa Monica Seafood Festival set for Sunday, October. 19th on the Santa Monica Pier, to ask city council to kindly add it an Item 16 on the next agenda. My hope is that the City will consider waiving it’s portion of the Santa Monica Pier rental fee ($5,940) in order to help with the increased production costs and to continue to have this hyper-local community event on our Pier. OFF THE HOOK is Santa Monica’s premiere food festival and only event that showcases Santa Monica's beloved chefs and restaurants.

This year’s event will be in partnership with the City of Santa Monica and an official 150th Anniversary event. It is also set to be the official closing event for LA Tech Week. If we don’t get the fees waived, we will not be able to move forward with having the event this year sadly. As you know, the Pier’s rental fee is $16,000 (plus $300 for the staff supervisor for the day, plus $400 for hookup/access to City electricity). Other hard Pier costs include an additional $5-$8,000 for harbor patrol, police, fire, coast guard, recycling, security, and neighborhood notification fees. Of those fees, the City collects $5,940 for the buyout of the parking spaces.

With this said, I would like you to kindly consider waiving your portion of the rental fee for the following reasons:

Off the Hook brings revenue to the city (parking, hotels, etc) and attracts nearly 1000 locals and tourists alike
The event garners over 90 Million media impressions from our PR outreach to over 400 print, online and broadcast media
It is a zero-waste event and 100% free of single-use plastics! It is Santa Monica’s only food festival and celebrates local chefs and restaurants Off the Hook raises money and awareness for Heal the Bay in their efforts to keep our beautiful Santa Monica ocean clean
It is a great way to cross-promote Locals Night on the Pier to the target demo It will allow us to keep a low ticket price to keep it accessible for everyone It will enable us to make a larger donation to Heal the Bay Finally, my company continues to bring events to the City and the Pier including the annual Day of the Dog Festival on Main Street (10,000 ppl) and most recently, we produced the IBFutureFest Insurance Conference on the Pier this past July with a 3- day, full deck buy-out bringing additional funds and tourists to the Pier. We plan to rent it again next year which will bring over $200,000 to the City and Pier Corp.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Here’s a link to the VIDEO from last year to give you a feel for the event.

For those of you who don’t know me, my company Spin PR Group is a Santa Monica-based PR, Marketing and Events agency for 18 years. I have been self-funding OFF THE HOOK and a number of community events and doing PR and marketing for local small businesses in Santa Monica for nearly two decades. All of our events have the same mission - To bring the community together, support local businesses, and give back to a noteworthy cause. I have also been a Santa Monica resident for 23 years and have serve/ed on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce, Chamber Foundation and am on the Route 66 Committee with Santa Monica Travel & Tourism. I have a deep love our city and passion for supporting local businesses.

In addition to managing the production of the event, my firm handles all of the PR, marketing, promotions and promotions. Last year, the event garnered an incredible amount of press for the city, receiving over 90M media impressions, and attracted nearly 1,000 locals and locals and tourists alike. Additionally, we are working to including restaurants from all 4 bids - Main, Montana, Pico, and DTSM and including all of restaurants on the Pier.

Other community events Spin has produced or supported in the past include the annual MAINopoly: Taste of Main Street (700 ppl), Day of the Dog Festival on Main Street (10,000 ppl), the 1st SANTA Monica Pride on the Promenade Festival (10,000), Buy Local Health & Fitness Expo, the City’s Endless Summer CA.M.P. at Tongva Park (500), and the annual SANTA Monica Pub Crawl (4,000 ppl) which has raised over $200,000 for the Westside Food Bank over the last 17 years and is consistently one of the bars busiest nights of the year.

Please see attached for more info on Spin Group along with past press coverage. For more information on OFF THE HOOK, please visit www.offthehookseafoodfest.com.

I greatly appreciate your consideration!
Thank you,

KIM KOURY
President
s p i n
public relations | marketing | social media | promotions | events [email protected]
www.spinPRgroup.com
P: 323-330-9559 C: 310-497-6324
FACEBOOK | INSTAGRAM | LINKEDIN
<2025 ABOUT US : CASE STUDIES.pdf>
<Off the Hook Press Clippings 2019 (1)-compressed.pdf>
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:41 PM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Santa Monica's Reed Park

EXTERNAL
Pt. 1 - Coach Anthony Jackson has been a long time proponent of values, youth and sports activities at Santa Monica's Reed Park. This, despite the attacks, threats and items tossed onto the basketball courts from transient addicts, just steps away on the grass.

Insta
Insta
Part 1 -
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOHI0PbAqV8/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Insta
Part 2 -
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOHQQVSAi1F/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFl ZA==
YouTube
Full
https://youtu.be/fdq1-hRZs6o
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:48 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: Wednesday, September 3, 2025

EXTERNAL
50 feet away from Moms and kids playing in Reed Park, transient addicts share lines of meth, hassle parents, throw objects at kids and after several hours venture into our neighborhoods. Residents walking to Mass across the street express fear; many have been attacked or had their cars damaged. Do Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, State Senator Ben Allen, Health Director Barbara Ferrer and SM's City Council care about our safety? They hide behind The Venice Family Clinic who makes millions handing out free meth pipes, foil and needles to transients armed with knives and machetes.

Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOJQFtsgqqA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/OgLq61r_c6g
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 11:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: GLENN FURUYA
Subject: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR 9-9-25 SMCC MTG, 8-23-25 SM Garden Excessive fees
Attachments: SM GARDEN FEE REVIEW 4-24-23 R19 15 SLIDES ORIGINAL FINAL SUMMARY #2 (1) (2) - Read-Only.pptx; SM CITY COUNCIL 3 PG PRESENTATION 6-13-23 #1.pptx; 2-28-23a Fee_Study R1 ATTACH B pg 57-115 pg 65 COSTS $100403 #3 (3) (4).pdf

EXTERNAL
To SMCC xx
(ref below 2-28-23a fee study R1 attach b pg 57/65)
I have been emailing the same below email to Oliver Chi, Lana Negrete, Caroline Torosis and SMCC members for over 3 years regarding the SMCC approving excessive SM Garden fees increases ranging from 50%-100% during the current 3-year period. I previously emailed Phil Brock and Kevin Mckeon and they both never responded to the below email.

I want to talk to the SMCC at upcoming 9-9-25 530p meeting regarding below email for SMCC approving the Excessive SM Garden fee increases summarized in my below email.

Glenn Furuya
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>
Cc: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 09:51:36 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: 8-23-25 SM Garden Excessive fees
To Oliver, Lana, Caroline
Do all of you do not understand my below question of your SMCC approving over 3 years ago the Excessive SM Garden fees ranging from 50% to 100%.

My SM Garden fees increased from $100 to $200 a year.

I have emailed the same below email to David White, Phil Brock and Kevin Mckeown. They all also did not respond to my below email.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
4 Do you normally approve within your SM Budget increases ranging from 50%-100% Glenn
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>
Cc: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 at 08:26:28 AM PDT
Subject: 8-23-25 SM Garden Excessive fees

TO OLIVER, LANA, CAROLINE
I'VE BEEN EMAILING OLIVER FOR OVER 1

MONTH AND LANA AND CAROLINE FOR
OVER 2 YEARS.

ALL OF YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED

TO ANY OF MY EMAILS REGARDING
APPROVING OVER 3 YEARS AGO
EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES.

HOW CAN YOU APPROVE EXCESSIVE SM
GARDEN FEES DURING A PREVIOUS 3 YEAR
PERIOD RANGING FROM 50%-100% DURING
A 3 YEAR PERIOD.

SHOW ME WHERE WITHIN THAT PREVIOUS

BUDGET YOU APPROVED OTHER BUDGETS
INCREASES BETWEEN 50%-100%?
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
5 I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU KEEP

IGNORING MY REQUESTS TO ADJUST THE
CURRENT SM GARDEN FEES.

I HAVE SUMMARIZED BELOW A TABLE

ADJUSTING THE CURRENT SM GARDEN
FEES IF 10% WAS APPLIED DURING THE
LAST 20 YEARS AND NOT APPLYING 50%-
100% INCREASES.

THE CURRENT FEES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED
TO $80 AND NOT $200 PER MY BELOW
SUMMARY WITH 10% INCREASES.

GLENN
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 at 07:45:43 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: 7-21-25 SM Garden Excessive fees
To Oliver
I have been emailing Lana and Caroline regarding approving Excessive SM Garden fee during a 3-year period of 50% to 100% for over 2 years..

I have repeatedly asked them to respond to my below email and they refuse to respond? Do they not understand my question regarding approving excessive SM garden fees which I have summarized below.

Our SM Garden fees went from $40 to $60 to $75 to $100 to $200 in less than a 10-year period.

I would appreciate your assistance in getting Lana and Caroline to respond to my below email for SM Garden Fee Summary.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
6 Thanks, Glenn Furuya
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 at 08:19:06 AM PDT
Subject: 7-21-25 SM Garden Excessive fees
To Lana, Caroline
For the past 1 1/2 years I've been emailing you and you refuse to respond to my below emails regarding approving over 3 years ago Excessing SM Garden fees which ranged from 50% to 100%.

Previously I emailed also over 2 years ago Phil Brock and Kevin McKeown and they also never responded to my below emails.

I have prepared below a brief Summary of the Excessive SM Garden fees and a proposal to adjust the current fees.

I would appreciate your response regarding how you can justify approving excessive SM Garden fee increases of 50%-100%.

My large garden fees increased from $100 to $200 during previous 3 year period.

Glenn Furuya

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]> Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 at 10:13:09 AM PDT
Subject: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To Lana, Caroline, SMCC members
I've been trying for over 2 years to get you to respond to my multiple emails for approving the Excessive SM Garden fees you and your committee approved 3 years ago. Why do you keep ignoring my emails? Show me in your previous SM Budget where you approved items that increased in price from 50%-100%? Does anyone review anything in your budget before you approve it.

At the bottom are 3 attachments that support what I am saying.

No one in your committee reviewed the previous 3 years SM garden fee increases of 50%-100% Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
7 I have summarized below what the fees should be at an increase of 10% per year.

If no one on your committee understands my simple summary to revise the fees at a rate of 10% per year, please contact me.

And now you don’t want to admit you approved Excessive SM Garden fees at the rate of 50%-100% for last 3 years?
I have well documented failure of you and the SMCC to respond to my multiple emails.

I have also summarized a proposed SM garden fees increases to adjust current fees if increased by 10%? I wonder how many more errors there are in the SM budget.

Glenn
forwarded Message -----jess
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]> Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>; Briana Evans <[email protected]>; Rosanna Paticchio 310 721 1160 <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 07:52:25 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To Lana and SMCC members
Why are you and the SMCC staff refusing to respond to my multiple emails regarding you approving Excessive SM Garden Fee increases for the past 3 years for 50%-100%? My SM Garden fees have more than doubled during the last 3 years. I was paying $100 and now it has increased to $200.

Show me where within the last SM Budget that you approved increases ranging from 50%-100% for other SM projects?
Why do you keep ignoring my requests for you and the SMCC members to correct the Excessive SM Garden fees increases of 50%-100% .

Do you not understand my below questions?
Glenn
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]> Cc: Ross Furukawa <[email protected]>; Briana Evans <[email protected]>; Rosanna Paticchio 310 721 1160 <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 at 04:33:54 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
8 TO LANA. CAROLINE, SMCC MEMBERS 3-21-25

FOR OVER A YEAR, I HAVE SENT EMAILS TO THE SMCC REGARDING YOUR COMMITTEE APPROVING THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES WHICH I HAVE SUMMARIZED BELOW.

YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO MY FIRST EMAIL DATED 6-23-24.

IF YOU LOOK AT MY BELOW SUMMARY WITH A 10% INCREASE, THE CURRENT SM GARDEN FEES SHOULD BE AROUND $80 FOR LARGE GARDENS, NOT $200.

I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT YOUR SMCC MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO IGNOR MY EMAILS

REGARDING CORRECTING THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES THAT YOUR SMCC APROVED OVER 3 YEARS AGO.

HOW CAN THE SMCC MEMBERS PASS THESE EXCESSIVE FEES WITHOUT REVIEWING THE 50%-100% INCREASES.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER MISTAKES ON THE PREVIOUS BUDGET THAT YOU

OVERLOOKED AND PASSED WITHOUT CHECKING THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBMITTED

NUMBERS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR AN EXCESSIVE INCREASE OF THE SM GARDEN FEES OF 50%-100%/
I WANT SOME ACCOUNTABILTIY FROM THE SMCC MEMBERS.

GLENN
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]> Cc: Ross Furukawa <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 08:53:19 AM PST
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
3-5-25
To Lana, Caroline and SMCC members.

Since 6-13-23-below, I have sent multiple emails to the SMCC.

The SMCC has ignored all of my below requests.

For some reason you keep ignoring my requests for you to review my below summary of the 3 years period of implementing an Excessive SM Garden fee.

My below summary shows a 10% increase, which would lower the current payment to under $100. How can your SMCC approve a 3 year SM Garden fee increase of 50% to 100%? The current SM Garden fees has increased 50%-100%-$150-$200.

How would you like if your mortgage or car payment's increased 50% to 100%.

I would appreciate a response on how you can justify these excessive increases.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
9 Glenn
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Cc: Ross Furukawa <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 at 11:25:27 AM PST
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To Lana and Caroline
I have sent you both many emails in the past regarding how you could justify passing Excessive SM Garden fees without doing a Cost Impact.

I have summarized below the SM Garden Fees for over the past 20 years if the SM Garden fees were increased annually at 10%, and not at 50%-100% what the current SM Garden Fees should be at below $80 a year and not at $150-$200.

Hopefully someone on your SMCC who has a financial background will review and evaluate my below summary.

For some reason you keep ignoring my requests.

Bottomline the SMCC should have never approved those Excessive SM Garden fees and I want some accountability from the SMCC.

I have summarized below an email to Phil Brock showing going back to 2000-2020, with a normal 10% increase, the SM Garden fees should be $73 and not $150-$200 for Medium and Large gardens. (SEE BELOW SUMMARY)
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
10 I would appreciate a response from you why a Cost Impact was never completed prior to your SMCC approving the Excessive SM Garden fee increases in 2021? Your SMCC would have never approved an Excessive Fee increase pertaining to any other project within Santa Monica.

Glenn
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 at 01:18:30 PM PST
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To SMCC
FYI below
Glenn
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 9:53:22 AM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES

EXTERNAL
To Lana
Below are copies of emails I sent to David White.

Phil Brock over 2 months ago said he would give it to David White. David has never responded to any of my emails for over 1 year.

Hopefully someone on your current council will respond to me emails regarding Excessive SM Garden fees.

Thanks, Glenn
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
11 To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 08:55:03 AM PST
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
FYI
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; ; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 at 12:24:52 PM PST
Subject: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To Lana 1-16-25
Phil forwarded my below
email regarding SM garden
excessive garden fees to
David White over 3 months
ago. David never responded.

Since David is leaving in
Feb 2025, are you going to
respond to my email or are
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
12 you going to reassign it to
someone else within your
committee?

Below I have summarized
the SM Excessive fees.

If your SMCC would have
done a Cost Impact for
increasing SM Garden fees
50%-100%, you would have
never approved it.

You would have never
approved any other projects
with these type of excessive
increases within your
current budget.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
13 My original requests is over
6 months old.

Our current SM Garden
fees are overstated and
should be reduced to reflect
a normal increase instead of
excessive increases.

Thanks, Glenn Furuya
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: David White <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]> Cc: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de La Torre <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 at 08:03:02 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To David, Phil

I HAVE SUMMARIZED BELOW THE EXCESSIVE SANTA MONICA FEE
INCREASES FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS THAT WERE 50% FOR MEDIUM GARDEN AND 100% INCREASE FOR LARGE GARDENS. SMALL GARDENS HAD NO INCREASES?
MY SM GARDEN FEES 3 YEARS AGO WERE AT $100 AND NOW HAVE DOUBLED TO $200.

DOES ANYONE ON THE SM COUNCIL FIND MY SM GARDEN FEES
DOUBLING DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS EXCESSIVE?

HOW CAN YOUR SM COUNCIL NOT DO A COST IMPACT FOR THE
EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES.

YOU DO COST IMPACTS FOR OTHER PROJECTS, BUT FOR SOME REASON

YOU DID NOT REVIEW THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES AND APPROVED THEM.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
14 I HAVE SENT EMAILS TO YOUR SM COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS WITH NO RESPONSE.

I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM DAVID WHITE FOR THE BELOW EMAIL YOU SENT ME OVER 2 MONTHS AGO.

I WOULD APPRECIATE A RESPONSE.

GLENN
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: David White <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]> Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 at 12:42:40 PM PDT
Subject: Re: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES
To David, Phil
How can you classify the Excessive Garden fee increases as an administrative issue? Isn't it the responsibility of the SM Council to review items for a Cost impact.

I saw Oscar Delatorre last summer question lowering the Swimming pool fees and someone on your council wanted to know the Cost impact of lowering the current swimming pool fees.

Wouldn't my question regarding raising the SM Garden fees fall in that same category for your SM Council to review?
Glenn
On Monday, May 6, 2024 at 11:51:54 AM PDT, Phil Brock <[email protected]> wrote:

Glenn -
I appreciate your longstanding battle to stop
the increased gardening fees at our
community gardens however this is an
administrative issue. I have forwarded your
request to our city manager for a final
resolution to your questions.

Best
Phil
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
15 Phil Brock
Mayor
City of Santa Monica
P: (310) 458-8201
C: (310) 560-3071
santamonica.gov
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 11:32:19 AM
To: Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Thomas Leffler <[email protected]>; Rosanna Paticchio 310 721 1160 <[email protected]>; Briana Evans <[email protected]>; GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: SMCC EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASES

EXTERNAL

TO PHIL BROCK
5-6-24 I HAVE SENT YOU AND

YOUR SM COUNCIL MANY
EMAILS REGARDING MY 6-13-23

PRESENTATION THAT I GAVE
TO YOUR SM COUNCIL AT 530P.

I HAVE REQUESTED YOU

RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS

REGARDING SM GARDEN
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
16 EXCESSIVE FEE INCREASES
DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS.

MY LARGE GARDEN FEE HAS
GONE FROM $100 A YEAR TO
$200 A YEAR DURING THE LAST
3 YEARS.

HOW CAN YOUR SM COUNCIL

APPROVE THESE EXCESSIVE

INCREASES WITHOUT DOING A
COST IMPACT.

I HAVE SUMMARIZED BELOW

THE EXCESS SM GARDEN FEE
INCREASES THAT ARE IN THE 3
BELOW ATTACHMENTS.

GLENN FURUYA
4-14-24 SMCC NO RESPONSE 4-
16-24
Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 9:13 AM
To:Gleam Davis,Phil Brock,Christine Parra,Lana Negrete,Jesse Zwick,Caroline Torosis,O Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
17 TO SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL 12-6-23

I HAVE EMAILED YOU MANY REQUESTS DURING THE LAST FEW MONTHS REGARDING WHY FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS THAT NO ONE IN YOUR

COUNCIL DID ANY TYPE OF COST IMPACT PRIOR TO APPROVING THE SM FEE STUDY.

PLEASE SHOW ME ANY PAST VIDEOS THAT SHOW THE SMCC DOING A COST IMPACT PRIOR TO APPROVING THE 2020-2021 SM FEE STUDY.

HOW CAN YOU APPROVE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES
WITHOUT REVIEWING THE JUSTIFICATION?

THE CURRENT SM FEE STUDY EXCESSIVELY INCREASED THE CURRENT SM GARDEN FEES FOR A 3 YEAR PERIOD WITH LARGE GARDENS GOING FROM $100 A YEAR TO $200 A YEAR. THIS IS A 100% INCREASE.

THE CURRENT SM GARDEN FEES SHOULD BE LOWERED TO BE MORE IN

LINE WITH THE CURRENT INFLATION AND COST OF LIVING WHICH IS UNDER 10%.

ANYONE ON YOUR COUNCIL WITH A FINANCIAL BACKGROUND SHOULD

EASILY SEE WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES WHICH I HAVE SUMMARIZED IN MY BELOW 2 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.

WOULD YOU ALLOW THESE TYPE OF INCREASES FOR ANY OF THE
CURRENT SM CITY BUDGETS?

I HAVE ALSO SUMMARIZED BELOW THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES.

I WOULD APPRECIATE A RESPONSE FROM YOUR COMMITTEE.

IF A PROPER COST IMPACT WAS PRESENTED AND REVIEWED, THE

EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPROVED IN THE CURRENT SM FEE STUDY.

ALSO, DAVID WHITE EMAILED ME STATING THE CURRENT SM FEE STUDY CALCULATED THE NEW EXCESSIVE FEES.

I RECALL WHILE I WAS IN THE TRAILER AT CLOVERFIELD LISTENING TO

BRAD ALBERT JOKE ABOUT DOUBLING THE CURRENT SM GARDEN
FEES. BRAD IS THE PERSON WHO GENERATED THOSE EXCESSIVE FEES.

GLENN FURUYA

TO PHIL BROCK AND ALL SANTA MONICA COUNCIL MEMBERS
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
18 I GAVE PRESENTATIONS REGARDING EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES ON 4-24-23 TO THE SM GARDEN COMMITTEE, AND 6-13-24 530P

PRESENTATION TO SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL (SEE BELOW

ATTACHMENTS)
I INTIALLY CONTACTED BY EMAIL BELOW YOUR SM COUNCIL ON 7-13-23 AND 5 PREVIOUS EMAILS WITH NO RESPONSE FROM YOUR SM COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AT THE END OF MY 6-13-23 PRESENTATION REGARDING EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS RANGING FROM 16%- 100%. THE HEAD OF YOUR SM COUNCIL COMMITTE SAID THAT THEY

WOULD RESPOND TO MY PRESENTATION, WHICH CAN ALSO BE SEEN ON THE 6-13-23 VIDEO OF MEETING REFERENCED BELOW. I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANYONE FROM YOUR COMMITTEE?
ALL OF THE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS WERE

ABOVE COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION AND WERE APPROVED BY THE SM CITY COUNCIL WITH NO COST IMPACT.

ON 7-14-23, I SENT ALL OF YOUR SM COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY FIRST EMAIL ASKING FOR A RESPONSE FROM YOUR COMMITTEE WHY A "COST IMPACT" WAS NEVER SUBMITTED FOR YOUR COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES FROM 16% TO 100% FOR LARGE GARDENS.

I HAVE SUMMARIZED MY 2 POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS IN MY
BELOW EMAIL DATED 8-16-23.

DOES YOUR SM COUNCIL NORMALLY DISREGARD REQUESTS TO ALL OF YOU.

HOW DOES THE SM CITY COUNCIL MANAGE THE TOTAL SM CITY

BUDGET IF THEY CAN'T ANSWER MY ABOVE/BELOW EMAILS

REGARDING EXCESSING SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES WITH NO COST IMPACT REVIEW BY YOUR SM CITY COUNCIL.

WHO DO I HAVE TO GO TO FOR A RESPONSE.

GLENN FURUYA.

TO SM COUNCIL
OVER 6 WEEKS AGO (7-28-23) I SENT YOU

THE BELOW EMAIL REQUESTING AN

UPDATE FOR THE EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
19 FEE INCREASES DURING THE LAST 20
YEARS. HAS ANYONE AT THE SM COUNCIL
REVIEWED MY PRESENTATION?

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE SM GARDEN
FEE INCREASES FROM 2000-2020.

FROM 1976-2000 THE SM GARDEN FEES
WAS AT $40.

IN 2000 THE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASED FROM $40-$60 - 50%

INCREASE
IN 2013 THE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASED FROM $60-$75 - 25%

INCREASE
IN 2017 THE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASED FROM $75-$100 -
50% INCREASE
IN 2021 THE SM GARDEN FEES INCREASED FROM $100-$200 -
16%-100% INCREASE

THE ABOVE SM GARDEN FEE INCREASES

ARE EXCESSIVE AND ABOVE COST OF
LIVING AND INFLATION.

IF THE SM GARDEN FEES WERE

PROPERLY INCREASED DURING
THE LAST 20 YEARS, THEY
SHOULD BE AROUND $73 FOR 2021
(AS REFERENCED PG 3 IN MY
BELOW 3 PAGE PRESENTATION I
GAVE AT THE SM COUNCIL ON 6-
13-23) WITH A 10% INCREASE AT
EACH 4 YEAR PERIOD DURING
THE LAST 20 YEARS.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
20 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SM FEE SUMMARY
PROPOSED ADJUST 2023 SM Fee increases at 10%-2000-
2021

2000 $40 (Current Fee) with 10% increase
to $44
2004 $44 (Current Fee) with 10% increase
to $49
2008 $49 (Current Fee) with 10% increase
to $54
2013 $54 (Current Fee) with 10% increase
to $60
2017 $60 (Current Fee) with 10% increase
to $66
2021 $66 (Current Fee) with 10% increase
to $73
In 2021 the SM garden fees should be $73
with a 10% instead $100.

In 2025 SM Garden fees
should be around $80

Above is a summary for the last 20 years showing the
adjusted SM Garden fees increasing at 10% during
each 4 year period.

MY LAST BOTTOM ATTACHMENT
2-28-23 FEE STUDY, PAGE 44,

SHOWS THE EXCESSIVE FEE
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
21 INCREASES FOR THE 3 YEAR
PERIOD STARTING IN 2021.

PLEASE NOTE THAT SMALL GARDENS DID
NOT HAVE ANY INCREASES DURING THIS 3
YEAR PERIOD?
CURRENT RECOMMENDED FEE SUMMARY 2021-2024
(2-28-23 FEE STUDY PG 44)

CURRENT FEE
RECOM YR 1 RECOM YR 2 RECOM YR 3
2021 COM GARDENS SMALL $100 (0% INCR) $100 (0%
INCR) $100 (0% INCR)
2022 GARDENS PER MED $116 (16% INCR ) $132 (14%
INCR) $150 (14% INCR)
2023 GARDENS PER LGE $132 (32% INCR ) $164 (25%
INCR) $200 (22% INCR)
NOTE: SMALL GARDENS HAVE $0 INCREASES
DURING THE 3 YEAR PERIOD.

THESE 3 YEAR SM FEE INCREASES ARE

ALL ABOVE INFLATION AND COST OF

LIVING AND LARGE GARDEN FEES HAVE
DOUBLED IN 3 YEARS.

HOPEFULLY THE SM CITY COUNCIL WILL

REVIEW MY ABOVE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE

SM GARDEN FEES AND READJUST THE

CURRENT SM GARDEN FEES TO THE
CORRECT RATE TO $73 FOR 2023.

I FEEL THAT IF THE SM GARDEN

COMMITTEE PRESENTED TO YOU THE

COST IMPACT SM GARDEN FEE
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
22 INCREASES, THE SM CITY COUNCIL

WOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED THOSE
EXCESSIVE INCREASES.

THE PROBLEM IS THE SM

GARDEN COMMITTEE NEVER
PRESENTED DURING THE LAST 20

YEARS TO THE SM COUNCIL THE

COST IMPACT OF EXCESSIVELY

INCREASING THE SM GARDEN
FEES.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

GLENN FURUYA
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; David White
<[email protected]>
Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 at 02:19:10 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: Approving SM Garden Fees 1976-2020 with No Cost Impact presented to SM City Council
TO; GLEAM, LANA, PHIL, OSCAR, AND DAVID WHITE
I GAVE ON 6-13-23 SM GARDEN POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR SM CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6-13-23 530PM .

I WANTED TO KNOW WHY FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS THE SM CITY

COUNCIL PASSED EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES WITHOUT HAVING A COST IMPACT. MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SUMMARIZES THESE

EXCESS SM GARDEN FEE INCREASE THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE SM CITY COUNCIL. YOU ALLOWED THESE EXCESSIVE FEE INCREASES WITHOUT CHECKING HOW MUCH EACH INCREASE WAS.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
23 THE CURRENT SM GARDEN FEES ARE PRESENTLY TOO HIGH AND CURRENT 2020-2021 SM FEE STUDY DIDN'T REFLECT THE % INCREASE.

AT THE END OF MY 6-13-23 PRESENTATION, I ASKED ABOUT GETTING A

RESPONSE FOR MY PRESENTATION WAS TOLD SOMEONE WOULD LOOK AT IT?
CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE ME AN UPDATE.

THANKS, GLENN FURUYA
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Glenn Furuya <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: GLENN FURUYA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 09:44:42 AM PDT
Subject: Approving SM Garden Fees 1976-2020 with No Cost Impact presented to SM City Council
To Xavier
I want to discuss with the SM City Council approving the SM Garden fees for 1976-2020 with no Cost Impact review.

My 2-minute presentation will be from my 3 page PowerPoint slides and my 15 page presentation is a backup to my 3 page presentation that I presented to the SM Gardeners on 4-24-23 at the Ken Edwards SM Garden meeting.

I would like to know why at all of the SM Council meetings that a Cost Impact was never addressed before approving the excess SM Garden fee increases that were higher than the Cost of Living and Inflation. SEE BELOW REFERENCED SM COUNCIL MEETING VIDEO 6-22-21.

City Council Meeting - Jun 22nd, 2021 (granicus.com)
617hr/654hr SM COUNCIL MEETING VIDEO

LOCATION
Reference above 6-22-21 SM Council meeting
regarding at end of meeting, Oscar DeLattore
wanted to decrease the swimming pool fees and
someone asks what would be the COST IMPACT of
decreasing / increasing the fees. ALL SM FEES WERE
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
24 APPROVED. THIS INCLUDED EXCESSIVE FEE INCREASES FOR THE SM COMMUNITY GARDEN WERE APPROVED WITH NO COST IMPACT.

The SM Garden committee intentionally concealed from the SM City Council the excessive SM Garden Fee increases. The SM Garden committee for the last 20 years never presented to the SM City council the Cost Impact of increasing the SM Garden fees. See my attached 15-page SM Garden presentation regarding 1976-2020 SM Garden Fee History.

I am attaching brief 3 page PowerPoint presentation regarding No Cost Impact presented to SM City Council for excessive SM Garden fee increases.

And my 15 page PowerPoint presentation I presented to the SM Gardeners on 4-24-23 regarding SM Garden Fee history 1976-2020.

Glenn Furuya
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
SANTA MONICA PRESENTATION 4-24-23 630P KEN EDWARDS

GARDEN FEE DISCUSSION/CURRENT RULES ON FENCES

BY GLENN FURUYA
• IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONTACT GLENN FURUYA AT
[email protected]
• SM GARDEN CONTACT INFO
• SHANNON PARRY X 310-458-2227 Mgr [email protected], • JAMES VALEZ CONWAY X 310-458-8711 Supv
• [email protected],
• TEAGUES WEYBRIGHT X 310-458-2201 X 2405 [email protected] 1 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
I. SM Garden Fee History 1976-2022 1/6
• The SM Garden fees from 1976-1999 were $40 per year
• In 2000 to 2019, they started to go up from $40, to $60, to $75 to $100 to current 2020 3year increases.
• At each SM Council meeting there was never a Cost Impact presented to the SM Council showing the excessive % increases. The Cost impact is the % increase for each SM Garden fee change. • Each of these increase exceeded the current Cost of Living and Inflation of 10%, with no Cost Impact presented to SM Council. • $40 to $60 – 50% increase 2000 • $60 to $75 – 25% increase 2013
• $75 to $100 – 33.4% increase 2017
• $100-Small, $116-Medium and $132-large – 16% and 32% increase 2020 • $100-Small $132-Medium and $164-Large – 14% and 24% increase 2021 • $100-Small, $150-Medium and $200-Large – 14% and 22% increase 2022 • Between 2020-2023 there were no increase for small gardens. And large garden fees doubled in 3 years from $100 to $200 for 2023. • Cost Recovery % is taking the SM Garden fees/SM Garden Labor-Costs2 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
I. SM Garden Fee History 1976-2022 (continued) 2/6
SM Garden Fee 2013
• 2013, 124 Gardens, Current Fee $75
• Annual Fees $9300, Annual Cost
$108,903
• Cost Recovery 9%, $9300/$108,903
• Cost Variance $108,903-$9300
= $99,603
SM Garden Fee 2017
• 2017, 124 Gardens. Current Fee $100
• Annual Fees $12,433, Annual Cost $149,282
• Cost Recovery 8%, $12,433/$149,282
• Danny Price charged 15% of his time at $35k
• Cost Variance $149,282-$12,433 = $136,849
3 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
I. SM Garden Fee History 1976-2022 (continued) 3/6
SM Garden Fee 2020
• 2020, 125 Gardens. Current Fee $100 (36), $116 (32)-$132 (57) =125 Total • Annual Fees $14,836, Annual Cost $100,403 • Cost Recovery 15%, $14,836/$100,403
• COST RECOVERY % WENT UP DUE TO

REDUCTION IN LABOR-PUBLIC WORKS

REORGANIZATION
• REMOVED DANNY PRICE LABOR
15%/$35k
• Cost Variance $100,403-$14,836 = $85,567
SM Garden Fee 2021
• 2021, 136 Gardens. Current Fee $100 (56), $132 (32)-$164 (49) =137 Total • Annual Fees $17,860, Annual Cost $100,403 • Cost Recovery 18%, $17,860/$100,403
• COST RECOVERY % WENT UP DUE TO

INCREASING SM GARDEN FEES
• Cost Variance $100,403-$17,860= $82,543
4 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
I. SM Garden Fee History 1976-2022 (continued) 4/6
SM Garden Fee 2022
• 2022, 140 Gardens. Current Fee $100 (62) -$150 (32) $200 (46)=140 Total • Annual Fees $20,200, Annual Cost $100,403
• Cost Recovery 20%,
• $20,200/$100,403
• COST RECOVERY % WENT UP DUE TO

INCREASING SM GARDEN FEES
• Cost Variance $100,403-$20,200= $80,203
5 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
I. SM Garden Fee History 1976-2022 (continued) 5/6
• The SM city council always covered any overages as reflected in each SM Garden 2022-2021 Cost Recovery which is difference between Fees collected and Labor. • The Cost recovery is taking the Total SM Garden Fees/SM Garden salaries. As the salaries go down, the Cost Recovery % goes up. • The Cost Recovery 8% from 2016-17 to 2020-21 went up because to 15% because the SM Garden labor went down to $100K from $140k, with a lower total Cost Variance. This reduction was due to removing Danny Price 15% labor of $35k. • In 2020 with the Public Works taking over, the labor was reduced to more than 40%/$100k causing the Cost Recovery to increase 15% from 8%. 6 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
I. SM Garden Fee History 1976-2022 (continued) 6/6
• With the Public Works reorganization in 2020, there was no need to excessively increase SM Garden fees because of the $40k Labor reduction.
• The Santa Monica total number of gardens to total population ratio is very low and is why we need more new gardens.
7 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
II. Why were the SM garden fees excessively increased
• In 2020, with Cost of Living and Inflation below 10%, how could you justify the new 3 year fees. This increased our fees between 14% to 32% with NO INCREASE FOR SMALL GARDENS FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS AND LARGE GARDENS FEES DOUBLING
TO $200.
• How were the current 3 year fees increase calculated? • When the previous SM Fee increases occurred why wasn’t there a Cost Impact from 2000-2022 / Previous Years presented to the SM City council to review prior to approving those excessive high increases reflecting the % increases? 8 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
III. Proposed change to our existing 2023 SM Garden fees 1/3 • I propose rolling back our current SM Garden Fees for all gardens to $110 per year for all gardens. It would be easier to track SM Garden revenues if the Gardens are all priced at the same level. • The SM Gardeners should review these excessive SM Garden Fee increase and vote to readjust down our current fees to $110 for all SM Gardeners and credit back to Medium and Large gardeners. • By adjusting the annual rate to $110, the Credit would be with Small gardens paying an additional $10. Medium gardens would get a credit for years 1&2 $56 total and Large gardens for years 1&2 $166 total. • The new SM fee of $110 for all gardens in June 2023 renewal would have the Small Gardens paying $110, Medium gardens with $20 credit would pay $90 and the Large gardens with $166 credit would pay nothing and have $56 credit forwarded for2023 SM Garden Fee renewal. 9 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
III. Proposed change to our existing 2023 SM Garden fees (continued) 2/3
• The overall 2023 Total Cost charges of reducing SM Garden fees would increase the Cost Variance a small amount to $5k for SM Council to reimburse from $80k to $85k. • The SM City Council would cover any overages as they have done in previous years. • The 2020-2021 SM Fee Study (pg 50/101) SM Public Works Labor-SM Community gardens Costs reduced to $100k from $140k after reorganization. • To get Full Cost Recovery per our 2020 SM Fee Study fees would have to increase to over $803 per garden for 125 gardens ($100,403/125=$803) • 2022 $100,403k Labor/140 Gardens=$717 Full Cost per garden 10 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
III. Proposed change to our existing 2023 SM
Garden fees (continued) 3/3
SM Garden Fee 2022
• 2022, 140 Gardens. Current Fee $100 (62) - $150 (32) $200 (46) =140 Total • Annual Fees $20,200, Annual Cost $100,403 • Cost Recovery 20%, $20,200/$100,403
• COST RECOVERY % WENT UP DUE TO

INCREASING SM GARDEN FEES
• Cost Variance $100,403-$20,200 =
• $80,203
PROPOSED SM GARDEN FEE 2023 REDUCTION
• 2023, 140 Gardens. PROPOSED FEE $110
• Revised/Reduced SM Garden Fees
• Annual Fees $15,400, Annual Cost $100,403
• Cost Recovery 15%, $15,400/$100,403
• COST RECOVERY % WENT DOWN DUE TO
REDUCING ALL FEES TO $110 • Cost Variance $100,403-$15,400 = • $85,003
• This would only be only a $4800 increase.
• ($20,200-$15,400=$4,800)
• $85,003-$80,203=$4,800
11 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
IV. Conclusion 1/3
• I would like to know the SM Garden current labor details of $100k for 2020-2022. • What people are currently supporting the SM Gardens with Teague? • What was the justification in excessively increasing our SM Garden fees for a 3 year period 2020-2022. Who proposed these increases and why? • In 2020 when Public Works took over the SM Community Gardens, it reduced the total labor by $40k. This reduction was due to removing Danny Price Labor charges for 15% at $35k • NO COST IMPACT reflecting % increase to the recent proposed 3year Fee increase of 14% to 32% was NOT PRESENTED to the SM City Council before approving the increase in 2020/2021 SM Fee Study. • The revised Santa Garden Fee of $110 would be a more reasonable increase. • Roll back our current SM Garden fees to the adjusted rate of $110 for all gardens. • Tell the SM City Council that these decreases are more in line with the current Cost of Living and Inflation of under 10%. And they failed to do a Cost Impact prior to approving all previous excessive SM Garden Fee increases of 12%-32% for 2020-2022.
12 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
IV. Conclusion (continued) 2/3
• SM Garden Fee increases (NO COST IMPACT REVIEW BY SM CITY COUNCIL) • $40 to $60 – 50% increase 2000
• $60 to $75 – 25% increase 2013
• $75 to $100 – 33.4% increase 2017
• $100-Small, $116-Medium and $132-large – 16% and 32% increase 2020 • $100-Small $132-Medium and $164-Large – 14% and 24% increase 2021 • $100-Small, $150-Medium and $200-Large – 14% and 22% increase 2022 • Between 2020-2022 there were no increase for small gardens. • The overall Cost Recovery variance would be a small total increase of $5k from $80k to $85k in 2023 after reducing our fees. • Our reduction to the current SM Garden fees will not have a negative impact to the overall SM City Budget. Current Santa Monica FY 2022-23 Budget is $598.9 million. • That Public Works Community Gardens labor savings is more than increasing our SM Garden fees and a major change for improved Cost Recovery. • By excessively increasing our SM Garden fees justifies the high SM Garden Labor charges. • The SM City council has never pressured the SM Gardens to increase their fees. 13 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
IV. Conclusion (continued) 3/3
• The SOLUTION is to reduce the SM Community garden support labor costs which is causing a high negative variance, not excessively increase the SM Garden fees and lower all garden fees to $110. • SM Garden Committee members represent 5% of the total 140 gardeners. • SM Garden Committee controls 95% of the SM Community gardens concerns/issues. • If the SM Community gardeners do not get more actively involved, the SM Garden Committee can pass anything they want. • 2022 SMALL GARDENS=62 GARDENERS/140=44%, MEDIUM LARGE GARDENS 78 GARDENERS/140=56% • I. THERE ARE A LARGER % OF MEDIUM/LARGE GARDENS TO SMALL GARDENS • HAVE SM GARDENERS VOTE ON REDUCING ALL SM GARDEN FEES TO $110 FOR ALL GARDENS. • TELL SM CITY COUNCIL NEVER REVIEWED A COST IMPACT PRIOR TO APPROVING THE EXCESSIVE 3 YEAR SANTA MONICA COMMUNITY GARDEN FEE INCREASES. • THEN HAVE OUR MODIFIED SM GARDEN FEE OF $110 FOR ALL GARDENS UPDATED FOR THE SM CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE FOR 2023 SM GARDEN RENEWAL. 14
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
V. Restoring Fences In Current SM Garden Rules
• Fences clearly divides each garden by creating exterior boundaries. • Fences keep visitors from entering gardens from main pathway and travelling between isles.
• Fences help protect your personal items from getting stolen. • I see visitors on numerous occasions entering gardens without gardener’s permission.
15 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
6-22-21 SM COUNCIL MEETING PREVIOUS APPROVAL

FOR EXCESSIVE SM GARDEN FEES
• I want to discuss with the SM City Council approving the SM Garden fees for 1976-2020 with no Cost Impact
review.
• I would like to know why at all of the SM Council meetings that a Cost Impact was never addressed before approving the excess SM Garden fee increases that were higher than the Cost of Living and Inflation. • SEE BELOW SM COUNCIL MEETING VIDEO 6-22-21-REVISE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE.
• REF Above 6-22-21 SM Council meeting regarding at end of meeting, Oscar DeLattore wanted to decrease the swimming pool fees and someone asks what would be the Cost Impact of decreasing / increasing the fees. • Glenn Furuya
City Council Meeting - Jun 22nd, 2021 (granicus.com)
617hr/654hr SM COUNCIL MEETING VIDEO LOCATION
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Santa Monica Council approving previous SM Cost Recovery- Fee Study • At 6-22-21 SM Council meeting to Revise Master Fee Schedule prior to approving, a question regarding the Cost impact of increasing/decreasing SM swimming pool fees was presented. • The SM Council – Oscar Delattore wanted to know how much the fees would cause the budget to go up or down.
• It appears SM council is concerned about reviewing Cost impact before approving a change. • At each of previous SM Council meeting there was never a Cost Impact presented to the SM Council showing the excessive % increases for SM Garden fees prior to approval. • The Cost impact is the % increase for each SM Garden fee change. • Each of these SM Garden Fee increases exceeded the current Cost of Living and Inflation of 10%, with no Cost Impact presented to SM Council. • I would like the Current SM Gardens fees readjusted down to a more reasonable rate which is in line with the Current Cost of Living and Inflation. • The SM City Council has never required the SM Gardens to increase their fees.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
PROPOSED ADJUSTED SM GARDEN FEES FOR 2023
Current SM Garden Fee increases
• $40 to $60 – 50% increase 2000
• $60 to $75 – 25% increase 2013
• $75 to $100 – 33.4% increase 2017
• $100-Small, $116-Medium and $132-large – 16% and 32% increase 2020 • $100-Small $132-Medium and $164-Large – 14% and 24% increase 2021 • $100-Small, $150-Medium and $200-Large – 14% and 22% increase 2022 • Between 2020-2022 there were no
increase for small gardens.

ADJUSTED 2023 SM Fee increases at 10%
• 2000 $40 with 10% increase - $44
• 2013 $44 with 10% increase - $48
• 2017 $48 with 10% increase - $53
• 2021 $53 with 10% increase - $58
• In 2021 the SM Garden fees with a
10% increase should be $58 instead at $100. • In 2023 readjust fees to $64 (10% increase) • This would only be only a $11,240 increase. • ($20,200-$8,960=$11,240) • $91,443-$80,203=$11,240 • Adjusted Cost Variance $100,403-$8,960 =$91,443
• Current 2022 Cost Variance=$80,203
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
• Cities may charge fees to recover costs for services that benefit individual community members, freeing up tax dollars to be used for general services that provide benefits to the entire community.
• It is the City’s policy to achieve full cost recovery on services that benefit individuals rather than the entire community, with some exceptions for services that provide a significant community benefit, primarily in the areas of Community Services and Police (primarily Animal Control).
• As part of the FY 2020-21 Budget Adoption in June 2020, Council directed staff to maximize cost recovery to the extent possible in this fee study in order to increase the City’s fiscal sustainability.
• The City’s recent restructuring and budget modifications due to the financial challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic have changed the service landscape. • Per Council direction, Santa Monica conducts a comprehensive user fee/cost of services study at least once every five years to ensure that the City continues to recover the appropriate level of costs from providing services that benefit individuals. In interim years, fees are adjusted administratively by a cost of living factor. The most recent Citywide study was completed in May 2017. • The Fee Study has analyzed fees related to the General, Beach, Water, Wastewater, Resource Recovery & Recycling, and Airport funds. • The Fee Study proposes increases in 336 fees and decreases in 242 fees. The fees proposed for decrease were appropriate when adopted but are no longer supportable as the fees exceed the full cost of providing the service. The costs have decreased because of efficiencies, City restructuring which reduced staffing, and streamlined processes. In addition, the study proposes 49 new fees, primarily for services the City has provided without appropriately recovering costs, as well as fees to meet legal requirements. There are 53 fees proposed for deletion, primarily reflecting fees for services no longer provided or redundant with other fees. • The Community Services Department (CSD) fees are based on a Pricing Policy that reflects Council priorities for community recreation and social services benefits. As part of the Citywide Fee Study, staff evaluated existing fees and identified opportunities to increase cost recovery to support programming, align current fees with the Pricing Policy adopted by Council on June 23, 2020, and ensure that rates paid by community members remain comparable with fees charged by neighboring cities and service providers. During the restructuring of the City Budget in FY 2020-21, Council asked the department to evaluate increasing user fees and Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
adopted a new Pricing Policy that would allow for higher cost recovery rates while still subsidizing services with the most community benefit. CSD recommends fee increases in the following areas: CREST, Aquatics, Community Recreation Classes, Meeting Room Rentals, BBQ Area Permits, Memorial Park Fitness Room, Adult Sports Leagues, and Developer Applications for Onsite Public Art, as shown in the Cost Recovery Study included below. This will result in an average cost recovery level of 30% (from the current 29%). Although these fees are proposed to increase, the City’s robust financial assistance program provides subsidies for qualifying families.

Additionally, the Pricing Policy prioritizes lower fees for non-profit organizations, vulnerable communities, and Santa Monica residents.
• Animal Control’s cost recovery level is about 47%, as cities traditionally subsidize these services to encourage licensing and spaying/neutering. In addition, certain animal control fees (licensing fees associated with spayed/neutered dogs) are capped by State law at 50%.
• Charges for copying public records and police reports are also not cost covering as they are limited by State law.
• Other activities not recommended for full cost recovery include several solar panel review fees that must comply with limits established by State Assembly Bill 1414. • The City Planning Division has several fees that are associated with the historic preservation program. These fees are recommended to be waived in order to provide support to property owners to maintain designated historic resources. • Staff will return to Council as part of Budget adoption on June 22, 2021 with the required resolutions (and ordinances if required) to implement the fee recommendations.

Study Summary
• Approximately 800 fees or programs were studied.
• 49 new fees are proposed, 44 are in the General Fund. o 3 new fees are recommended to be waived because they are associated with the historic preservation program.
• 336 fees are proposed to increase.
• 242 fees are proposed for reduction.
• 53 fees are proposed for elimination (some due to consolidation). • Overall cost recovery is 64%. Excluding Community Services programs and Animal Control fees, cost recovery level is 88%.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Revenue Impact
The study estimates $904,066 in additional revenue, of which $683,385 is from General Fund sources. New fees comprise approximately $269,908 of the new revenue ($144,646 in the General Fund). Adjustments to existing fees comprise the remaining amounts. As indicated in the study, revenue projections assume full operations; actual revenue increases in FY 2021-22 will likely be less due to the continuing impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Significant Fee Adjustments
Increases of 100% or greater are proposed for 49 fees. The primary reasons for these significant changes are:
• In some cases, legislative or process changes have increased the time required to provide the service.
• A more accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service including support costs from all departments involved in providing the service. • The City’s restructuring structure implemented with the FY 2020-21 budget due to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in changes to workflows and time increments per position.
• In some cases, services are now being performed by staff at higher pay scales due to City restructuring, increasing the costs to provide the services. • Proposed fees were adjusted to reflect current staffing levels. • For certain fees that have been historically subsidized by the City, staff is proposing an increase in the cost recovery level resulting in a decrease in the City subsidy. This is a policy change that addresses the June 2020 Council direction to increase cost recovery; the policy change would be enacted with Council approval of the fees.

Further detail on fee changes is included in the attached Fee Study Report.

The summary table below provides more detail on fees increasing by 100% or more.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase
Reason for Increase
Annual dog license - duplicate
(replacement)
$6.08 $51.94 754% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Architectural Review Board - Bldg.

Color/Materials: Alt/Mod's
$1,456.71 $4,889.86 236% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Architectural Review Board -
Building Color/Materials: New
Construction
$4,371.19 $10,399.45 138% Decrease in the City subsidy of service.

Architectural Review Board Staff
Approval - All Others
$425.13 $938.59 121% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Bulky Item Collection (one-hour
minimum)
$106.29 $218.90 106% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Cart Rollout Services $8.65 $19.83 129% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Deed Restriction $850.27 $1,727.70 103% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Standard Plan Check -
Parking/Loading and Access: Each
additional 100 Parking Spaces
$320.43 $1,293.85 304% Process changes that increased
the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Event Permit - Parking Manager $184.54 $571.47 210% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Extra Refuse Bag Sales $6.87 $16.34 138% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Fence, Wall Hedge Height mod.
(Discretionary)
$300.09 $2,705.65 802% Decrease in the City subsidy of
service.

Fence, Wall, Hedge Height mod.
(Administrative)
$309.47 $942.25 204% Decrease in the City subsidy of
service.

Final Map $1,304.89 $2,699.19 107% Process changes that increased the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Final Map Revision $437.71 $1,038.65 137% Process changes that increased the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

General Plan Surcharge $67,728.89 $141,425.86 109% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Fees with Increases Over 100%
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase
Reason for Increase
Fees with Increases Over 100%
Home-Sharing Permit - Annual
renewal fee
$50.00 $151.91 204% Re-authorization of a fee
previously set by separate
resolution.

Home-Sharing Permit - Initial fee $100.00 $289.31 189% Decrease in the City subsidy of service.

Industrial Waste Discharge $109.42 $685.86 527% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Lot Line Adjustment $437.71 $1,434.20 228% Process changes that increased the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Massage Establishment Permit $108.00 $281.37 161% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Newsrack Permit: Annual Renewal $47.53 $133.37 181% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Newsrack Permit: Impound Fee $231.82 $504.81 118% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Newsrack Permit: New Install $129.26 $313.35 142% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Permanent Staff: Director $44.09 $169.28 284% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Permanent Staff: Producer $67.70 $169.28 150% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Permanent Staff: Production
Engineer
$48.72 $169.28 247% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Permit Renewal $51.76 $162.07 213% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Removal, Hauling, Replacement:

Curb & Gutter
$213.24 $804.18 277% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Removal, Hauling, Replacement:

Curb Only
$150.12 $593.79 296% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Removal, Hauling, Replacement:

Gutter Only
$157.99 $570.28 261% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase
Reason for Increase
Fees with Increases Over 100%
Replacement I All Others $23.93 $60.49 153% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Replacement I Single Trade $23.93 $60.49 153% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Roll out Services - Bin Truck Pullout $45.32 $139.15 207% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Roll out Services - Crew Pullout $45.32 $120.54 166% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Sale of Composting Bins (Santa
Monica Residents Only)
$17.21 $37.32 117% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Same Day Emergency Turn-Off
(regular hours)
$70.15 $155.07 121% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Seismic Retrofit Plan Check $132.54 $382.97 189% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Seismic Retrofit Report Review $132.54 $382.97 189% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Single Trade Permit (Residential
only)
$22.25 $60.49 172% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Single trade Permit- Residential $35.91 $153.06 326% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Site Drainage - Changing Existing
Pattern
$109.42 $475.21 334% Process changes that increased
the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Street Improvement Inspections:

SFR Apron, Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter,
or Alley
$256.89 $609.22 137% Process changes that increased
the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Street Sweeping Services $120.98 $254.41 110% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Student/Non-Profit - Still
Photography
$64.45 $179.09 178% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Rate
%
Increase
Reason for Increase
Fees with Increases Over 100%
Tiebacks $437.71 $1,310.58 199% Process changes that increased the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Travel Demand Forecasting Model
(TDFM)
$12,813.57 $47,755.31 273% More accurate calculation of the full costs to provide the service.

Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan $219.08 $685.86 213% Process changes that increased the time to provide service and
more accurate calculation of the
full costs.

Use of Public Property: Permit for
Moving Pods
$51.76 $157.11 204% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Use of Public Property: Permit
Renewal without Transportation
Review
$51.76 $162.07 213% More accurate calculation of the
full costs to provide the service.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
New Fees
In general, the proposed new fees fall into three categories:
• Fees to recover cost for services, particularly in the Public Landscape Division, for which the City has historically not charged a fee. These include post-construction improvements requested by a developer, clean-up deposits for the beach and parks after private events, and other services requested by the public. • Fees related to compliance with new and existing legislation or policy changes. • Fees for new services not previously provided by the City.

Additional information on these fees is provided in the attached Fee Study report.

The following table provides detail on proposed new fees.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
Construction Management Plan
review
$1,676.05 Developers/
Property Owners
This review process is required to comply with existing legal requirements. It ensures that developments
comply with all state and local laws regulating
pollution and dust control, run‐off mitigation efforts
and other NPDES related concerns. This new fee is
added to capture the full cost of staff time required for the review.

Investigation Fee For Work Without
a Permit
Actual Cost Residents/
Businesses
Most cities utilize fees and/or policies to discourage
illegal construction. This new fee will enable staff to recover all costs related to investigate and document
illegal construction. Property owners
will be charged for all costs incurred. The owner is
then required to apply for construction a permit and
pay the regular fees required.

Mobile Home Parks $252.55 Developers/
Property Owners
This review and inspection process is required to
comply with existing legal requirements. Specifically
the California Code Regulation, Title 25. The
regulation includes specific requirements for park
construction, maintenance, use, occupancy, design,
plans, permits, and mobilehome installation. This new
fee is added to capture the full cost of staff time
required for the review.

Seismic Retrofit Peer Review -
Consultant
Actual Cost Developers/
Property Owners
This review process is required to comply with existing legal requirements. Through this new fee the City will
pass on consultant costs to the developer.

Seismic Retrofit Plan Check -
Consultant
Actual Cost Developers/
Property Owners
This plan check process is required to comply with
existing legal requirements. Through this new fee the
City will pass on consultant costs to the developer.

Administrative Approval: NonDowntown Housing Project$9,640.78 Developers/ Property Owners
This fee establishes cost recovery for non-downtown
housing project Administrative Approvals to align with
the downtown housing Administrative Approval fees.

The previous fee charged for non-Downtown projects
did not align with the work involved in approving entire housing projects.

Certificate of Appropriateness -
Landmarks Commission
Waived Developers/
Property Owners
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. This fee is waived per SMMC Section

9.56.270(c).

Certificate of Appropriateness -
Staff Approval
Waived Developers/
Property Owners
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. This fee is waived per SMMC Section

9.56.270(c).

New Fees
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
New Fees
Local Coastal Program Surcharge $2,505.05 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. Development in the Coastal Zone
requires approval of any required City discretionary
permits followed by Coastal Commission's approval of
a Coastal Development Permit or waiver prior to
issuance of building permits. This new surcharge
applies only to projects within the Local Coastal Zone.

The surcharge recovers costs associated with
preparation of the Local Coastal Program update and
is applied against all other Planning fees within the
Coastal Zone.

Mills Act Contract Waived Developers/
Property Owners
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. The Mills Act is a state law allowing
cities to enter into contracts with the owners of
historic structures. Such contracts require a
reduction of property taxes in exchange for the
continued preservation of the property. This fee is
proposed to be waived, as this is the only benefit that designated property owners have. At times the
resources are designated over the owner's objection;
the waiver provides opportunity for the owner to
recover cost of maintaining the designated Landmark.

SB330 Preliminary Application $308.05 Developers/
Property Owners
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. This new fee is established to recover
the cost of viewing preliminary residential housing
applications, which qualify under the Housing Crisis
Act of 2019.

Cultural Arts Development
Requirement Application
Processing Fee
$6,312.99 Developers/
Property Owners
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. Per City ordinance, developers adding
significant new commercial or residential space are
required to create openly accessible on‐site public art or cultural facilities. This fee is established to recover the cost of reviewing the applications for the cultural arts requirements. The fee had been approved
previously but had never been charged.

Attachment of one (1) Small
Wireless Facility to a municipally
owned structure in the public rightof-way (e.g., streetlight pole); Annual Lease Fee
$816.64 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. This fee was set by the FCC in 2018 and
is an annual lease fee in accordance with guidelines
established by the FCC.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
New Fees
Development Agreement
Feasibility and Concept Review
Fee (rounded to the nearest 1/2
hour increment)
$366.44 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. This new fee is added to capture the
full cost of staff time required in the review process.

The City has been providing this service during the
plan check process for years, but the cost of this labor intensive task had not been recovered.

Plan Check Review Fee - Including
Flood Plain Review & Off-Site
Permit
$300.11 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This process is required to comply with existing legal
requirements. Flood Plain maps were updated by
Federal Government, and 85 properties are now in
floodplain zone, as before none of properties were.

The flood plain review fee is proposed to recover the
full cost of staff time involved in the process. The offsite plan check fee was tracked with the regular plan check, but the cost had not been recovered.

Underground Utility Waiver
Application and Letter of
Determination
$288.54 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This fee is established to recover the full costs of
reviewing the Underground Utility Waiver Applications
and issue letters to customers. The City has been
providing this service during the plan check process
for years, but the cost of this task had not been
recovered.

License Agreements, Covenants,
Deed restrictions
$814.65 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This fee is being added to recover the costs of
processing applications related to new zoning
provisions, which include off‐site loading in the Bike
Action Plan (BAP) zones, and operational
requirements for space‐efficient parking like a valet
attendant covenant or an agreement that requires
operational mechanical parking equipment.

Dead Animal Disposal $36.67 Individuals/
Businesses
This new fee is reflective of new or additional services now being provided.

Dead Animal Pickup $119.66 Individuals/
Businesses
This new fee is reflective of new or additional services now being provided.

Beehive Permit $135.68 Individuals/
Businesses
This new fee is reflective of new or additional services now being provided.

Conditional Animal Permit $135.68 Individuals/
Businesses
This new fee is reflective of new or additional services now being provided.

Beach Asset Damage Actual Cost Individuals/
Businesses
These refundable deposit fees are proposed to
potentially offset the cost of post‐event clean up or
facility repairs for events held at public parks or on
Santa Monica State Beach.

Beach Event Clean Up Deposit (0-
500 people)
$500.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Beach Event Clean Up Deposit
(1000+ people)
$1,500.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
New Fees
Beach Event Clean Up Deposit (501-
1000 people)
$1,000.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Beach Maintenance Service $125.92 Individuals/
Businesses
This fee is proposed to recover the costs of providing
maintenance services for specific requests within the
public parks or at Santa Monica Beach for special
events.

Full Prune >36 DSH $528.75 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private companies' requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects and to individuals who do not want to wait for their scheduled pruning cycle and request trimming outside of the
schedule.

Full Prune 13-18 DSH $237.90 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private companies' requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects and to individuals who do not want to wait for their scheduled pruning cycle and request trimming outside of the
schedule.

Full Prune 19-24 DSH $290.80 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private companies' requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects and to individuals who do not want to wait for their scheduled pruning cycle and request trimming outside of the
schedule.

Full Prune 25-30 DSH $396.50 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private companies' requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects and to individuals who do not want to wait for their scheduled pruning cycle and request trimming outside of the
schedule.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
New Fees
Full Prune 31-36 DSH $475.85 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private companies' requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects and to individuals who do not want to wait for their scheduled pruning cycle and request trimming outside of the
schedule.

Full Prune 7-12 DSH $158.60 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private companies' requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects and to individuals who do not want to wait for their scheduled pruning cycle and request trimming outside of the
schedule.

Park Asset Damage Actual Cost Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Park Event Clean Up Deposit (0-
500 people)
$500.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Park Event Clean Up Deposit (1000+
people)
$1,500.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Park Event Clean Up Deposit (501-
1000 people)
$1,000.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This refundable deposit fee is proposed to potentially
offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs for events held at public parks or on Santa Monica
State Beach.

Park Maintenance Service $113.64 Individuals/
Businesses
This fee is proposed to recover the costs of providing
maintenance services for specific requests within the
public parks or at Santa Monica Beach for special
events.

Tree & Stump Removal >24 DSH Per
Inch
$42.30 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has been providing
these services, but only partially recovering its costs since a fee study had not been completed for these
services. The fee is charged to private companies or
individuals who damaged or desire to remove trees.

Additionally, this fee can be charged when trees are
damaged or removed prior to City authorization. The
company or individual must pay for the removal and
tree restitution, as required.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
New Fees
Tree & Stump Removal 0-24 DSH
Per Inch
$31.70 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has been providing
these services, but only partially recovering its costs since a fee study had not been completed for these
services. The fee is charged to private companies or
individuals who damaged or desire to remove trees.

Additionally, this fee can be charged when trees are
damaged or removed prior to City authorization. The
company or individual must pay for the removal and
tree restitution, as required.

Tree Planting 24" Box $290.80 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private company requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects.

Tree Planting 36" Box $793.15 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private company requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects.

Tree Planting 48" Box $2,009.25 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has historically
provided these services for no additional fee. The
fee is charged to private company requests for work
before, during, or after a construction projects.

Tree Restitution - Cost Per
Required Replacement 24" Box
Tree
$704.36 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has been providing
these services, but only partially recovering its costs since a fee study had not been completed for these
services. Tree restitution is the valuation of a tree
damaged or removed by a private company or
individual. It takes into account factors including, but not limited to, a tree's age, size, condition, and location.

It is the second step after the fee for tree removal is assessed.

Nomination Packet for NonCandidates or Candidates (after the first set)
$45.00 Individuals/
Businesses
This fee is established to recover staff and
materials costs associated with preparation of
nomination packets for non‐candidates or candidates
requesting more than one set.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Citywide Cost of Services Fee Study Summary
Fee Fee
Amount
Primary Impact Purpose for Fee
New Fees
Bulky Item Collection (one-hour
minimum)
$218.90 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has been providing
these services, but only partially recovering, via flat fee, its costs since a fee study had not been
completed for these specific services. The fee is
charged to businesses or individuals when they
request a bulky item pickup for their location. The City allows for three (3) pickups per year for free and
starting with the 4th pickup the fee is applied. This fee is also charged to large businesses for move out, or for City departments who need assistance with large
item disposal.

Event Bin Rental (per Bin) $281.56 Residents/
Businesses
This fee replaced the following two fees:

1. Event Rental – Refuse/Food Waste Carts

2. Event Rental – Recycling Carts
Truck Ad Space Rental (per panel,
per side, per month)
$245.11 Residents/
Businesses
The fee is established to capture the full cost of
providing this service. The City has been providing
these services, but only partially recovering its costs since a fee study had not been completed. The fee is
charged to private businesses or City Departments
interested in advertising in truck ad space, within City guidelines. The fee has been charged per Council
approval on 12/06/2011.

Sewer Study Review $4,443.42 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This new fee proposal is to recover costs associated
with a review done by the Water Resources’ Civil
Engineer for projects requesting wastewater services
and to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the project.

Water Study Review $3,332.56 Developers/
Property Owners/
Businesses
This new fee proposal is to recover costs associated
with review of projects requesting water services and
to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the project.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
MGTCONSULTING.COM

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

COST RECOVERY STUDY
Summary of Findings
May 10, 2021
Attachment B - Fee Study Report
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Table of Contents

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction 1Study Scope & Objectives 2Study Findings 3Methodology 7Legal, Economic and Policy Considerations 9

II USER FEE SUMMARIES BY DEPARTMENT
Community Development 11Department of Transportation 26Public Works 32Police 51Community Services 56Records & Elections Services (City Clerk) 65City Manager's Office 67Finance 70Library 72 III Comparison Survey 75
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Section I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IntroductionMGT Consulting Group (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Santa Monica with this summary of findings for the comprehensive citywide user fee/cost of services study. Santa Monica has a long history of reviewing its fees and charges and first underwent a detailed cost of services study in the early 1990’s. At the time, the City became interested in accurately reporting the true cost of providing various fee‐related services and exploring the possibilities of modifying current fees to better reflect cost. Since that initial study, the City has regularly undergone similar studies to maintain the accuracy in reporting the costs to provide fee‐related services, and establishing fees based on cost. The most recent comprehensive study was completed by MGT in 2017 (although smaller, more focused studies have been performed in 2018 and 2020). In the fall of 2020, the City contracted with MGT to perform several cost‐of‐service studies over a four‐year time period. This year’s citywide user fee analysis was begun in November 2020 and uses the adopted fiscal year 2020‐21 budget, staffing and operational information. City policy is to recover, through fees, the full cost of providing services that provide benefit to the person or entity using the service. However, the City Council has made exceptions to this policy when it has determined that a subsidy from the general fund would be in the public interest.

Community Services fees and Animal Control fees are examples of this determination in past fee establishments. This report is the culmination of five months of work between MGT and city management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all city personnel who participated on this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to its success.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Study Scope and Objectives
The study included a review of fee‐for service activities within the following departments:
 Community Development  Department of Transportation  Public Works  Police  Community Services  Records & Elections Services (City Clerk)  City Manager’s Office  Finance  Library The study was performed under the general direction of the Finance Department with the participation of representatives from each department and the City Attorney’s Office. The primary goals of the study were to:
 Determine the City’s costs to provide specific fee‐related services.  Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new fees.  Identify service areas where the City might adjust fees to better reflect the full cost of services or to subsidize fees with general fund revenue to reflect other economic or policy considerations.  Develop fiscal projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees.  Provide comparative data for what neighboring cities are charging for similar services.

The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on restricted and general fund revenues.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Study Findings
The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision‐makers with basic data needed for setting fees. This report details the full cost of each service for which a fee is charged and presents proposed fees and fiscal projections based on recommended cost recovery levels.

Recommendations were based upon careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, historical cost recovery levels, and market comparisons. The exhibit on the following page displays the costs and projections of each department/division into the following categories:

Column A, User Fee Costs – This study evaluated over $226 million of costs to provide all services, both fee‐ and non‐fee related. Of that total, $36.5 million is related to services for which the City charges fees. It is this $36.5 million that is the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user fee‐related revenues for the City. Column B, Current Revenues – Based on current fee levels, the City receives fee‐related cost recovery in an amount equal to $23.2 million and is experiencing an overall 64% cost recovery level. As a result of recent changes made to operations, cost recovery levels range from 0% up to 154% and revenues must now be adjusted to reflect these operating adjustments. It should be noted that consistent with established City Council policy, the majority of general fund subsidies are allocated to Community Services and Police (primarily Animal Control); excluding these programs from the analysis would bring the overall current cost recovery level up to 88%. The detail of individual fees may be found in subsequent sections of this report. Column C, Current Subsidy – Current fee levels recover 64% of full cost, leaving 36% or $13,248,686 to be funded by other funding sources. This subsidy represents an opportunity for an updated and more focused cost recovery effort by the City for fee‐related services. Column D, Recommended Recovery – It is estimated that adoption of the recommended fees would increase cost recovery to $24,143,287. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 66%. Exclusive of Community Services programs and Animal Control fees (all of which are subsidized in accordance with Council Policy), the overall cost recovery level would rise to 91%.

Column E, Increased Revenue – Assuming activity levels remain relatively static, approximately $904,066 in additional cost recovery could be received by the City. This would represent a 3.89% increase over the amounts currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annualized basis. The City’s General Fund would receive approximately $683,885 out of the $904,066 in additional cost recovery. Revenue projections assume full operations; actual revenue increases in FY 2021‐22 will likely be less due to the continuing impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Department (A)  User Fee Service Costs (E)  Increased Revenue Community Development
Building & Safety $                8,699,947 $     9,097,067 105% (397,120) $        ‐5% 8,699,947 $      100% $                  (397,120) Code Enforcement $                   465,362 $        222,073 48% 243,289 $         52% 248,870 $         53% $                     26,797Planning $                3,530,353 $     1,911,053 54% 1,619,300 $      46% 2,125,539 $      60% $                   214,486 Department of Transportation
Mobility $                1,401,424 $     1,341,667 96% 59,757 $           4% 1,363,790 $      97% $                     22,124 Parking $                1,402,986 $     1,309,355 93% 93,631 $           7% 1,402,986 $      100% $                     93,631 Public Works
Airport $                     42,321 $          40,969 97% 1,352 $             3% 42,321 $           100% $                       1,352 Engr & Str Svcs, Land Development $                1,211,268 $        661,547 55% 549,721 $         45% 1,211,268 $      100% $                   549,721Engr & Str Svcs, Streets $                           ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 $                           ‐ Film Permits $                   152,444 $        180,129 118% (27,685) $          ‐18% 152,444 $         100% $                    (27,685)Office of Sustain & Environ $                   245,475 $        148,334 60% 97,141 $           40% 159,956 $         65% $                     11,622 Public Landscape $                   294,619 $        198,469 67% 96,150 $           33% 294,619 $         100% $                     96,150 Resource Recovery & Recycling $                1,100,511 $     1,010,226 92% 90,284 $           8% 1,089,244 $      99% $                     79,017 Water Resources $                2,066,640 $     1,926,827 93% 139,812 $         7% 2,066,640 $      100% $                   139,812 Police $                1,031,148 $        789,887 77% 241,261 $         23% 645,170 $         63% $                  (144,717) Community Services
Beach House Operations $                2,371,933 $          51,800 2% 2,320,133 $      98% 51,800 $           2% $                           ‐ Community Recreation $                9,785,422 $     2,746,409 28% 7,039,013 $      72% 2,902,164 $      30% $                   155,755 Cultural Affairs $                     12,626 ‐$                 0% 12,626 $           100% 12,626 $           100% $                     12,626 Housing & Human Services $                2,459,178 $     1,459,828 59% 999,350 $         41% 1,534,425 $      62% $                     74,597 Records & Elec Svcs (City Clerk) $                     91,257 $          74,311 81% 16,945 $           19% 77,145 $           85% $                       2,834 City Manager's Office $                     17,444 $          15,273 88% 2,171 $             12% 17,444 $           100% $                       2,171 Finance $                     23,265 $          35,746 154% (12,480) $          ‐54% 23,265 $           100% $                    (12,480) Library $                     82,285 $          18,250 22% 64,035 $           78% 21,623 $           26% $                       3,373 Totals:   36,487,907 $           $ 23,239,220 64% $ 13,248,686 36% $ 24,143,287 66% $              904,066 (B)  Current Revenue (C)  Current   Subsidy (D)  Cost Recovery Policy City of Santa Monica
User Fee Cost & Revenue Analysis
FY 2020‐21

CURRENT RECOMMENDED
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
The table below breaks down the totals by funding source.

Funding Source (B) Costs, User Fee Services (F) Increased Revenue General Fund $ 33,278,435 $ 20,261,197 61% 13,017,238 $ 39% 20,945,082 $ 63% $ 683,885 Fund 11 Beach House $ 2,371,933 $ 51,800 2% 2,320,133 $ 98% 51,800 $ 2% $ ‐ Fund 50 Water $ 1,285,243 $ 1,198,294 93% 86,949 $ 7% 1,285,243 $ 100% $ 86,949 Fund 51 Wastewater $ 781,396 $ 728,533 93% 52,863 $ 7% 781,396 $ 100% $ 52,863 Fund 54 Resource Recovery & Recycling $ 1,100,511 $ 1,010,226 92% 90,284 $ 8% 1,089,244 $ 99% $ 79,017 Fund 57 Airport $ 42,321 $ 97% 1,352 40,969 $ 3% 42,321 $ 100% $ 1,352 Totals: 36,487,907 $ $ 23,239,220 64% $ 13,248,686 36% $ 24,143,287 66% $ 904,066 City of Santa Monica
User Fee Cost & Revenue Analysis ‐ By Funding Source
FY 2020‐21

RECOMMENDED
(C) Current
Revenue
(D) Current
Subsidy
(E) Cost Recovery
Policy

CURRENT
The study included an analysis of 802 fees or programs. Of that total, 336 fees are recommended to increase, 242 will be decreasing and 225 are proposed as no change to the current fee. Additionally, this study is recommending that 53 fees be deleted from the City’s Master Fee Schedule and 49 new fees be added.

The table on the following page breaks this information down by department/division. Additional detail on new fees is provided in Section II of this report, which reviews the study findings for each department.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Department Fees Analyzed Fees Increasing Fees Decreasing No Change Deleted Fees New Fees Community Development
Building & Safety 184 28 84 72 15 5
Code Enforcement 11 10 0 1 0 0
Planning 73 39 27 7 0 6
Department of Transportation
Mobility 74 38 17 19 3 1
Parking 15 15 0 0 0 0
Public Works
Airport 110000
Engr & Str Svcs, Land Development 43 34 8 1 3 4
Engr & Str Svcs, Streets 16 16 0 0 0 0
Film Permits 25 13 10 2 0 0
Office of Sustain & Environ 175102 1 0
Public Landscape 38 23 11 4 5 22
Resource Recovery & Recycling 41 24 16 1 13 3Water Resources 49 18 27 4 0 2 Police 65 26 25 14 8 4
Community Services*
Beach House Operations 700700
Community Recreation 41 132260 0
Cultural Affairs 210101Housing & Human Services 330100
Records & Elec Svcs (City Clerk) 18 10 3 5 3 1
City Manager's Office 28 170110 0Finance 14 0 2 12 2 0
Library 37 2 0 35 0 0
802 336 242 225 53 49
* The analysis for all Community Services divisions was done at the program level, not the individual fee level. Within each programarea, there may be multiple individual fees that were adjusted based on this overall programmatic analysis.

City of Santa Monica
Summary of Fee Adjustments
FY 2020‐21
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Methodology
A cost‐of‐service study is comprised of two basic elements:
 Hourly rates of staff providing the service.  Time spent to provide the service.

The product of the hourly rate calculation times the time spent yields the cost of providing the service.

Hourly Rates The hourly rate methodology used in this study builds indirect costs into city staff hourly salary and benefit rates to arrive at fully burdened hourly rates. Fully burdened hourly rates are a mechanism used to calculate the total cost of providing services. Total cost is generally recognized as the sum of the direct cost together with a proportionate share of allowable indirect costs. The proper identification of all costs (including labor, operating expense, department administration and citywide support) as “direct” or “indirect” is crucial to the determination of the total cost of providing services. Direct costs are typically defined as those that can be identified specifically to a particular function or activity, including the labor of persons working directly on the specific service for which the fee is charged, and possibly materials or supplies those people use for the task. Indirect costs are those that support more than one program area and are not easily identifiable to specific activities. Examples of indirect costs are: 1) departmental administrative and support staff, 2) training and education time, 3) public counter and telephone time, 4) some service and supply costs, and 5) citywide overhead costs from outside of the department as identified in the City’s cost allocation plan.

MGT’s hourly rate calculation methodology includes the following: Personnel Services Analysis – each staff classification within the department or division is analyzed in the study. The first burden factor is comprised of compensated absences such as vacation/holidays/sick leave days taken in a year’s time. Staff classifications are then categorized as either direct (operational) or indirect (administrative or supervisory) labor. In some cases, a classification will have both direct and indirect duties. The total indirect portion of staff cost is incorporated into hourly overhead rates.

Indirect Cost Rate – a ratio of indirect cost to direct labor (salaries plus benefits) is established. There are three elements of indirect cost incorporated, including:
 Indirect Labor – includes total compensation, administrative and supervisory staff costs.  Other Operating Expenses – most services and supplies are included as a second layer of indirect cost and are prorated across all fees and services. There are some service and supply expenses classified as “allowable direct. Some examples of these are professional services Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
expenses, or sports supplies. These allowable direct expenses would be directly associated with specific fees or programs, as opposed to being allocated across all activities through the indirect overhead.  External Indirect Allocations – this represents the prorated portion of citywide overhead (from the City’s cost allocation plan) which is attributable to the service for which the fee is charged.

Fully Burdened Hourly Rates – incorporates all the elements that comprise the hourly rates used in this cost analysis.  Each direct or operational staff classification is listed, together with the average annual salary.  The hourly salary rate is calculated by taking the annual salary of an employee and dividing by 2,080 available productive hours in a year.  The benefit rate reflects the average benefit rate as a percentage of the salary rate. Multiplying this percentage by the hourly salary rate determines the benefit rate to be included in the fully burdened rate.  The overhead rate is derived by multiplying the internal and external indirect cost rates against the salary plus benefit rates.

The total combines the salary, benefits and overhead rates. This is the fully burdened rate for each staff classification. MGT prepared indirect overhead rates and corresponding hourly rate calculations using FY 2020‐21 budgeted expenditures. Time Spent Once fully burdened hourly rates were developed for city staff, the next step in the process was to identify staff time spent directly on each of the user fee activities. Each staff person involved in the user fee services identified time spent to complete each task associated with all user fee services. Annual volume statistics from FY 2019‐20 (combined with FY 2020‐21 projections) were also gathered in order to develop total annual workload information. This information is provided in detailed user fee workbooks which were provided to the City upon completion of the study. Fee Calculations and Revenue Projections Given this information, MGT was able to calculate the cost of providing each service, both on a per‐unit and total annual basis (per‐unit cost multiplied by annual volume equals total annual cost). As mentioned above, costs were calculated by multiplying per‐unit time estimates by the hourly labor rates; additional operating expenses directly associated with certain services were also added in. Finally, if other departments or divisions provided support into certain user fee activities, this time was accounted for and added into the analysis as a crossover support activity. Full costs are then compared to current fees/revenues collected, and subsidies (or over‐recoveries) are identified. It should be noted that in some instances, volume statistics are not provided, typically due to sporadic or infrequent activity. In these instances, revenue projections have not been made. User fee summaries by department may be seen in Section II of this report.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations
Calculating the true cost of providing city services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and corresponding cost recovery levels. Although it is an important factor, other factors must also be given consideration. City decision‐makers must also consider the effects that establishing fees for services will have on the individuals purchasing those services, as well as the community as a whole. The following legal, economic and policy issues help illustrate these considerations.  State Law ‐ In California, user fees are limited to the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service" by Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. California voters approved Proposition 26 in November of 2010, which defined “taxes” as “any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government” subject to seven exceptions. Most of the exceptions require that the City charge a fee which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the City to provide the service for which the fee is charged. Thus, if the fee exceeds the reasonable cost of service, it may be considered a “tax” which must be approved by the voters. We have calculated each fee to recover no more than the reasonable cost of each service so that none of the fee adjustments recommended herein will be considered taxes under Proposition 26. Additionally, it should be noted that some fees (e.g., certain animal control fees or oversize permit fees) may be capped by state law and may not change, regardless of any cost analysis performed.  Economic barriers ‐ It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford.
 Community benefit ‐ The Council may wish to subsidize some user fees in order to reflect policy considerations which supersede cost recovery. Many community services fees have very moderate cost recovery levels. Some programs are provided free of charge or for a minimal fee regardless of cost. Youth and senior programs tend to have the lowest recovery levels. Miscellaneous classes tend to have a moderate cost recovery level and adult sports programs typically have a higher cost recovery level.  Private benefit ‐ If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, we recommend the fee be set at, or close to 100% full cost recovery.

Development related fees generally fall into this category; however, exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged exclusively to residential applicants.  Service driver ‐ In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 Managing demand ‐ For those fees which are not subject to pure cost recovery limitations, other market considerations may inform recommended fee levels. Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain city services; increasing the price of some services results in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa.  Competition ‐ Certain services, such as recreation classes, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City's fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private‐sector competitors could be adversely affected.  Incentives ‐ Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as a youth sports program or the issuance of a water heater permit.

One additional tool that many agencies use when considering how to establish fees for services is a comparison of what other agencies are charging for similar services. As part of this study, MGT collected fee schedules from surrounding area cities and extracted a sampling of fees to compare with fees charged by the City of Santa Monica. The results of the comparison survey may be found in Section III at the end of this report.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Section II

USER FEE SUMMARIES BY DEPARTMENT
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Community Development
Building & Safety
Code Enforcement
Planning
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025

USER FEE SUMMARIES BY DEPARTMENT
Community Development The user fee/cost analyses for this department mirrors the structure of City’s fee schedule and was developed separately for each division:
 Building & Safety  Code Enforcement  Planning
Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity of the service provided in each instance.  Per square (or linear) foot – the fee is calculated based on the size of the project under review.  Hourly (or time‐and‐materials) – city staff track time and materials expense, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs. Actual cost – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the City.  Percentage of permit – the fee is calculated as a percentage of the original permit fee.

Building & Safety Building permit and plan check fees benefit individuals and the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s policy is to generally ‐ but with some exceptions ‐ set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee‐for‐service activities. Within the Building & Safety Division, current fees recover 105% of costs to provide services for which fees are charged. In keeping with State law, the target cost recovery percentage must be set at 100%. We have proposed several fee reductions to keep the Division within State cost recovery limits. The State of California further restricts solar panel review fees to specific pricing. All proposed solar panel review fees comply with limits established by AB 1414. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments result in a revenue reduction of 5% ($397,120) per year for an overall recovery rate of 100% of total user fee costs. Building & Safety restructured some of their fee categories to better reflect the current process, staffing levels and to be a more user‐friendly fee schedule. Five new fees are proposed for institution:

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 Construction Management Plan Review – this new fee ($1,676.05) ensures that developments comply with all state and local laws regulating pollution and dust control, run‐off mitigation efforts and other NPDES related concerns. CDD Planning, DOT Mobility and PW Engineering staff costs are included in this fee.  Seismic Retrofit Plan Check – Consultant – this new fee (actual cost) allows the City to pass on consultant costs to the developer. Seismic Retrofit Peer Review – Consultant ‐ this new fee (actual cost) allows the City to pass on consultant costs to the developer. Mobile Home Parks – This new fee ($252.55) has been proposed to comply with Title 25, CCR. Investigation Fee for Work Without a Permit – Most cities utilize fees and/or policies to discourage illegal construction. This new fee will enable staff to recover all investigative work required to investigate and document illegal construction. The property owner will be charged for all staff or consultant costs incurred. The owner will then need to apply for a construction permit and pay the regular fees required.

Several fees are proposed for removal from this Division’s fee schedule either because they are duplicative of other fees, or they no longer reflect current processes. Each proposed deletion is noted with a Delete notation in the Fee Description column on the User Fee Study Summary Sheet following this narrative. Code Enforcement Code enforcement fees benefit businesses, the development community, and the citizens of Santa Monica and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s policy is to generally ‐ but with some exceptions ‐ set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee‐for‐service activities. Within the Code Enforcement Division, current fees recover 48% of the total costs to provide services for which fees are charged. Recommended fees are set at 100% of cost, except for Non‐Automotive Impound Fees, which will remain unchanged at its current recovery level of 39%. This 39% recovery rate for Non‐Automotive Impound Fees is recommended in order to maintain the fees set for the Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program which is currently authorized through March 31, 2022.

Assuming no loss in demand, recommended fee adjustments will result in an additional $26,797 revenue per year. Most current Code Enforcement fees are recovering upwards of 80% of cost recovery and fee adjustments to 100% of cost are fairly moderate (it is worth noting that these fees were originally established before there was any history on the time required to provide the service). Three of the 11 fees analyzed are only recovering 33% ‐35% of costs and adjusting two of these three fees to recover 100% of cost will produce nearly all of the proposed additional revenue:
 Home Sharing Permit Initial Fee – this fee is recommended to increase from $100.00 up to $289.31.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 Home Sharing Permit Annual Renewal ‐ this fee is recommended to increase from $50.00 up to $151.91.  Non‐Automotive Impound Fee (per item) - this fee is recommended to remain unchanged at $98.99.

Planning The Planning Division administers and implements City land use and development policies. The Division processes numerous land use applications requiring city approval before the land can be developed or action taken. These services benefit the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s policy is to generally ‐ but with some exceptions ‐ set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee‐for‐service activities. Within the Planning Division, current fees recover 54% of related fee‐for‐service costs. A combination of fee increases, and decreases are recommended, generating a net $214,486 additional annual revenue.

Highlights of the Planning fee analysis are provided below:
 Administrative Approval: Non‐Downtown Housing Project – this is a new fee proposal (flat fee of $9,640.78) within the Division’s Administrative Approvals program and matches existing fees for Downtown Housing Project Administrative Approvals.  Appeal: Planning Permit and Noise Variance – the City historically subsidizes a majority of these costs to keep them affordable to the public. Cost recovery is recommended to increase slightly from 3% up to 4%, with the fee increasing from $516.83 up to $593.97.  Fence, Wall, Hedge Height modification: Discretionary – these fees are historically subsidized. Currently these fees recover 6% of costs.

Staff recommend increasing the recovery rate up to 50%, with the fee increasing from $300.09 up to $2,705.65.  Fence, Wall, Hedge Height modification: Administrative – these fees are historically subsidized. Currently these fees recover 16% of costs. Staff recommend increasing the recovery rate up to 50%, with the fee increasing from $309.47 up to $942.25.  Historic District Designation – these fees are historically subsidized. Currently these fees recover 4% of costs. Staff recommend increasing the recovery rate up to 7%, with the fee increasing from $1,186.00 up to $2,066.61.  Landmark Designation – these fees are historically subsidized. Currently these fees recover 8% of costs. Staff recommend increasing the recovery rate up to 11%, with the fee increasing from $816.00 up to $1,092.92.  SB 330 Preliminary Application – this new fee proposal (flat fee of $308.05) recovers the cost of reviewing preliminary residential housing applications which qualify under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.  Structure of Merit ‐ these fees are historically subsidized. Currently these fees recover 9% of costs. Staff recommend increasing the recovery rate up to 11%, with the fee increasing from $876.00 up to $1,030.47.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 Outdoor Dining – With no Barriers – these fees were recently established.  However, with an overhaul of the outdoor dining process, Planning staff involvement in these applications will be greatly reduced.  Accordingly, staff recommended lowering this fee (from $1,153.49 down to $417.15) to reflect this updated process.
 Outdoor Dining – With Barriers – these fees were recently established.  However, with an overhaul of the outdoor dining process, Planning staff involvement in these applications will be greatly reduced.  Accordingly, staff recommended lowering this fee (from $1,153.49 down to $417.15) to reflect this updated process.  General Plan Surcharge – This proposed surcharge expands the existing LUCE and Downtown Community Plan surcharge to include a markup sufficient to recover the cost of the upcoming Housing Element update.  The proposed surcharge of 7.3% is to be applied against all other Planning fees assessed to the public.
 Local Coastal Program Surcharge – This new surcharge applies only to projects within the Local Coastal Zone.   Development in the Coastal Zone requires approval of any required City discretionary permits followed by Coastal Commission's approval of a Coastal Development Permit or waiver (if allowed) prior to issuance of building permits.  This surcharge of 0.65% is to be applied against all other Planning fees within the Coastal Zone.  Fee Waivers – several fees, including three new fee proposals were calculated but are recommended for fee waivers, as authorized by the City Council during the FY 2020‐21 budget process.  Each fee waiver is noted with a Fee Waived notation in the Fee Description column on the User Fee Study Summary Sheet following this narrative.  Mills Act Contract ‐ The Mills Act is a state law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures.

Such contracts require a reduction of property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of the property. Although MGT has calculated the cost of providing this service, this fee is proposed to be waived.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Building & Safety
2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 704.01 ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW704.02 Preliminary Review 0704.03 First Two Hours Flat Fee              677. 13 $           84 $          631.33 107% 8,207 $             $            8,812 $              (605) 100% 631.33 $           $            8,207 $              (605) ‐$ 704.04 Each Additional Hour Delete             338. ‐ $           92 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.05 Over The Counter PC 0704.06 Standard‐up to two reviews Flat Fee            645. 605 $           62 $          607.94 106% 367,803 $         $        390,600 $        (22,797) 100% 607.94 $           $        367,803 $        (22,797) ‐$ 704.07 Additional‐each review after two Delete             250. ‐ $           97 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.08 Formal Plan Review: New Buildings and Accessory Structures 0 $                ‐ ‐$                 ‐$ 704.09 One and Two Family Dwellings ‐ main & accessory buildings Flat Fee + sf 56              6, $       377.76 $      5,383.20 118% 301,459 $         $        357,155 $        (55,695) 100% $      5,383.20 $        301,459 $        (55,695) ‐$                704.10 Apartments, Condominiums and Hotels (and attached parking) Flat Fee + sf 26              14, $     009.74 $    15,174.44 92% 394,535 $         $        364,253 $          30,282 100% 15,174.44 $     $        394,535 $          30,282 ‐$ 704.11 Commercial/Industrial‐ complete building (and attached parking): 0 704.12 1st 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf                19, 8 $ 396.39 $    19,307.94 100% 154,464 $         $        155,171 $              (708) 100% 19,307.94 $     $        154,464 $              (708) ‐$ 704.13 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             5, ‐ $       542.00 $      5,173.16 107% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 5,173.16 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.14 Commercial/Industrial‐ shell only (including freestanding garage structures): 0 704.15 1st 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf                12, 1 $     663.31 $    11,231.21 113% 11,231 $           $          12,663 $           (1,432) 100% 11,231.21 $     $          11,231 $           (1,432) ‐$                704.16 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             6, ‐ $       137.00 $      4,702.87 130% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 4,702.87 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.17        Commercial Garage Structures‐ stand alone structures (10,000 sq ft) Delete             739. ‐ $           31 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.18 Additional‐ hourly charge after 3 reviews Delete             338. ‐ $           92 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.19   Any projects of 4 stories or more add'l 5% ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.20 Formal Plan Review: Additions and Alterations 0704.21 Residential Remodel and Additions‐ main & accessory bldgs Flat Fee + sf 139            2, $       484.46 $ 2,450.59 101% 340,632 $ $        345,340 $           (4,708) 100% 2,450.59 $       $        340,632 $           (4,708) ‐$ 704.22 Commercial Tenant Improvements 0 ‐
704.23 0 ‐ 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf 206            8, $       620.75 $      7,010.26 123% 1,444,114 $     $    1,775,875 $      (331,761) 100% $      7,010.26 $    1,444,114 $      (331,761) ‐$ 704.24 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             6, ‐ $       811.68 $      5,862.43 116% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 5,862.43 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.25              Additional Plan Check‐ each review after three Delete             266. ‐ $           29 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.26 Interior Demolition704.27 0 ‐ 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf 35              1, $       887.29 $      1,273.23 148% 44,563 $           $          66,055 $        (21,492) 100% $      1,273.23 $          44,563 $        (21,492) ‐$ 704.28 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             1, ‐ $       200.00 $          674.77 178% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 674.77 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.29 MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW704.30 Presubmittal Review Flat Fee             532. ‐ $           57 $          327.50 163% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 327.50 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.31 Over The Counter / Same‐Day Review PC
704.32 Standard‐up to two reviews Flat Fee              532. 11 $           57 $          327.50 163% 3,603 $             $            5,858 $           (2,256) 100% 327.50 $           $            3,603 $           (2,256) ‐$ 704.33 Additional‐ each review after two Delete             230. ‐ $           36 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.34 Formal Plan Review704.35 Standard‐up to three reviews Flat Fee            921. 182 $           48 $          847.06 109% 154,164 $         $        167,709 $        (13,545) 100% 847.06 $           $        154,164 $        (13,545) ‐$ 704.36 Additional‐ hourly charge after 3 reviews Delete             266. ‐ $           29 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.37 ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW704.38 Presubmittal Review Flat Fee             532. ‐ $           57 $          449.85 118% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 449.85 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.39 Over The Counter / Same‐Day Review PC704.40 Standard‐up to two reviews Flat Fee              532. 51 $           57 $          449.85 118% 22,942 $           $          27,161 $           (4,219) 100% 449.85 $           $          22,942 $           (4,219) ‐$ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Building & Safety
2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
704.41 Additional‐ each review after two Delete             230. ‐ $           ‐$                 36 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.42 Formal Plan Review704.43 Standard‐up to three reviews Flat Fee            921. 376 $           48 $      1,091.75 84% 410,498 $         $        346,476 $          64,022 100% 1,091.75 $       $        410,498 $          64,022 ‐$ 704.44 Additional‐ hourly charge after 3 reviews Delete             266. ‐ $           29 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.45 PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW704.46 Presubmittal Review Flat Fee             532. ‐ $           57 $          327.50 163% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 327.50 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.47 Over The Counter / Same‐Day Review PC704.48 Standard‐up to two reviews Flat Fee                532. 4 $           57 $          327.50 163% 1,310 $             $            2,130 $              (820) 100% 327.50 $           $            1,310 $              (820) ‐$ 704.49 Additional‐ each review after two Delete             230. ‐ $           36 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.50 Formal Plan Review704.51 Standard‐up to three reviews Flat Fee            921. 188 $           48 $          847.06 109% 159,247 $         $        173,238 $        (13,992) 100% 847.06 $           $        159,247 $        (13,992) ‐$ 704.52 Additional‐ hourly charge after 3 reviews Delete             266. ‐ $           29 ‐$                 0% ‐$ ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.53 MISCELLANEOUS PLAN REVIEW FEES704.54 Deferred Submittals Flat Fee              1, 24 $       355.69 $      1,182.55 115% 28,381 $           $          32,537 $           (4,155) 100% 1,182.55 $       $          28,381 $           (4,155) ‐$ 704.55 Additional Plan Check‐ each review after three Delete             338. ‐ $           92 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.56 Demolition Flat Fee              215. 95 $           51 $          241.97 89% 22,988 $           $          20,473 $            2,514 100% 241.97 $           $          22,988 $            2,514 ‐$ 704.57 Means and Methods Plan formal review Flat Fee            416. 199 $           93 $          490.73 85% 97,655 $           $          82,969 $          14,686 100% 490.73 $           $          97,655 $          14,686 ‐$ 704.58 Additional Plan Check‐ each review after three Delete             303. ‐ $           00 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.59 Construction Management Plan review New ‐ Flat Fee ‐ ‐$                 1,676.05 $       0% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 1,676.05 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.60 Planning Application Review ‐ with or without Presubmittal Review Flat Fee             287. ‐ $           36 $          306.70 94% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 306.70 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.61 Minimum Plan Review fee Flat Fee            1, 123 $       160.44 $      1,243.04 93% 152,894 $ $        142,734 $          10,160 100% 1,243.04 $       $        152,894 $          10,160 ‐$ 704.62 Plan Review Not Otherwise Classified:704.63 General hourly rate and excessive plan reviews (more than 2 OTC or 3 formal) Hourly            267. 950 $           08 $          273.72 98% 260,036 $         $        253,726 $            6,310 100% 273.72 $           $        260,036 $            6,310 ‐$ 704.64 COMBINATION BUILDING PERMITS704.65 One and Two Family Dwellings Flat Fee + sf 37              6, $       426.60 $      5,054.42 127% 187,014 $         $        237,784 $        (50,771) 100% $      5,054.42 $        187,014 $        (50,771) ‐$                704.66 Apartments, Condominiums and Hotels (and attached parking) Flat Fee + sf 15              15, $     107.68 $    11,550.92 131% 173,264 $         $        226,615 $        (53,351) 100% $    11,550.92 $        173,264 $        (53,351) ‐$ 704.67 Commercial/Industrial ‐ complete building (and attached parking)704.68 1st 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf                17, 3 $     569.02 $    13,396.07 131% 40,188 $           $          52,707 $        (12,519) 100% $    13,396.07 $          40,188 $        (12,519) ‐$ 704.69 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             11, ‐ $     006.86 $      6,128.46 180% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 6,128.46 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.70 Commercial/Industrial‐ shell only (including freestanding garage structures)704.71 1st 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf                11, 2 $     527.82 $      8,974.82 128% 17,950 $           $          23,056 $           (5,106) 100% $      8,974.82 $          17,950 $ (5,106) ‐$ 704.72 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             8, ‐ $       500.00 $      5,895.00 144% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 5,895.00 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.73 Commercial Garage Structures‐ stand alone structures (10,000 sq ft) Delete             176. ‐ $           82 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.74 Residential Remodel and Additions‐ main & accessory bldgs Flat Fee + sf 177            2, $       026.96 $      2,121.92 96% 375,580 $         $        358,772 $          16,808 100% 2,121.92 $       $        375,580 $          16,808 ‐$ 704.75 Commercial Tenant Improvements704.76 0 ‐ 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf 185            5, $       425.65 $      5,022.40 108% 929,144 $         $    1,003,745 $        (74,601) 100% $      5,022.40 $        929,144 $        (74,601) ‐$                704.77 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             4, ‐ $       057.00 $      3,473.61 117% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 3,473.61 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.78 Interior Demolition704.79 0 ‐ 10,000 square feet Flat Fee + sf 35              1, $       361.55 $      1,477.73 92% 51,720 $           $          47,654 $            4,066 100% 1,477.73 $       $          51,720 $            4,066 ‐$                704.80 Additional 10,000 square feet per sf             733. ‐ $           00 $ 491.25 149% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 491.25 $           $ ‐ ‐$                 ‐$ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Building & Safety
2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
704.81 Any project of 4 Stories or more add'l 5% ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.82 SINGLE TRADE PERMITS704.83 Residential ‐ 3 inspections max Flat Fee 1,741 $          213.41 $          371.90 57% 647,478 $         $        371,547 $        275,931 100% 371.90 $           $        647,478 $        275,931 ‐$ 704.84         Additional Inspections‐ each Flat Fee 260 $            81.85 $          122.81 67% 31,931 $           $          21,281 $          10,650 100% 122.81 $           $          31,931 $          10,650 ‐$ 704.85 All others (Commercial, Demolition, etc)‐ 3 inspections max Flat Fee            435. 429 $           34 $          371.90 117% 159,545 $         $        186,761 $        (27,216) 100% 371.90 $           $        159,545 $        (27,216) ‐$ 704.86        Additional Inspections‐ each Flat Fee              165. 25 $           54 $          122.81 135% 3,070 $             $            4,139 $           (1,068) 100% 122.81 $           $            3,070 $           (1,068) ‐$                704.87 AFTER HOURS PERMITS704.88 Review of Application Flat Fee              417. 29 $           02 $          448.45 93% 13,005 $           $          12,094 $               911 100% 448.45 $           $          13,005 $               911 ‐$ 704.89 Inspections‐ per hour (2 hour minimum) hourly              295. 32 $           20 $          272.95 108% 8,734 $             $            9,446 $              (712) 100% 272.95 $           $            8,734 $              (712) ‐$ 704.9 MISCELLANEOUS INSPECTIONS704.91 Inspections Not Otherwise Classified ‐ each hour or fraction thereof Flat Fee              338. 50 $           12 $ 272.95 124% 13,647 $           $          16,906 $           (3,259) 100% 272.95 $           $          13,647 $           (3,259) ‐$ 704.92 Reinspection Fee 0704.93 Combination Building Permit Flat Fee              278. 46 $           99 $          248.60 112% 11,435 $           $          12,834 $           (1,398) 100% 248.60 $           $          11,435 $           (1,398) ‐$ 704.94 Single trade Permit‐ Residential Flat Fee 170 $            35.91 $          153.06 23% 26,020 $           $            6,105 $          19,915 100% 153.06 $           $          26,020 $          19,915 ‐$ 704.95 Single trade Permit‐ All Others Flat Fee              165. 20 $           54 $          153.06 108% 3,061 $             $            3,311 $              (250) 100% 153.06 $           $            3,061 $              (250) ‐$                704.96 Minimum Inspection Fee ‐ all permits except Single Trade Flat Fee            629. 950 $           80 $          439.62 143% 417,641 $         $        598,310 $      (180,669) 100% 439.62 $           $        417,641 $      (180,669) ‐$ 704.97 MISCELLANEOUS FEES704.98 Address Assignment Fee Flat Fee              376. 17 $           16 $          407.19 92% 6,922 $             $            6,395 $               527 100% 407.19 $           $            6,922 $               527 ‐$ 704.99 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Flat Fee              628. 95 $           01 $          451.59 139% 42,901 $           $          59,661 $        (16,759) 100% 451.59 $           $          42,901 $        (16,759) ‐$ 704.100 Change of Record on a Permit Flat Fee
704.101 Single Trade Permit (Residential only) Flat Fee                22.25 9 $             $            60.49 37% 544 $                $               200 $               344 100% 60.49 $             $               544 $               344 ‐$ 704.102 All Other Permit Types Flat Fee              47.89 64 $             $            60.49 79% 3,872 $             $            3,065 $               807 100% 60.49 $             $            3,872 $               807 ‐$ 704.103 Engineering Report Review 0704.104 Seismic Retrofit Report Review Flat Fee + Per Hour 24              132. $           54 $          382.97 35% 9,191 $             $            3,181 $            6,010 100% 382.97 $           $            9,191 $            6,010 ‐$ 704.105 Seismic Retrofit Plan Check Flat Fee + Per Hour 310            132. $           54 $          382.97 35% 118,721 $         $          41,087 $          77,634 100% 382.97 $           $        118,721 $          77,634 ‐$ 704.106        Seismic Retrofit Plan Check ‐ Consultant** New ‐ Actual Cost ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee recommendation to recover actual consultant costs ‐‐ 704.107 Seismic Retrofit Permit Flat Fee + Per Hour 259 $            38.26 $            34.31 112% 8,886 $             $            9,909 $           (1,024) 100% 34.31 $             $            8,886 $           (1,024) ‐$ 704.108 Seismic Retrofit Peer Review Per Hour              279. 40 $           22 $          235.14 119% 9,406 $             $          11,169 $           (1,763) 100% 235.14 $           $            9,406 $           (1,763) ‐$ 704.109       Seismic Retrofit Peer Review ‐ Consultant** New ‐ Actual Cost ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee recommendation to recover actual consultant costs ‐‐ 704.110 Alternate Methods of Construction:704.111 Premanufactured Products Flat Fee             1, ‐ $       392.67 $      1,142.65 122% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 1,142.65 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.112 Field Constructed Flat Fee             2, ‐ $       743.36 $      2,280.05 120% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 2,280.05 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.113 Geotechnical Reports:704.114 Addendum to Original Soils Report Flat Fee             1, ‐ $       273.70 $      1,102.90 115% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 1,102.90 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.115 As Built Compaction Reports Flat Fee             1, ‐ $       926.48 $      1,652.57 117% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 1,652.57 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.116 Fault Trench Flat Fee             5, ‐ $       756.32 $      4,824.57 119% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 4,824.57 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.117 Building/Shoring Plan Review Flat Fee                1, 9 $       345.68 $      1,229.44 109% 11,065 $           $          12,111 $           (1,046) 100% 1,229.44 $       $ 11,065 $           (1,046) ‐$ 704.118 Commercial/Mixed Use/ Apts (over 4 stories including subterranean garage) Flat Fee              3, 24 $       578.17 $      3,049.01 117% 73,176 $           $          85,876 $        (12,700) 100% $      3,049.01 $          73,176 $        (12,700) ‐$ 704.119 Standard Reviews and All Others not listed above Flat Fee            2, 110 $       752.64 $      2,353.80 117% 258,917 $         $        302,790 $        (43,873) 100% $      2,353.80 $        258,917 $        (43,873) ‐$ 704.120 Sound Attenuation Flat Fee              472. 12 $           45 $          625.99 75% 7,512 $             $            5,669 $            1,842 100% 625.99 $           $            7,512 $            1,842 ‐$ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Building & Safety
2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
704.121 Energy Compliance‐ Title 24, Part 6 C.E.C. Flat Fee            466. 427 $           59 $          621.05 75% 265,186 $         $        199,234 $          65,952 100% 621.05 $           $        265,186 $          65,952 ‐$ 704.122 Green Building Code Compliance ‐ Title 24, Part 11 10% of pln chk ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.123 Extension Fees 0704.124 To Start Construction Flat Fee              471. 30 $           02 $          457.45 103% 13,723 $           $          14,131 $              (407) 100% 457.45 $           $          13,723 $              (407) ‐$ 704.125 To Resume or Complete Construction Flat Fee            535. 136 $           85 $          512.05 105% 69,638 $           $          72,876 $           (3,237) 100% 512.05 $           $          69,638 $           (3,237) ‐$ 704.126 To Start Construction‐ Single Trade Residential Flat Fee                207. 1 $           76 $          243.95 85% 244 $                $               208 $                 36 100% 243.95 $           $               244 $                 36 ‐$ 704.127 To Resume or Complete Construction‐ Single Trade Residential Flat Fee                225. 3 $           38 $          243.95 92% 732 $                $               676 $                 56 100% 243.95 $           $               732 $                 56 ‐$ 704.128 License Fees 0704.129 Special Inspector License ‐ Qualification Review Flat Fee              467. 71 $           80 $          454.43 103% 32,264 $           $          33,214 $              (949) 100% 454.43 $           $          32,264 $              (949) ‐$ 704.130 Fabricator License ‐ Qualification Review Flat Fee             467. ‐ $           80 $          454.43 103% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 454.43 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.131 Miscellaneous Reviews 0704.132 Building and Safety Appeal Flat Fee             2, ‐ $       758.20 $      2,664.91 104% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 2,664.91 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.133 Accessibility Hardship  Exemption Flat Fee             428. ‐ $           78 $          859.40 50% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 859.40 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                704.134 Review and Approval of Testing Lab Flat Fee             670. ‐ $           11 $      1,002.11 67% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 1,002.11 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.135 Modification of Technical Code: 0 ‐704.136 No Administrative hearing‐ Staff Approval‐ each main code issue Flat Fee             1, ‐ $       438.85 $      1,229.08 117% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 1,229.08 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.137 Administrative hearing‐ Building Officer‐ project basis Flat Fee             2, ‐ $       619.78 $      2,193.44 119% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 2,193.44 $       ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.138 Record Fees 0
704.139 Residential Building Record Flat Fee            344. 752 $           31 $          302.47 114% 227,456 $         $        258,921 $        (31,465) 100% 302.47 $           $        227,456 $        (31,465) ‐$ 704.140 Approved Plans and Permits (Bonded Copies) actual cost 4 ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee recommendation to recover actual consultant costs ‐‐ 704.141 Application Processing Flat Fee             164. ‐ $           71 $          161.81 102% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 161.81 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.142 Maintenance of Permit and Plan Documents 13% of pmt 3,842 ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.143 Renewal Fees 0704.144 Expired Plan Check ‐ Formal: 0704.145 Plan Check Extension and Renewal Application Processing Only Flat Fee            489. 107 $           53 $          445.30 110% 47,647 $           $          52,380 $           (4,733) 100% 445.30 $           $          47,647 $           (4,733) ‐$ 704.146 Any Others Flat Fee             1, ‐ $       479.09 $          445.30 332% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 445.30 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.147 Excessive Plan Check (Per Hour) Delete             338. ‐ $           92 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ staff recommends removing this fee ‐‐ 704.148 Permit Renewals 0704.149 No Inspection 100% of pmt ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% $                ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.150 Rough Inspection 50% of pmt ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.151 Final Inspection 20% of pmt ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.152 Replacement Card 0704.153 Replacement I Single Trade Flat Fee                23.93 1 $             $            60.49 40% $                 60 $                 24 $                 37 100% 60.49 $             $                 60 $                 37 ‐$                704.154 Replacement I All Others Flat Fee              23.93 12 $             $            60.49 40% 726 $                $               287 $               439 100% 60.49 $             $               726 $               439 ‐$ 704.155 Mobile Home Parks New ‐ Flat Fee ‐ ‐$                 252.55 $           0% ‐$                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 252.55 $           ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.156 Investigation Fee For Work Without a Permit New ‐ Actual Cost ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee recommendation to recover actual consultant costs ‐‐ 704.157 REFUNDS704.158 Issuance Fees no refunds ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.159 Plan Review704.160 Presubmittal Review no refunds ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$ ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Building & Safety
2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
704.161 OTC / Same‐Day Review no refunds ‐             ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.162 Formal Plan Review704.163 First review not started 80% of fees ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.164 First review started and up to completion of first round of review 50% of fees ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.165 Second review started and up to completion of second round of review no refunds ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.166 Engineering Reports704.167 First review not started 80% of fees ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.168 First review started and up to completion of first round of review 50% of fees ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.169 Second review started and up to completion of second round of review no refunds ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.170 Inspection Fees ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 704.171 Consruction work not yet started 80% of fees ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 704.172 Solar Panel Review Fees 704.173 Residential 704.174 Photovoltaic (solar panels) 15kW or less Set by AB 1414 ‐ $               450 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$ $                ‐ ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.175 Photovoltaic (solar panels) more than 15kW (plus $15 per kw above 15) Set by AB 1414 ‐ $               450 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.176 Solar Thermal 10kW or less Set by AB 1414 ‐ $               450 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.177 Solar Thermal more than 10kW (plus $15 per kw above 10) Set by AB 1414 ‐ $               450 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.178 Commercial 704.179 Photovoltaic (solar panels) 15kW or less Set by AB 1414 ‐ $            1,000 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.180 Photovoltaic (solar panels) more than 50kW and up to 250kW (plus $7 per kw abo Set by AB 1414 ‐             1,000 $             ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.181 Photovoltaic (solar panels) more than 250kW (plus $5 per kw above 250) Set by AB 1414 ‐ $            2,400 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.182 Solar Thermal 30kW or less Set by AB 1414 ‐ $            1,000 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.183 Solar Thermal more than 30kW and up to 260kW (plus $7 per kw above 30) Set by AB 1414 ‐ $            1,000 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ 704.184 Solar Thermal more than 260kW (plus $5 per kw above 260) Set by AB 1414 ‐ $            2,610 ‐$                 0% ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee set pursuant to the limits established by AB 1414 ‐‐ Total User Fees $8,699,947 $9,097,067 ‐$397,120 $8,699,947 ‐$397,120 $0% of Full Cost 105% ‐5% 100% ‐4% 0% Footnotes
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaCDD ‐ Code EnforcementFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 705.01 Noise Ordinance‐ After Hours Permit Flat Fee               $1,018.57 1,021.32 50 $        100% 51,066 $           $          50,928 $                138 100% 1,021.32 $        $          51,066 $                138 ‐$ 705.02 Residential Bldg Rept ‐ Code Compl Review Flat Fee               $310.30 311.11 20 $           100% 6,222 $             $            6,206 $                  16 100% 311.11 $           $            6,222 $                  16 ‐$                705.03 Nonautomotive Impound Fee (per item) Flat Fee 1,400 $98.99 253.63 $           39% 355,077 $         $        138,586 $        216,491 39% 98.99 $             $        138,586 $                 216,491 ‐ $ 705.04 Home‐Sharing Permit ‐ Initial fee Flat Fee               $100.00 289.31 20 $           35% 5,786 $             $            2,000 $            3,786 100% 289.31 $           $            5,786 $            3,786 ‐$ 705.05 Home‐Sharing Permit ‐ Annual renewal fee Flat Fee             $50.00 151.91 222 $           33% 33,725 $           $          11,100 $          22,625 100% 151.91 $           $          33,725 $          22,625 $                ‐705.06 Medicinal Cannabis Light Manufacturer* Flat Fee                 $99.58 122.44 2 $           81% 245 $                 $                199 $                  46 100% 122.44 $           $                245 $                  46 ‐$ 705.07 Medicinal Cannabis Retailer‐ New: July ‐ September (4 inspections)* Flat Fee 2                $1,822.10 1,845.12 $        99% 3,690 $             $            3,644 $                  46 100% 1,845.12 $        $            3,690 $                  46 ‐$ 705.08 Medicinal Cannabis Retailer‐ New: October ‐ December (3 inspections)* Flat Fee                 $1,391.47 1,410.90 2 $        99% 2,822 $             $            2,783 $                  39 100% 1,410.90 $        $            2,822 $                  39 ‐$                705.09 Medicinal Cannabis Retailer‐ New: January ‐ March (2 inspections)* Flat Fee                 $960.84 976.67 2 $           98% 1,953 $             $            1,922 $                  32 100% 976.67 $           $            1,953 $                  32 ‐$ 705.10 Medicinal Cannabis Retailer‐ New: April ‐ June (1 inspection)* Flat Fee                 $530.21 542.45 2 $           98% 1,085 $             $            1,060 $                  24 100% 542.45 $           $            1,085 $                  24 ‐$ 705.11 Medicinal Cannabis Retailer ‐ Renewal* Flat Fee                 $1,822.10 1,845.12 2 $        99% 3,690 $             $            3,644 $                  46 100% 1,845.12 $        $            3,690 $                  46 ‐$ Total User Fees $465,362 $222,073 $243,289 $248,870 $26,797 $216,491% of Full Cost 48% 52% 53% 12% 47% Footnotes
705.03 Nonautomotive Impound Fee (per item) ‐ This fee is recommended to remain as is (with a 39% cost recovery level) in order to maintain the fees set for the Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program which is currently authorized through March 31, 2022.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Planning2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 702.01 Administrative Approval: Non‐Downtown Flat Fee                  5, 4 $          707.03 $         4,872.53 117% 19,490 $              $             22,828 $              (3,338) 100% 4,872.53 $          $             19,490 $              (3,338) ‐$ 702.02 Administrative Approval: Non‐Downtown Housing Project New ‐ Flat Fee 2 ‐$                    9, $          640.78 0% 19,282 $              ‐$                    $             19,282 100% 9,640.78 $          $             19,282 $             19,282 ‐$ 702.03
Downtown Administrative Approval: Non‐residential Projects up to 10,000 sf Flat Fee                  5, 2 $          707.03 $         4,872.53 117% 9,745 $                $             11,414 $              (1,669) 100% 4,872.53 $          $               9,745 $              (1,669) ‐$ 702.04
Downtown Administrative Approval: Housing Project up to 75,000 sf Flat Fee                  11, 2 $        413.02 $         9,640.78 118% 19,282 $              $             22,826 $              (3,544) 100% 9,640.78 $          $             19,282 $              (3,544) ‐$ 702.05 Alcohol Exemption Flat Fee 12 $             971.14 $             803.97 121% 9,648 $                $             11,654 $              (2,006) 100% 803.97 $              $               9,648 $              (2,006) ‐$ 702.06 Appeal ‐ Planning Permit and Noise Variance Flat Fee 13 $             516.83 $       14,849.17 3% $          193,039 $               6,719 $          186,320 4% $             593.97 $               7,722 $               1,003 $ 185,318 702.07
Architectural Review Board ‐ Building Color/Materials:

New Construction Flat Fee                4, 18 $          371.19 $       10,399.45 42% $          187,190 $             78,681 $          108,509 100% 10,399.45 $        $          187,190 $          108,509 ‐$ 702.08
Architectural Review Board ‐ Bldg. Color/Materials: Alt/Mod's Flat Fee                1, 14 $          456.71 $         4,889.86 30% 68,458 $              $             20,394 $             48,064 100% 4,889.86 $          $             68,458 $             48,064 ‐$ 702.09 Architectural Review Board ‐ Signs/Landscaping Flat Fee                1, 11 $          702.62 $         2,578.20 66% 28,360 $              $             18,729 $               9,631 100% 2,578.20 $          $             28,360 $               9,631 ‐$                   702.10 Architectural Review Board ‐ Sign Adjustment Flat Fee                  2, 7 $          003.76 $         2,190.04 91% 15,330 $              $             14,026 $               1,304 100% 2,190.04 $          $             15,330 $               1,304 ‐$ 702.11 Architectural Review Board Staff Approval ‐ All Others Flat Fee 63 $             425.13 $             938.59 45% 59,131 $              $             26,783 $             32,348 100% 938.59 $              $             59,131 $             32,348 ‐$ 702.12
Architectural Review Board (Staff approval  ‐ Single Trade  excluding signs & windows) Fee Waived 265 ‐$                    $             521.44 0% $          138,181 ‐$                    $          138,181 0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    $          138,181 702.13 Certificate of Appropriateness ‐ Staff Approval
New ‐ Fee
waived ‐ ‐$                    1, $          277.44 0% ‐$                    ‐$                    $ ‐ 0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.14 Certificate of Appropriateness ‐ Landmarks Commission New ‐ Fee
waived 15 ‐$                    13, $        342.15 0% $          200,132 ‐$                    $          200,132 0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    $          200,132 702.15 Certificate of Administrative Approval Fee Waived ‐ ‐$                    4, $          258.13 0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.16 Certificate of Compliance Flat Fee               2, ‐ $          185.07 $         2,593.67 84% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 2,593.67 $          ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.17 Certificate of Economic Hardship Flat Fee               11, ‐ $        049.36 $       13,767.97 80% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    85% 11, $        702.77 ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.18 Coastal Zone Approval In Concept Flat Fee 19 $             182.35 $             156.43 117% 2,972 $                $               3,465 $                 (492) 100% 156.43 $              $               2,972 $                 (492) ‐$ Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Planning2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
702.19 Conditional Use Permit ‐ All Others Flat Fee                  17, 8 $        240.93 $       15,544.53 111% 124,356 $           $          137,927 $           (13,571) 100% 15,544.53 $        $          124,356 $           (13,571) ‐$ 702.20 Conditional Use Permit ‐ Alcohol Flat Fee                  8, 4 $          499.59 $         7,809.91 109% 31,240 $              $             33,998 $              (2,759) 100% 7,809.91 $          $             31,240 $              (2,759) ‐$ 702.21 Deed Restriction Flat Fee 13 $             850.27 $         1,727.70 49% 22,460 $              $             11,054 $             11,407 100% 1,727.70 $          $             22,460 $             11,407 ‐$ 702.22 Demolition Permits Flat Fee ‐ $             861.73 $         1,344.12 64% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 1,344.12 $          ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.23
Development Agreement (per hour‐charged against an initial deposit of $50,000) Deposit ‐ Hourly ‐ $             242.78 $             246.83 98% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 246.83 $              ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.24 Development Review Flat Fee                  24, 7 $        041.02 $       26,571.47 90% $          186,000 $          168,287 $             17,713 100% 26,571.47 $        $          186,000 $             17,713 ‐$ 702.25 Fence, Wall Hedge Height mod. (Discretionary) Flat Fee 8 $             300.09 $ 5,411.30 6% 43,290 $              $               2,401 $             40,890 50% 2, $          705.65 $             21,645 $             19,244 $             21,645 702.26 Fence, Wall, Hedge Height mod. (Administrative) Flat Fee 4 $             309.47 $         1,884.50 16% 7,538 $                $               1,238 $               6,300 50% $             942.25 $               3,769 $               2,531 $               3,769 702.27 Final Map Flat Fee                  1, 3 $          699.50 $         1,184.81 143% 3,554 $                $               5,099 $              (1,544) 100% 1,184.81 $          $               3,554 $              (1,544) ‐$ 702.28 General Plan Amendment Flat Fee               16, ‐ $        512.57 $       31,002.34 53% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 31,002.34 $        ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.29 Historic District Designation
Flat + consultant
cost                  1, 1 $          186.00 $       29,523.06 4% 29,523 $              $               1,186 $             28,337 7% 2, $          066.61 $               2,067 $                  881 $             27,456 702.30 Landmark Designation
Flat + consultant
cost 54 $             816.00 $         9,935.65 8% $          536,525 $             44,064 $          492,461 11% 1, $          092.92 $             59,018 $             14,954 $          477,507 702.31 Planning Lot Line Adjustment Flat Fee                  2, 1 $          427.86 $         2,593.67 94% 2,594 $                $               2,428 $                  166 100% 2,593.67 $          $               2,594 $ 166 ‐$ 702.32 Major Modification Flat Fee                  5, 4 $          099.54 $         6,263.75 81% 25,055 $              $             20,398 $               4,657 100% 6,263.75 $          $             25,055 $               4,657 ‐$ 702.33 Minor Modification Flat Fee                1, 11 $          942.28 $         1,639.62 118% 18,036 $              $             21,365 $              (3,329) 100% 1,639.62 $          $             18,036 $              (3,329) ‐$                   702.34 Minor Use Permit Flat Fee                  6, 4 $          070.69 $         4,785.57 127% 19,142 $              $             24,283 $              (5,140) 100% 4,785.57 $          $             19,142 $              (5,140) ‐$                   702.35 Multiple Applications 100% Initial,
50% thereafter ‐ ‐$                    ‐$                    0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐‐ no cost analysis performed; fee to remain unchanged ‐‐ 702.36 Occupancy Permit Flat Fee                  2, 5 $          671.68 $         1,742.56 153% 8,713 $                $             13,358 $              (4,646) 100% 1,742.56 $          $               8,713 $              (4,646) ‐$ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Planning2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
702.37 Permit Extension ‐ Administrative Flat Fee 10 $             485.57 $             312.86 155% 3,129 $                $               4,856 $              (1,727) 100% 312.86 $              $               3,129 $              (1,727) ‐$ 702.38 Presubmittals Flat Fee                1, 12 $          093.05 $         1,668.60 66% 20,023 $              $             13,117 $               6,907 100% 1,668.60 $          $             20,023 $               6,907 ‐$ 702.39 SB330 Preliminary Application New ‐ Flat Fee ‐ ‐$                    $             308.05 0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 308.05 $              ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.40 Shared Parking Permit Flat Fee               3, ‐ $          400.04 $         2,398.62 142% $                   ‐ ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 2,398.62 $          ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.41 Structure of Merit
Flat + consultant
cost 1 $             876.00 $         9,367.90 9% 9,368 $                $                  876 $               8,492 11% 1, $          030.47 $               1,030 $                  154 $               8,337 702.42 Temporary Use Permit ‐ All Others Flat Fee 3 $             988.85 $             991.28 100% 2,974 $                $               2,967 $                       7 100% 991.28 $              $               2,974 $                       7 ‐$ 702.43 Temporary Use Permit ‐ Sales Flat Fee 2 $             329.27 $             425.05 77% $                  850 $                  659 $                  192 100% 425.05 $ $                  850 $                  192 ‐$                   702.44 Temporary Use Permit ‐ Repeat Event Flat Fee 9 $             384.49 $             425.05 90% 3,825 $                $               3,460 $                  365 100% 425.05 $              $               3,825 $                  365 ‐$ 702.45 Tentative Map Flat Fee                8, 10 $          256.80 $         5,081.11 162% 50,811 $              $             82,568 $           (31,757) 100% 5,081.11 $          $             50,811 $           (31,757) ‐$ 702.46 Text Amendment Zone Change Flat Fee               24, ‐ $        526.59 $       31,002.34 79% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 31,002.34 $        ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.47 Variance Application (including noise) Flat Fee                  14, 4 $        327.50 $       17,774.88 81% 71,100 $              $             57,310 $             13,790 100% 17,774.88 $        $             71,100 $             13,790 ‐$ 702.48 Waiver of Parcel Map Flat Fee                  2, 2 $          914.47 $         2,928.72 100% 5,857 $                $               5,829 $                     28 100% 2,928.72 $          $               5,857 $                     28 ‐$                   702.49 Waiver ‐ Zoning Ordinance Flat Fee                  5, 1 $          099.54 $         6,141.31 83% 6,141 $                $               5,100 $               1,042 100% 6,141.31 $          $               6,141 $               1,042 ‐$                   702.50 Zoning Conf Review: Alcohol Determination Flat Fee 6 $             971.14 $             488.12 199% 2,929 $                $               5,827 $ (2,898) 100% 488.12 $              $               2,929 $              (2,898) $ ‐ 702.51 Outdoor Dining ‐ With no Barriers Flat Fee                  1, 4 $          153.49 $             417.15 277% 1,669 $                $               4,614 $              (2,945) 100% 417.15 $              $               1,669 $              (2,945) ‐$ 702.52 Outdoor Dining ‐ With Barriers Flat Fee                  1, 4 $          153.49 $             417.15 277% 1,669 $                $               4,614 $              (2,945) 100% 417.15 $              $               1,669 $              (2,945) ‐$ 702.53 Zoning Conf Review: Zoning Compliance Letter Flat Fee                1, 32 $          335.84 $         1,251.45 107% 40,046 $              $             42,747 $              (2,700) 100% 1,251.45 $          $             40,046 $              (2,700) ‐$ 702.54 6409 Review ‐ Telecom
Flat + consultant
cost                1, 12 $          335.84 $         1,063.59 126% 12,763 $              $             16,030 $              (3,267) 100% 1,063.59 $          $             12,763 $              (3,267) ‐$ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Planning2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
702.55 General Plan Surcharge Surcharge                  67, 1 $        728.89 $    282,851.72 24% $          282,852 $             67,729 $          215,123 50% $    141,425.86 $          141,426 $             73,697 $          141,426 702.56 Business License Planning Review Flat Fee 1,059 $             109.41 $               94.37 116% 99,939 $              $          115,865 $           (15,926) 100% 94.37 $                $             99,939 $           (15,926) ‐$ 702.57 Business License Planning Review:  Home Occupation Flat Fee 150 $               55.22 $               47.19 117% 7,078 $                $               8,283 $              (1,205) 100% 47.19 $                $               7,078 $              (1,205) ‐$ 702.58 Environmental Exemptions ‐ Class 32 Flat Fee               9, ‐ $          955.26 $       17,967.65 55% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 17,967.65 $        ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.59 Environmental Exemptions ‐ TPP/Class 31 Flat Fee               2, ‐ $          212.16 $         3,992.81 55% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 3,992.81 $          ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.60 Mitigated Negative Declaration ‐ Negative Declaration Flat Fee               67, ‐ $        633.09 $    122,065.93 55% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    55% 67, $        633.09 ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                   702.61 Environmental Noticing Flat Fee               2, ‐ $          797.77 $         3,411.20 82% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 100% 3,411.20 $          ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.62
Environmental Impact Report Review (per hour, deposit of 37% of consultant contract) Per Hour ‐ $             316.04 $             346.19 91% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 346.19 $              ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.63 Traffic Study ‐ Without Model Run Flat Fee               23, ‐ $        426.24 $       34,470.84 68% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 34,470.84 $        ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.64 Traffic Study ‐ With Model Run Flat Fee               46, ‐ $        852.48 $       68,941.67 68% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 68,941.67 $        ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.65 Mailing Label Flat Fee ‐ $             162.55 $             149.00 109% $                   ‐ ‐$                    ‐$                    100% 149.00 $              ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ 702.66 Planning Plan Check, per plan (3 reviews) Flat Fee 541              1, $          193.09 $         1,024.66 116% 554,342 $           $          645,462 $           (91,120) 100% 1,024.66 $          $          554,342 $           (91,120) ‐$ 702.67 Planning Plan Check, per hour (after three reviews) Flat Fee 20 $             242.78 $             208.58 116% 4,172 $                $               4,856 $                 (684) 100% 208.58 $              $               4,172 $                 (684) ‐$702.68 Planning Plan Check, per hour ‐ plan revisions, restamping plans, and permit renewals Flat Fee 53 $             242.78 $             208.58 116% 11,054 $              $             12,867 $              (1,813) 100% 208.58 $              $             11,054 $              (1,813) ‐$ 702.69
Planning Plan Check, per hour, plan checks not otherwise classified. Flat Fee 24 $             242.78 $             208.58 116% 5,006 $                $               5,827 $                 (821) 100% 208.58 $              $               5,006 $                 (821) ‐$ 702.70 Planning Plan Check, over the counter Flat Fee 510 $             121.91 $             104.29 117% 53,187 $              $             62,174 $              (8,987) 100% 104.29 $              $             53,187 $              (8,987) ‐$ 702.71 Travel Demand Forecasting Model (TDFM) Surcharge                  12, 1 $        813.57 $    238,776.57 5% $          238,777 $             12,814 $          225,963 20% 47, $        755.31 $             47,755 $             34,942 $          191,021 702.73 Local Coastal Program Surcharge
New ‐
Surcharge 1 ‐$                    12, $        525.24 0% 12,525 $              ‐$                    $             12,525 20% 2, $          505.05 $               2,505 $               2,505 $             10,020 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CDD ‐ Planning2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
702.74 Mills Act Contract
New ‐ Fee
waived               ‐$                    5, ‐ $          0% ‐$                    833.08 ‐$                    ‐$                    0% ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$ Total User Fees $3,530,353 $1,911,053 $1,619,300 $2,125,539 $214,486 $1,404,814% of Full Cost 54% 46% 60% 11% 40% Footnotes
702.55 General Plan Surcharge This fee is currently listed on the City's fee schedule as "Downtown Community Plan/LUCE".  Staff recommends that this fee be re‐named to "General Plan Surcharge".

This fee is currently charged as a 3.7% surcharge applied against current planning application fees.  In order to recover 50% of the total annual cost, the surcharge should be adjusted upward to 7.3%. 702.71 Travel Demand Forecasting Model (TDFM)
This fee is currently charged as a 0.7% surcharge applied against current planning application fees.  In order to recover 20% of the total annual cost, the surcharge should be adjusted upward to 2.5%. 702.73 Local Coastal Program Surcharge
The analysis performed above calculates the total annual costs associated with the General Plan Update and compares that cost against the total annual revenue received.  The current recovery percentage indicates that the revenues collected are recovering 24% of cost.  Staff recommends that 50% of the costs associated with the General Plan Update be recovered through this surcharge which is applied against new development application fees.The analysis performed above calculates the total annual costs associated with the TDFM Update and compares that cost against the total annual revenue received.  The current recovery percentage indicates that the revenues collected are recovering 5% of cost.  Staff recommends that 20% of the costs associated with the TDFM Update be recovered through this surcharge which is applied against new development application fees.The analysis performed above calculates the total annual costs associated with the Local Coastal Progam Update.  Staff recommends that 20% of the costs associated with the Local Coastal Program Update be recovered through this surcharge which is applied against new development application fees in the coastal area.  Staff estimates that 20% of the total planning applications may be classified as coastal, and therefore the proposed 20% cost shown in the 'Fee @ Policy Level' above is compared against 20% of total forecasted current planning revenues, yielding a proposed surcharge of 0.65%.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Department of Transportation
Mobility
Parking
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation (formerly known as the Big Blue Bus) encompasses the City’s transit program and is typically not included in this citywide user fee study as transit fares are not calculated using the methodology described in Section I above. However, in FY 2020‐21 two divisions within the Community Development Department were transferred into DOT and therefore have been included in this analysis:
 Mobility  Parking
Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity of the service provided in each instance.  Hourly (or time‐and‐materials) – city staff track time and materials expense, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.

Mobility Transportation studies, plan checks, traffic control plans and other services benefit businesses, the public and the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s Taxicab program fees are also included in this analysis. The City’s policy is to generally ‐ but with some exceptions ‐ set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee‐for‐service activities. Within the Mobility Division, current fees recover 96% of total cost; recommended fees are set at 97% of cost. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will generate an additional $22,214 in new revenue per year.

The following study highlights apply to Mobility fees:
 Oversized Load fees – these fees are set by the State of California. Accordingly, recommendations are for these fees to remain at current amounts and in compliance with limits set by California law.  Block Parties fee ‐ Staff recommends maintaining a significant subsidy of this fee. Block parties are a great way for neighbors to get to know one another, furthering a sense of belonging and community. Pre‐pandemic, approximately 15 blocks in neighborhoods across the City would host an event in a given year. Based on direction from the Recreation & Parks Commission at their February 21, 2019 hearing, staff recommends a fee subsidy to support community building and well‐being.  Event Permit fees for Parking Specialist and Parking Administrator have been moved to the Parking fee schedule. Shared Mobility Device fees – these fees were recently set by Council and apply to businesses and patrons within the dock‐less bike and e‐scooter industry. Since these fees are associated with a pilot program and services are still somewhat in flux, no further adjustments are recommended at this time.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 License Agreements, Covenants, Deed Restrictions – This fee is being added to the Mobility fee schedule for applications associated with new zoning provisions that require deed restrictions including off‐site loading in the Bike Action Plan (BAP) zones, and operational requirements for space‐efficient parking like a valet attendant covenant or an agreement that requires operational mechanical parking equipment.  Right‐of‐Way services – these services have been identified as potential new fees and MGT performed the cost analysis to determine the staff costs associated with these services. However, staff anticipate conducting a larger analysis of right‐of‐way issues and related fees in the near future. Consequently, these fees are not recommended for institution at this time, but rather are presented solely for cost identification purposes.  Taxicab Franchise fees – These fees were recently reviewed by the City Council and are set by ordinance; no further adjustments are recommended at this time.
 Taxicab Mileage Rate fees – These are also set by City Council but are rates charged by taxicab companies and are not cost‐of‐service fees performed by Mobility staff. Rates are posted as a courtesy in this Division’s section of the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Parking Preferential parking regulations manage the use of on‐street parking to assist residents with valid permits and their guests in finding parking near their homes. These efforts benefit both the local community and residents and are eligible for cost recovery. Last year 46,769 permits were issued (both original and renewals). Assuming demand remains unchanged, $93,631 in additional revenue will be realized. The residential preferential parking permit fees are charged in an escalating tiered structure that discourages multiple permits at the same residence.  Residential Preferential Parking Permits – the average fee collected is $28 while the cost to provide the permit is $30. Fees for multiple permits per household – are listed directly underneath the average fee/cost calculation. Proposed increases to reach 100% cost recovery are fairly moderate, ranging from $1.00 up to $4.00.  Hourly rates for Parking staff – are listed beneath the permit fees. These rates should be used when services are requested that require the direct involvement of Parking staff.
 Oversized Overnight Parking Permit – Staff has identified this as a potential new fee that would be treated as an ROW fee (similar to the Mobility fees discussed above). Staff anticipates conducting a larger analysis of right‐of‐way issues and related fees in the near future.

Consequently, this fee is not recommended for institution at this time, but rather is presented solely for cost identification purposes.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaDOT ‐ MobilityFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 703.01 Traffic Studies‐each hour or fraction 0‐              ‐ $                 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                703.02 Traffic/Parking Hourly Rate per hour               257.66 16 $           $          233.87 110% 3,742 $             $            4,123 $              (381) 100% 233.87 $           $            3,742 $              (381) ‐$ 703.03 Traffic Study Review‐Non CEQA per hour                 254.37 4 $           $          256.20 99% 1,025 $             $            1,017 $                     100% 256.20 7 $           $            1,025 $                    7 ‐$ 703.04 Traffic Control Plan Review‐ Base Fee 0‐ $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% $                ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                703.05 First two reviews, per page Flat Fee             312.43 345 $           $          320.11 98% 110,438 $         $        107,788 $            2,650 100% 320.11 $           $        110,438 $            2,650 ‐$ 703.06 Third and subsequent reviews, per page Flat Fee             337.66 115 $           $          338.63 100% 38,942 $           $          38,831 $                111 100% 338.63 $           $          38,942 $                111 ‐$ 703.07 Over the Counter Plan Check: 0‐ $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% $                ‐ ‐$                 ‐$                703.08 Standard (2 reviews maximum) Flat Fee             356.91 111 $           $          358.33 100% 39,774 $           $          39,617 $                157 100% 358.33 $           $          39,774 $                157 ‐$ 703.09 Each additional review (after 2) Flat Fee                 229.78 1 $           $          228.74 100% 229 $                 $                230 $                    100% 228.74 (1) $           $                229 $                   (1) ‐$ 703.10 Standard Plan Check ‐ Parking/Loading and Access: 0‐ $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 703.11 0‐2 Parking Spaces: < 7,500 sq ft Flat Fee                 562.34 2 $           $          575.82 98% 1,152 $             $            1,125 $                  27 100% 575.82 $           $            1,152 $                  27 ‐$ 703.12 0‐2 Parking Spaces: ≥  7,500 sq ft Flat Fee             1,588.13 118 $        $       1,608.50 99% 189,803 $         $        187,399 $            2,403 100% 1,608.50 $        $        189,803 $            2,403 ‐$ 703.13 3‐20 Parking Spaces Flat Fee                 1,311.10 7 $        $       1,309.78 100% 9,168 $             $            9,178 $                    100% 1,309.78 (9) $        $            9,168 $                   (9) ‐$ 703.14 21‐40 Parking Spaces Flat Fee                 1,588.13 1 $        $       1,592.52 100% 1,593 $             $            1,588 $                     100% 1,592.52 4 $        $            1,593 $                    4 ‐$ 703.15 41‐100 Parking Spaces Flat Fee                 1,908.57 5 $        $       1,926.38 99% 9,632 $             $            9,543 $                  89 100% 1,926.38 $        $            9,632 $                  89 ‐$ 703.16 Each additional 100 Parking Spaces Flat Fee                 320.43 2 $           $       1,293.85 25% 2,588 $             $                641 $            1,947 100% 1,293.85 $        $            2,588 $            1,947 ‐$ 703.17 Miscellaneous‐each hour/fraction thereof: 0‐ $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                703.18 Plan Checks ‐ Not Otherwise Classified per hour                 238.22 5 $           $          239.60 99% 1,198 $             $            1,191 $                     100% 239.60 7 $           $            1,198 $                    7 ‐$ 703.19 Plan Revisions per hour               234.00 16 $           $          233.21 100% 3,731 $             $            3,744 $                (13) 100% 233.21 $           $            3,731 $                (13) ‐$ 703.20 Permit Renewals per hour              234.00 ‐ $           $          239.60 98% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 239.60 $           $                ‐ ‐$                 ‐$ 703.21 Excess Plan Checks ‐ 3rd+ resubmittal per hour                 238.22 9 $           $          239.60 99% 2,156 $             $            2,144 $                  12 100% 239.60 $           $            2,156 $                  12 ‐$ 703.22 Employee Annual Transportation Fee: 0‐ $                ‐ $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                703.23 Employers with 10‐49 employees filing a Workplace Transportation Plan per employee 8,689 $            18.65 $            18.83 99% 163,656 $         $        162,050 $            1,607 100% 18.83 $             $        163,656 $            1,607 ‐$ 703.24
Employers with 50+ employees filing either an Employee Trip Reduction Plan or Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Credit Plan per employee 30,000 $            17.33 $            17.36 100% 520,941 $         $        519,900 $            1,041 100% 17.36 $             $        520,941 $            1,041 ‐$ 703.25 Administrative Costs‐each hour/fraction thereof: 0‐ $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 703.26 Senior Transportation Planner per hour                 271.92 4 $           $          271.55 100% 1,086 $             $            1,088 $                    100% 271.55 (1) $           $            1,086 $                   (1) ‐$                703.27 Transportation Planning Associate per hour                 229.78 4 $           $          229.47 100% 918 $                 $                919 $                    100% 229.47 (1) $           $                918 $                   (1) ‐$ 703.28 Transportation Planning Assistant per hour 4 $                 207.65 ‐ $           0% 831 $                 $                ‐ $                831 100% 207.65 $           $                831 $                831 ‐$ 703.29 Transportation Management Coordinator per hour                 250.15 4 $           $          249.81 100% 999 $                 $            1,001 $                    100% 249.81 (1) $           $                999 $                   (1) ‐$                703.30 Transportation Engineer per hour                 289.23 4 $           $          288.81 100% 1,155 $             $            1,157 $                    100% 288.81 (2) $           $            1,155 $                   (2) ‐$                703.31 Site Inspections ‐ verify existing conditions ‐ each per hour                 229.78 4 $           $          233.21 99% 933 $                 $                919 $                  14 100% 233.21 $           $                933 $                  14 ‐$ 703.32 Temporary No Parking Sign Issuance Per Issuance 800 $            72.91 $            74.75 98% 59,802 $           $          58,328 $            1,474 100% 74.75 $             $          59,802 $            1,474 ‐$                703.33 House Moving Flat Fee                 2,128.84 1 $        $       2,168.92 98% 2,169 $             $            2,129 $                  40 100% 2,168.92 $        $            2,169 $                  40 ‐$                703.34 Oversized Load ‐ One Way set by State 393 $            16.00 $            56.44 28% 22,180 $           $            6,288 $          15,892 28% 16.00 $             $            6,288 $                 15,892 ‐ $ 703.35 Oversized  Load ‐ Two Way set by State 800 $            32.00 $            56.44 57% 45,150 $           $          25,600 $          19,550 57% 32.00 $             $          25,600 ‐$                 19,550 $ 703.36 Valet Permit ‐ Annual Flat Fee                 2,550.31 3 $        $       2,552.66 100% 7,658 $             $            7,651 $                     100% 2,552.66 7 $        $            7,658 $                    7 ‐$ 703.37 Valet Permit ‐ Renewal Flat Fee               1,378.53 24 $        $       1,406.74 98% 33,762 $           $          33,085 $                677 100% 1,406.74 $        $          33,762 $                677 ‐$ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaDOT ‐ MobilityFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
703.38 Valet Permit ‐ One Day Flat Fee               760.33 20 $           $          768.29 99% 15,366 $           $          15,207 $                159 100% 768.29 $           $          15,366 $                159 ‐$ 703.39 Bike Racks Flat Fee               334.55 20 $           $          343.03 98% 6,861 $             $            6,691 $                170 100% 343.03 $           $            6,861 $                170 ‐$ 703.40 Block  Parties Flat Fee               62.95 15 $             $          211.76 30% 3,176 $             $                944 $            2,232 31% 65.65 $             $                985 $                   2,192 40 $ 703.41 Permit ‐ Auto Park Flat Fee               286.33 10 $           $          289.33 99% 2,893 $             $            2,863 $                  30 100% 289.33 $           $            2,893 $                  30 ‐$ 703.42 Sign Removal per sign                 206.78 5 $           $          207.95 99% 1,040 $             $            1,034 $                     100% 207.95 6 $           $            1,040 $                    6 ‐$ 703.43 Event Permit: Parking Specialist Moved to Pkg              184.54 ‐ $           $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee was moved to Parking Operations ‐‐ 703.44 Event Permit: Parking Administrator Moved to Pkg              275.70 ‐ $           $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee was moved to Parking Operations ‐‐ 703.45 Event Permit: Traffic Engineer per hour               360.52 25 $           $          342.84 105% 8,571 $             $            9,013 $              (442) 100% 342.84 $           $            8,571 $              (442) ‐$ 703.46 Developer Initial TDM Fee ‐ Simple Flat Fee               467.28 10 $           $          474.16 99% 4,742 $             $            4,673 $                  69 100% 474.16 $           $            4,742 $                  69 ‐$ 703.47 Developer Initial TDM Fee ‐ Complex Flat Fee                 1,713.37 4 $        $       2,278.60 75% 9,114 $             $            6,853 $            2,261 100% 2,278.60 $        $            9,114 $            2,261 ‐$ 703.48 Developer Annual TDM Fee ‐ Simple Flat Fee               259.60 20 $           $          343.19 76% 6,864 $             $            5,192 $            1,672 100% 343.19 $           $            6,864 $            1,672 ‐$ 703.49 Developer Annual TDM Fee ‐ Complex Flat Fee                 467.28 8 $           $          842.80 55% 6,742 $             $            3,738 $            3,004 100% 842.80 $           $            6,742 $            3,004 ‐$ 703.50 New Fees 703.51 Roadway Closure Permit Flat Fee             306.57 150 $           $          309.98 99% 46,496 $           $          45,986 $                511 100% 309.98 $           $          46,496 $                511 ‐$ 703.52 Temporary Traffic Control Permit ‐ Urgency Action (TTCP‐UA) Flat Fee               413.55 25 $           $          418.78 99% 10,470 $           $          10,339 $                131 100% 418.78 $           $          10,470 $                131 ‐$ 703.53 Shared Mobility Device Public Right of Way Use Fee (per device) Flat Fee ‐ $              0.20 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Pilot program still in progress; staff recommends no adjustment ‐‐ 703.54 Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program ‐ Operator Fee3 Flat Fee              20,840.00 ‐ $     ‐$                 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Pilot program still in progress; staff recommends no adjustment ‐‐ 703.55 Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program ‐ Per Device Fee3 Flat Fee              105.00 ‐ $           $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Pilot program still in progress; staff recommends no adjustment ‐‐ 703.56 Construction Management Plans X‐Suppt to Bldg ‐ $                 779.67 ‐ $           0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ cross‐support to Bldg & Safety; costs combined to a single fee ‐‐ 703.57 Curb cut request fee New ROW ‐ $                 975.66 ‐ $           0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee will be analyzed in a separate Right‐of‐Way study ‐‐ 703.58 On‐street loading zone fee New ROW ‐ $                 1,264.47 ‐ $        0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee will be analyzed in a separate Right‐of‐Way study ‐‐ 703.59 Parking and Loading Operations Plans New ROW ‐ $                 958.39 ‐ $           0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee will be analyzed in a separate Right‐of‐Way study ‐‐ 703.60 In lieu fee for long term bike parking New ROW ‐ $                 718.80 ‐ $           0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee will be analyzed in a separate Right‐of‐Way study ‐‐ 703.61 Haul Route New ROW ‐ $                 537.04 ‐ $           0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee will be analyzed in a separate Right‐of‐Way study ‐‐ 703.62 License  Agreements, Covenants, Deed restrictions New Flat Fee 2 $                 814.65 ‐ $           0% 1,629 $             $                ‐ $            1,629 100% 814.65 $           $            1,629 $            1,629 ‐$ 703.63 Taxi Fees703.64 Annual base franchise fee per taxicab company ‐ set by ordinance Set by Ordinance ‐              5,000.00 $        $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee was recently set; staff recommends no new analysis ‐‐703.65 Annual franchise fee per vehicle in taxicab fleet ‐ set by ordinance Set by Ordinance ‐              452.00 $           $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ This fee was recently set; staff recommends no new analysis ‐‐703.66 New vehicle permit fee Flat Fee                 135.34 1 $           $          135.78 100% 136 $                 $                135 $                     100% 135.78 0 $           $                136 $                    0 ‐$ 703.67 Transfer vehicle permit fee Flat Fee                 135.34 1 $           $          135.78 100% 136 $                 $                135 $                     100% 135.78 0 $           $                136 $                    0 ‐$ 703.68 Renewal vehicle permit fee Flat Fee                 61.62 7 $             $            81.47 76% 570 $                 $                431 $                139 100% 81.47 $             $                570 $                139 ‐$ 703.69 Replacement vehicle permit fee Flat Fee                 43.50 1 $             $            43.45 100% $                  43 $                  44 $                    100% 43.45 (0) $             $                  43 $                   (0) ‐$ 703.70 Vehicle re‐inspection fee Flat Fee                 33.83 1 $             $            54.31 62% $                  54 $                  34 $                  20 100% 54.31 $             $                  54 $                  20 ‐$ 703.71 New and renewal taxicab driver’s permit application fee Flat Fee                 48.00 1 $             $            54.31 88% $                  54 $                  48 $                     100% 54.31 6 $             $                  54 $                    6 ‐$ 703.72 Taxicab driver’s permit re‐examination fee Flat Fee ‐ $            74.92 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ $            74.92 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 703.73 Taxicab driver’s permit transfer fee Flat Fee ‐ $            74.92 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ $            74.92 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 703.74 Taxicab driver’s permit replacement fee Flat Fee                 33.83 1 $             $            54.31 62% $                  54 $                  34 $                  20 100% 54.31 $             $                  54 $                  20 ‐$ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaDOT ‐ MobilityFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
703.75 Santa Monica Police Department Fingerprinting fee Delete              ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ PD no longer provides this service; fee should be removed ‐‐ 703.76 Mileage Rates‐flag drop, first 1/9th mile Non‐City Fee ‐ $              2.85 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Rates charged by taxi cab co's; not a cost‐of‐service fee ‐‐703.77 Mileage Rates ‐ each additional 1/9th mile Non‐City Fee ‐ $              2.70 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Rates charged by taxi cab co's; not a cost‐of‐service fee ‐‐703.78 Mileage Rates ‐ each 37 seconds waiting/delay Non‐City Fee ‐ $            29.19 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Rates charged by taxi cab co's; not a cost‐of‐service fee ‐‐703.79 Airport Flat Rates ‐ North of I‐10 to Los Angeles International Airport Non‐City Fee ‐ $            35.00 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Rates charged by taxi cab co's; not a cost‐of‐service fee ‐‐703.80 Airport Flat Rates ‐ South of  I‐10 to Los Angeles International Airport Non‐City Fee ‐ $            30.00 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Rates charged by taxi cab co's; not a cost‐of‐service fee ‐‐703.81 Santa Monica to Bob Hope Airport Non‐City Fee ‐ $            75.00 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ Rates charged by taxi cab co's; not a cost‐of‐service fee ‐‐ Total User Fees $1,401,424 $1,341,667 $59,757 $1,363,790 $22,124 $37,634 % of Full Cost 96% 4% 97% 2% 3%
Footnotes703.34 Oversized Load ‐ One Way This fee is set by the State and may not be adjusted.703.35 Oversized  Load ‐ Two Way This fee is set by the State and may not be adjusted.703.40 Block  Parties703.72 Taxicab driver’s permit re‐examination fee Per AB1069 the City has stopped administering test to drivers. No cost analysis performed, but we recommend keeping this fee on the Master Fee Schedule.703.73 Taxicab driver’s permit transfer fee Since there is only one taxi franchise there are no permit transfers.  No cost analysis performed, but we recommend keeping this fee on the Master Fee Schedule.

Taxi Cab mileage fees and rates (703.76 ‐ 703.81) Theese fees are set by City Council. However, these fees are rates charged by taxi cab companies, not cost‐of‐service fees performed by SMTD Mobility staff.

Rates are posted as a courtesy in the City's Master Fee Schedule.Staff recommends Council consider a subsidy for this fee and is proposing a moderate increase to the current fee rather than set the fee to recover 100% of cost. Block parties are a great way for neighbors to get to know one another, furthering a sense of belonging and community. Pre‐pandemic, approximately 15 blocks in neighborhoods across the City would host an event in a given year. Based on direction from the Recreation & Parks Commission at their February 21, 2019 hearing, staff recommends a fee subsidy to support community‐building and well being.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaDOT ‐ ParkingFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 708.01 Residential Preferential Parking Permits: Avg Fee 46,769 $ 28.00 $ 30.00 93% 1,402,986 $ $ 1,309,355 $ 93,631 100% 30.00 $ 1,402,986 $ $ 93,631 ‐$ 708.02 First RPP permit Flat Fee ‐ $ 20.00 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 21.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.03 Second RPP permit Flat Fee ‐ $ 25.00 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 26.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.04 Third RPP Permit Flat Fee ‐ $ 40.00 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 42.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.05 Fourth RPP permit or more Flat Fee ‐ $ 61.00 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 65.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.06 Preferential parking permit for businesses Flat Fee ‐ $ 30.00 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 32.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.07 Visitor Permit (up to two per household) Flat Fee ‐ $ 30.00 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 32.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.08 Event Permit ‐ Parking Manager Hourly 184.54 ‐ $ $ 571.47 32% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 571.47 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.09 Event Permit ‐ Parking Operations Specialist Hourly 275.70 ‐ $ $ 289.48 95% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 289.48 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.10 Event Permit ‐ Customer Service Supervisor Hourly ‐ $ 275.31 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 275.31 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.11 Hourly Rate: Parking Manager Hourly ‐ $ 571.47 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 571.47 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.12 Hourly Rate: Principal Administrative Analyst Hourly ‐ $ 409.06 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 409.06 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.13 Hourly Rate: Parking Operations Specialist Hourly ‐ $ 289.48 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 289.48 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.14 Hourly Rate: Customer Service Supervisor Hourly ‐ $ 275.31 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 275.31 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.15 Hourly Rate: Parking Permits Assistant Hourly ‐ $ 205.73 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 205.73 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 708.16 Oversized Overnight Parking Permits New ROW 150 $ ‐ $ 51.43 0% 7,715 $ $ ‐ $ 7,715 ‐‐ This fee will be analyzed in a separate Right‐of‐Way study ‐‐ Total User Fees $1,402,986 $1,309,355 $93,631 $1,402,986 $93,631 $0% of Full Cost 93% 7% 100% 7% 0% Footnotes
708.01 Residential Preferential Parking Permits:

Full Year: Half Year: Full Year: Half Year:
1st Permit: $20.00 $10.00 $21.00 $12.00
2nd Permit: $25.00 $15.00 $26.00 $17.00
3rd Permit: $40.00 $25.00 $42.00 $27.00
4th Permit: $61.00 $35.00 $65.00 $37.00
Visitor: $30.00 $15.00 $32.00 $16.00
This analysis was performed by taking the average time spent to process a permit, to come up with an average cost per permit. The current fee shown above represents the average fee collected (calculated by dividing total RPP revenue by the total number of permit fees collected).Resident permits ‐ customer provided confirmation of residency in Santa Monica via DMV vehicle registration. Customers can purchase as many as they need for the household; price escalates (tiered pricing) as the number of permits purchased increases confirmedVisitor permits ‐ customer provided confirmation of residency in Santa Monica via utility bill, bank statement, or credit card statement. Customer can only purchase up to two visitor permits per household annually.Please note that residents are allowed to purchase pro‐rated permits if they are seeking to purchase permits with six months left in the permit cycle. Below is the breakdown:

Current Fees Recommended Fees
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Public Works
Airport
Engineering & Street Services, Land Development
Engineering & Street Services, Streets
Film Permits
Office of Sustainability & The Environment
Public Landscape
Resource Recovery & Recycling
Water Resources
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Public Works
The user fee/cost analyses for this department mirrors the structure of City’s fee schedule and was developed separately for each division. Divisions that are included in the cost analysis include:
 Airport (limited to a single, event permit fee)  Engineering & Street Services, Land Development  Engineering & Street Services, Streets  Film Permits  Office of Sustainability and the Environment  Public Landscape  Resource Recovery & Recycling  Water Resources Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity.  Per square (or linear) foot – the fee is calculated based on size of the project under review.  Hourly (or time‐and‐materials) – city staff track time and materials expenses, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.  Actual cost – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the City.  Per work activity – these fees are for blanket flat fees for annual citywide utility excavation permits issued to utility companies.  Per connection or installation – the fee is calculated based on the number and type of physical connections to the City’s infrastructure, or the number of units of a particular device installed by the City on behalf of a private person.

Airport The Airport Event Permit (<8 weeks in advance) fee is the only Airport fee included in the scope of this cost‐of‐service study. The current fee for an Airport Event Permit is $577.03. The full cost of processing this permit is calculated at $596.07. Staff recommend this fee be adjusted to recover 100% of cost. Increasing the fee to recover full cost is anticipated to provide $1,352 in new revenue on an annual basis (assuming an average of 71 events per year).

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Engineering & Street Services, Land Development
The Engineering and Street Services Division was split (for purposes of this cost analysis) into two sub‐divisions, Land Development and Streets. The Land Development section made significant adjustments to its fee schedule – all fees are recommended at 100% cost recovery, with most fees being increased, although there are a few fees set to decrease. Three fees are recommended for removal from the master fee schedule, and four new fees are recommended for implementation. Within the Land Development Division, current fees recover 55% of total costs to provide services for which the fees are charged; adjusting fees to recover 100% of cost should increase general fund revenues by $549,721 (assuming no change in demand for services).

Highlights of the Land Development fee analysis are provided below:
 Use of Public Property Commercial/Residential ‐ These are fees charged for the use of public property and are not cost‐of‐service.  Wireless Facility Permit/6409(a) Permit Application ‐ This fee was studied and approved by Council prior to this user fee study and was therefore not analyzed. However, it does need to be added into this Division’s section of the Master Fee Schedule.  Temporary No Parking: Each "No Parking" sign ‐ Staff recommends removing this fee from the fee schedule.  Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check Fees: For Residential Property and Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check Fees: For Multi‐family & Commercial Property – These fees and services are now part of the Office of Sustainability and the Environment Division.  Wireless Related Permits ‐ Outside Consultants ‐ This fee is charged as an actual cost (pass thru) fee to recover outside consultant costs when used on Wireless Telecommunications Construction Permits or Wireless Facility Permits/6409(a) Permit Applications. This fee was added for situations when an outside consultant expertise is needed to review wireless related permits in addition to staff time to oversee and check the work of outside consultant in processing a Wireless Facility Permit, 6409(a) Permit, or Wireless Telecommunications Construction Permit.  Development Agreement Feasibility and Concept Review Fee (rounded to the nearest 1/2 hr increment) ‐ This was added as an hourly rate for staff time to answer questions, attend meetings and provide information to customers with Development Agreements. Work may include review concept, feasibly plans, or design drawings and provide comments.  Underground Utility Waiver Application and Letter of Determination ‐ This fee was added for staff time to review Underground Utility Waiver Application and issue a letter to customer.
 Attachment of one (1) Small Wireless Facility to a municipally owned structure in the public right‐of‐way (e.g., streetlight pole); Annual Lease Fee ‐This fee was set by the FCC in 2018. This fee is an annual lease fee in accordance with guidelines established by the FCC.  Plan Check Review Fee – Including Flood Plain Review & Off‐Site Permit – This new fee is proposed at $300.11.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Engineering & Street Services, Streets
The Street Division (a sub‐division of the Engineering & Streets Services Division) currently lists 16 fees on its section of the City’s Master Fee Schedule. This Division no longer provides these services to the public and therefore no fees are collected. However, the Engineering & Street Services, Land Development section uses this information as a reference to estimate restoration deposit amounts for private facilities leased in the public right‐of‐way. These fees should continue to be listed on the fee schedule, but no revenues are projected.

Film Permits The City’s current list of fees for film permits has ten broad categories, with multiple fees charged within each category to differentiate between different types of filming and at different locations. The Engineering & Street Services Division provides overall management of the Film Permit program; FilmLA actually processes each permit. Film permits also require staff support from Public Landscape, Airport, City Manager’s Office, Fire and Police. Current film permit fees recover 118% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged; recommended fees are set at 100% of cost.

Assuming no change in demand, fee adjustments will result in a revenue reduction of $27,685.

Location fees are charged in addition to the permit fees. Location fees are collected by FilmLA and are charged for use of public property. Property use fees are not considered cost‐of‐service fees and may be charged at market rates, reflective of the value of using the public right‐of‐way. Public Safety fees are also assessed separately from film permit fees.Office of Sustainability & the Environment The Office of Sustainability & the Environment (OSE) is responsible for programs and policy initiatives associated with environmental, economic and social sustainability issues for the City of Santa Monica, its residents, and businesses operating within its city limits.Most fees on OSE’s current fee schedule are charged on a flat (or fixed) fee basis – the fee is the same, regardless of size or complexity. One fee is charged on a per kilowatt hour basis, three fees are pass‐thru, and one fee is charged as a “water use offset” fee.

Within this Division, current fees recover 60% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged; most recommended fees are set at 100% of cost, except for the Community Gardens fees which will be remain heavily subsidized. Overall, and assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will generate an additional $11,622 in new revenue per year.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Items of note in this OSE analysis are:
 Electronic Vehicle user fees – this fee was analyzed in the spring of 2020 and the fee of $0.30 per kWh was approved by Council in June 2020. Therefore, no analysis was performed on this recently adjusted fee.  Water Neutrality Administrative fees – are considered pass thru‐fees and were not analyzed during this study. These fees are collected by OSE but then given to the contract vendor to cover the labor and materials costs of the Water Neutrality Direct Install Program (indoor water fixture retrofits).  Water Neutrality In‐Lieu Offset – This fee is also considered a pass‐thru fee and is charged as a water use offset fee.  Community Garden Fees – Staff recommend that this fee be re‐structured using a tiered system, based on garden plot size. Staff also recommend that these fees continue to be subsidized, with small increases occurring over a three‐year time period.

Public Landscape Most of the services provided by this Division are not related to fees, as they are associated with general park and landscape maintenance.

However, the Public Landscape Division does provide plan review and inspection services related to new construction and is proposing a number of new fees associated with beach and park maintenance services and tree maintenance and pruning services. Within this Division, current fees recover 67% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged; recommended fees are set at 100% of cost. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will result in an additional $96,150 in new revenue per year. Five existing fees are recommended for deletion and 22 new fees are proposed for consideration.

Items of note for Public Landscape:
 Public Landscape Administrator – this fee (charged as an hourly rate) is recommended for deletion as this position no longer bills for services on an actual cost basis.
 Four Plan Review and Inspection fees – are recommended for deletion as these specific fees are now considered obsolete.  Park Maintenance Service and Beach Maintenance Service – These two new hourly rate fees are proposed in response to specialized requests within the public parks or at Santa Monica State Beach. One example of a requested beach maintenance service was to create sand berms in advance of an ultimate frisbee tournament on the beach.  Park Event and Beach Event Clean Up Deposits – These refundable deposit fees are proposed to potentially offset the cost of post‐event clean up or facility repairs after events held at public parks or on Santa Monica State Beach. Staff recommend a tiered schedule of fees, based on the size of the event.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 Park Asset Damage and Beach Asset Damage – Staff recommend a footnote be added to the deposit amounts, to recover the repair/replacement of assets if damage is beyond the deposit amount collected for events held at public parks or at the beach. This fee would be assessed increments of $100, up to the actual cost of the repairs/replacement.  Tree Maintenance items – Fees for tree planting, stump removal, tree‐pruning (outside of the scheduled pruning cycle), and tree restitution (replacement) are recommended at full cost recovery. Public Landscape has historically provided these services for no additional fee, for work done before, during and sometimes after construction projects but can no longer absorb these costs due to a 30% reduction in its tree maintenance services budget.

Resource Recovery & Recycling Refuse collection rates that fall under Prop 218 guideline were set in 2014 using the appropriate Prop 218 guidelines and requirements. The fees reviewed in this study relate to special services requested by the public and are not subject to Prop 218. Within this Division, current fees recover 92% of total costs to provide services for which fees are charged; recommended fees are generally set at 100% of cost, with exceptions noted below. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will generate an additional $79,017 in new revenue per year.

Highlights of this Division’s analysis are as follows:
 Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan – This fee is to be replaced with four new sub‐categorized fees: Simple (SFR), Medium, Complex, and Demo Only.
 Container (Bins) Rentals (Events) and Bin Delivery & Removal – These two fees are being replaced by the proposed new fee – Event Bin Rental.
 Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program fees – These fees should be deleted from this Division’s section of the fee schedule as these services are already provided as part of the City’s regular trash program.  Rent‐a‐Bin Roll Out Services – this fee is being replaced by two proposed fees: Rent‐A‐Bin Roll Out Services (Crew Pullout) and Rent‐A‐ Bin Roll Out Services (Bin Truck Pullout).
 Event Rental – Refuse/Food Waste Carts and Event Rental – Recycling Carts ‐ These two fees are being replaced by the proposed new fee – Event Cart Rental.
 Container Cart Rentals (Events) and Cart Delivery and Removal (up to 10 carts) – These two fees are recommended for removal.  Bulky Item Collection – This is a new proposal, to be implemented as an hourly rate, with a one‐hour minimum.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
 Truck Ad Space Rental (per panel, per side, per month) – This is a new fee proposal, to be charged monthly.  Curby Rental – This fee is recommended to remain subsidized; a modest increase is proposed, keeping the fee at 87% cost recovery. It is used for public outreach regarding recycling initiatives.  Sale of Composting Bins (Santa Monica residents only) – Staff recommend this fee be set at 50% of cost.  Additional Pick‐up Service: Bin, Additional Pick‐up Service: Cart, Event Rental/Party Truck (per hour), and Extra Refuse Bag Sales ‐ Staff is recommending increases to each of these fees be phased in over a 4‐year period, eventually achieving 100% cost recovery.

Water Resources Within this Division, current fees recover 93% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged; recommended fees are set at 100% of cost. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will result in an additional $139,812 in new revenue per year (this revenue will be credited to the Water and Wastewater funds). No fees are recommended for deletion. Two fees are recommended for implementation:
 Sewer Study Review – This new fee proposal (a flat fee of $4,443.42) is to recover costs associated with a review done by the Water Resources’ Civil Engineer for projects requesting wastewater services and to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the project.  Water Study Review ‐ This new fee proposal (a flat fee of $3,332.56) is to recover costs associated with a review done by the Water Resources’ Civil Engineer for projects requesting water services and to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the project.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
PW ‐ Airport
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 516.1 Airport Event Permit (<8 weeks in advance) Flat Fee 71 $ 577.03 $ 596.07 97% 42,321 $ $ 40,969 $ 1,352 100% $ 596.07 $ 42,321 $ 1,352 $ ‐ Total User Fees $42,321 $40,969 $1,352 $42,321 $1,352 $0% of Full Cost 97% 3% 100% 3% 0% FootnotesTie‐Down fees, Transient Tie‐Downs, Hangar fees, and Fuel Flowage fees are not cost‐of‐service fees and therefore are not included under the scope of this study.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
PW ‐ Engr & Str Svcs, Land Development
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 503.01 Newsrack Permit: Annual Renewal per unit 177 $             47.53 $           133.37 36% 23,607 $            $             8,413 $           15,194 100% 133.37 $            $           23,607 $           15,194 ‐$ 503.02 Newsrack Permit: New Install per unit 2                 129.26 $            $           313.35 41% 627 $                 $                259 $                368 100% 313.35 $            $                 627 $                 368 ‐$ 503.03 Newsrack Permit: Impound Fee Flat Fee                231.82 12 $            $           504.81 46% 6,058 $              $             2,782 $             3,276 100% 504.81 $            $             6,058 $             3,276 ‐$ 503.04 Use of Public Property: New Permit with Transportation Review Flat Fee                212.31 15 $            $           354.35 60% 5,315 $              $             3,185 $             2,131 100% 354.35 $            $             5,315 $             2,131 ‐$ 503.05 Use of Public Property: New Permit without Transportation Review Flat Fee              120.14 590 $            $           214.73 56% 126,691 $         $           70,883 $           55,808 100% 214.73 $            $         126,691 $           55,808 ‐$ 503.06 Use of Public Property: Permit Renewal without Transportation Review Flat Fee 280 $             51.76 $           162.07 32% 45,379 $            $           14,493 $           30,887 100% 162.07 $            $           45,379 $           30,887 ‐$ 503.07 Use of Public Property: Permit for Moving Pods Flat Fee 270 $             51.76 $           157.11 33% 42,419 $            $           13,975 $           28,444 100% 157.11 $            $           42,419 $           28,444 ‐$ 503.08 Crane Permit per day 142             246.51 $            $           313.35 79% 44,496 $            $           35,004 $             9,492 100% 313.35 $            $           44,496 $             9,492 ‐$ 503.09 Use of Public Property Commercial per day, per 100 sq ft 260 $               2.55 ‐$                  0% ‐$                  $                663 $               (663) ‐‐ property use fee; not cost‐of‐service; set at $2.55/day per 100 sf ‐‐ 503.10 Use of Public Property Residential per day, per 100 sq ft 600 $               1.57 ‐$                  0% ‐$                  $                942 $               (942) ‐‐ property use fee; not cost‐of‐service; set at $1.57/day per 100 sf ‐‐ 503.11 Street Improvement Inspections: SFR Apron, Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, or Alley Flat Fee                256.89 65 $            $           609.22 42% 39,599 $            $           16,698 $           22,902 100% 609.22 $            $           39,599 $           22,902 ‐$ 503.12 Street Improvement Inspections: non‐SFR Apron, Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, or Alley Flat Fee                462.00 40 $            $           806.47 57% 32,259 $            $           18,480 $           13,779 100% 806.47 $            $           32,259 $           13,779 ‐$ 503.13 Outdoor Dining Inspection Flat Fee                  205.10 5 $            $           245.07 84% 1,225 $              $             1,026 $                200 100% 245.07 $            $             1,225 $                 200 ‐$ 503.14 Utility Excavation Permit: up to 100 feet Flat Fee              809.71 315 $            $       1,274.31 64% 401,407 $         $        255,059 $        146,349 100% 1,274.31 $         $         401,407 $         146,349 ‐$ 503.15 Utility Excavation Permit: 100 feet & over   Per Hour              232.81 100 $            $           234.32 99% 23,432 $            $           23,281 $                151 100% 234.32 $            $           23,432 $                 151 ‐$ 503.16 Permit Renewal Flat Fee                51.76 21 $              $           162.07 32% 3,403 $              $             1,087 $             2,316 100% 162.07 $            $             3,403 $             2,316 ‐$                  503.17 Wireless Telecommunications Construction Permit: No excavation or up to 100 Feet per location                809.71 56 $            $       1,227.76 66% 68,754 $            $           45,344 $           23,411 100% 1,227.76 $         $           68,754 $           23,411 ‐$ 503.18 Wireless Telecommunications Construction Permit: Over 100 feet of excavation per hour, per location 25                232.81 $            $           214.73 108% 5,368 $              $             5,820 $               (452) 100% 214.73 $            $             5,368 $               (452) ‐$                  503.19 Wireless Facility Permit/6409(a) Permit Application per location               1,302.50 ‐ $        ‐$                  0% ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐‐ not analyzed within this cost‐of‐service study; see footnote below ‐‐ 503.20 Blanket Utility Permit: Public Property Use up to 320 sq ft Flat Fee              142.61 267 $            $           267.45 53% 71,410 $            $           38,077 $           33,333 100% 267.45 $            $           71,410 $           33,333 ‐$ 503.21 Blanket Utility Permit: Minor Excavation up to 100 linear ft Flat Fee              142.61 158 $            $           267.45 53% 42,258 $            $           22,532 $           19,725 100% 267.45 $            $           42,258 $           19,725 ‐$ 503.22 Certificate of Compliance Flat Fee                  1,768.08 1 $        $       2,058.37 86% 2,058 $              $             1,768 $                290 100% 2,058.37 $         $             2,058 $                 290 ‐$ 503.23 Tentative Map Flat Fee                657.23 25 $            $           955.49 69% 23,887 $            $           16,431 $             7,456 100% 955.49 $            $           23,887 $             7,456 ‐$                  503.24 Final Map   Flat Fee                  1,304.89 5 $        $       2,699.19 48% 13,496 $            $             6,524 $             6,972 100% 2,699.19 $         $           13,496 $             6,972 ‐$ 503.25 Lot Line Adjustment Flat Fee                  437.71 1 $            $       1,434.19 31% 1,434 $              $                438 $                996 100% 1,434.19 $         $             1,434 $                 996 ‐$                  503.26 Final Map Revision Flat Fee                  437.71 1 $            $       1,038.65 42% 1,039 $              $                438 $                601 100% 1,038.65 $         $             1,039 $                 601 ‐$                  503.27 Tentative Map Revision Flat Fee                  218.85 2 $            $           372.21 59% 744 $                 $                438 $                307 100% 372.21 $            $                 744 $                 307 ‐$ 503.28 Industrial Waste Discharge Flat Fee                109.42 19 $            $           685.86 16% 13,031 $            $             2,079 $           10,952 100% 685.86 $            $           13,031 $           10,952 ‐$ 503.29 Site Drainage ‐ Changing Existing Pattern Flat Fee              109.42 123 $            $           475.21 23% 58,451 $            $           13,459 $           44,993 100% 475.21 $            $           58,451 $           44,993 ‐$                  503.30 Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan Flat Fee              219.08 112 $            $           685.86 32% 76,816 $            $           24,537 $           52,279 100% 685.86 $            $           76,816 $           52,279 ‐$                  503.31 Tiebacks Flat Fee                  437.71 5 $            $       1,310.58 33% 6,553 $              $             2,189 $             4,364 100% 1,310.58 $         $             6,553 $             4,364 ‐$ 503.32 Miscellaneous Reviews: Flood Hazard Letter Flat Fee               130.23 ‐ $            $           227.57 57% ‐ $                  ‐$                  $                 ‐ 100% 227.57 $            ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$ 503.33 Plan Check Review Fee ‐ Building Permits (rounded to the nearest 1/2 hour increment) hourly                  218.85 1 $            $           246.02 89% 246 $                 $                219 $                   27 100% 246.02 $            $                 246 $                   27 ‐$ 503.34 Review of Legal Easements/License Agreements Flat Fee                1,094.25 15 $        $       1,591.02 69% 23,865 $            $           16,414 $             7,452 100% 1,591.02 $         $           23,865 $             7,452 ‐$ 503.35 Right of Way Research / Inquiries ‐ each hour hourly                  218.85 1 $            $           210.43 104% 210 $                 $                219 $                    (8) 100% 210.43 $            $                 210 $                    (8) ‐$ 503.36 Temporary No Parking: Each "No Parking" sign** Remove ‐ $               1.04 ‐$                  0% ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐‐ staff recommends removing  ‐‐ 503.37 Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check Fees: For Residential Property Remove               438.15 ‐ $            ‐$                  0% ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐‐ this fee has moved to OSE  ‐‐503.38 Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check Fees: For Multi‐family & Commercial Property Remove               438.15 ‐ $            ‐$                  0% ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐‐ this fee has moved to OSE  ‐‐ 503.39 Wireless Related Permits ‐ Outside Consultants Actual Cost 10 ‐$                  ‐$                  0% ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐‐ maintain fee as actual cost recovery  ‐‐ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
PW ‐ Engr & Str Svcs, Land Development
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
503.40
Development Agreement Feasiblity and Concept Review Fee (rounded to the nearest 1/2 hour increment) New Fee ‐ Hourly                  ‐ 3 $                  366.44 $            0% 1,099 $              ‐ $                  1,099 $              100% 366.44 $            1,099 $              1,099 $              ‐$ 503.41 Underground Utility Waiver Application and Letter of Determination New Fee ‐ Flat Fee                ‐ 15 $                  288.54 $            0% 4,328 $              ‐ $                  4,328 $              100% 288.54 $            4,328 $              4,328 $              ‐$                  503.42 Attachment of one (1) Small Wireless Facility to a municipally ownedstructure in the public right‐of‐way (e.g., streetlight pole); Annual Lease Fee New Fee ‐ Lease               ‐$                  ‐ ‐$                  0% ‐$                  ‐$                  $                 ‐ $           816.64 ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$ 503.43 Plan Check Review Fee ‐ Including Flood Plain Review & Off‐Site Permit New Fee ‐ Flat Fee 1 $                  300.11 ‐ $            0% 300 $                 ‐$                  $                300 100% 300.11 $            $                 300 $                 300 ‐$ Total User Fees $1,211,268 $661,547 $549,721 $1,211,268 $549,721 $0 % of Full Cost 55% 45% 100% 83% 0%
Footnotes
1 Use of Public Property Commercial/Residential (Fee's 503.9 and 503.10): These are fees charged for the use of public property and are not cost‐of‐service. 2 Wireless Facility Permit/6409(a) Permit Application (Fee 503.19): This fee needs to be in schedule, but does not need to be evaluated b/c it was recently studies and Council Approved. 3 Temporary No Parking: Each "No Parking" sign (Fee 503.36):  Staff recommends removing this fee from the fee schedule.4 Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check Fees: For Residential Property  (Fee 503.37):  This fee has moved to the Office of Sustainability & Environment division.5 Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check Fees: For Multi‐family & Commercial Property  (Fee 503.38):  This fee has moved to the Office of Sustainability & Environment division. 6 78 Underground Utility Waiver Application and Letter of Determination (Fee 503.41): This fee was added for staff time to review Underground Utility Waiver Application and issue a letter to customer. 9 10
Wireless Related Permits ‐ Outside Consultants (Fee 503.39): This fee is charged as an actual cost (pass thru) fee to recover outside consultant costs when used on Wireless Telecommunications Construction Permits or Wireless Facility Permits/6409(a) Permit Applications. This fee is used for situations when an outside consultant expertise is needed to review wireless related permits in addition to staff time to oversee and check the work of outside consultant in processing a Wireless Facility Permit, 6409(a) Permit, or Wireless Telecommunications Construction Permit.

Development Agreement Feasiblity and Concept Review Fee (rounded to the nearest 1/2 hour increment) (Fee 503.40): This was added as an hourly rate for staff time to answer questions, attend meetings and provide information to customers with Development Agreements? Work may include review concept, feasibly plans, or design drawings and provide comments.Attachment of one (1) Small Wireless Facility to a municipally owned structure in the public right‐of‐way (e.g., streetlight pole); Annual Lease Fee (Fee 503.42): This fee was set by the FCC in 2018. This fee is an annual Lease Fee in accordance with guidelines established by the FCC Plan Check Review Fee‐ Including Flood Plain Review & Off Site Permits (Fee 503.43): This fee was added for staff time to review offsite improvement plans and issue permits. This feel is an hourly rate, also applied to any plan check requiring Flood Plain Code requirements. This fee is different from fee and fee No. 33 Plan Check Review Building Fee, as its intended for offsite improvements or flood plain review.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
PW ‐ Engr & Str Svcs, Streets
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 505.01 Sidewalk Removal, Hauling, Replacement (up to 4" thick) Per SF ‐ $ 82.66 $ 97.23 85% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 97.23 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.02 Driveway Removal, Hauling, Replacement (depth to 6") Per SF‐ $ 99.36 $ 116.86 85% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 116.86 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐505.03 Removal, Hauling, Replacement: Curb Only Per LF 150.12 ‐ $ $ 593.79 25% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 593.79 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.04 Removal, Hauling, Replacement: Curb & Gutter Per LF 213.24 ‐ $ $ 804.18 27% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 804.18 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.05 Removal, Hauling, Replacement: Gutter Only Per LF ‐ 157.99 $ $ 570.28 28% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 570.28 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.06 Removal, Hauling, Replacement: Concrete Alleys (up to 6")Per SF ‐ $ 42.00 $ 51.98 81% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 51.98 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.07 Asphalt Removal, Hauling, Replacement (up to 4") Per SF ‐ $ 25.84 $ 35.39 73% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 35.39 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐505.08 Asphalt Removal, Hauling, Replacement (over 4") Per SF ‐ $ 26.68 $ 36.15 74% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 36.15 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐505.09 Parkway Removal & Hauling: per square foot Per SF ‐ $ 29.07 $ 37.55 77% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 37.55 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.10 Removal & Hauling of Abandoned Driveway Per SF ‐ $ 58.97 $ 68.63 86% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 68.63 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.11 Asphalt Cement Overlay (1/2" to 1‐1/2" thick) Per SF ‐ $ 10.69 $ 15.55 69% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 15.55 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐505.12 Asphalt Cement Overlay (1‐1/2" ‐ 4" thick) Per SF ‐ $ 11.18 $ 15.97 70% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 15.97 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐505.13 Miscellaneous Saw Cuts: per linear foot Per LF ‐ $ 11.56 $ 12.34 94% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 12.34 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.14 Tie‐Ins Into Existing Asphalt or Concrete: per linear foot Per LF ‐ $ 72.41 $ 103.42 70% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 103.42 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐505.15 Conduit Only Repair OR Relocation: per linear foot Per LF ‐ $ 8.81 $ 9.39 94% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 9.39 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 505.16 Pull Box & Conduit Relocation: per linear foot Per LF ‐ $ 15.34 $ 16.24 94% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 16.24 $ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ Total User Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
% of Full Cost 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
FootnotesFees 505.17 ‐ 505.32: This is time and associated cost spent in support of Water Resource fees. This cost is forwarded to that division's fee schedule for recovery through its fees.

Current Recommendations
Fees 505.1 ‐ 505.16: These are fees as currently listed on the City's fee schedule. Streets no longer provides these services to the public and no fees are collected. However, the Land Development section uses this information as a reference to estimate restoration deposits for private facilities leased in the public right‐of‐way. These fees should continue to be listed on the fee schedule, but no revenues are projected.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Film PermitsFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 501.01 Film Permit: Airport – public airside/landside still photography, 1‐20 cast/crew Flat Fee 1 731.15 $ 715.60$ 102% 716 $ 731$ $ (16) 100% 715.60 $ $ 716 $ (16) ‐$ 501.02 Film Permit: Airport – leasehold property, still photography/motion Flat Fee 731.15 7 $ 715.60$ 102% 5,009 $ 5,118$ $ (109) 100% 715.60 $ $ 5,009 $ (109) ‐$ 501.03 Film Permit: Airport ‐ complex/large productions, 21+ cast/crew Actual Cost 7 731.15 $ 740.14$ 99% 5,181 $ $ 5,118 $ 63 100% 740.14 $ $ 5,181 $ 63 ‐$ 501.04 Beaches ‐ Film/Video Flat Fee 778.13 47 $ $ 513.85 151% 24,151 $ $ 36,572 $ (12,421) 100% 513.85 $ $ 24,151 $ (12,421) ‐$ 501.05 Beaches ‐ Still Photography Flat Fee 778.13 40 $ $ 394.97 197% 15,799 $ $ 31,125 $ (15,326) 100% 394.97 $ $ 15,799 $ (15,326) ‐$ 501.06 City Hall ‐ Film/Video Flat Fee ‐ 386.81 $ $ 392.75 98% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 392.75 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 501.07 City Hall ‐ Still Photography Flat Fee ‐ 225.63 $ $ 300.37 75% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 300.37 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 501.08 Downtown Santa Monica ‐ Still photography Flat Fee 281.68 6 $ 312.83$ 90% 1,877 $ $ 1,690 $ 187 100% 312.83 $ $ 1,877 $ 187 ‐$ 501.09 Downtown Santa Monica ‐ Film/video interior, man on street/walk and talk Flat Fee 281.68 8 $ 446.56$ 63% 3,572 $ 2,253$ $ 1,319 100% 446.56 $ $ 3,572 $ 1,319 ‐$ 501.10 Downtown Santa Monica ‐ Film/video, half day shoot including interior/exterior Flat Fee 281.68 8 $ 446.56$ 63% 3,572 $ 2,253$ $ 1,319 100% 446.56 $ $ 3,572 $ 1,319 ‐$ 501.11 Downtown Santa Monica ‐ Film/video, all day, multiple locations Flat Fee 281.68 7 $ 471.10$ 60% 3,298 $ 1,972$ $ 1,326 100% 471.10 $ $ 3,298 $ 1,326 ‐$ 501.12 Parks ‐ Film/Video Flat Fee 548.33 22 $ $ 487.83 112% 10,732 $ $ 12,063 $ (1,331) 100% 487.83 $ $ 10,732 $ (1,331) ‐$ 501.13 Parks ‐ Still Photography Flat Fee 548.33 28 $ $ 394.67 139% 11,051 $ $ 15,353 $ (4,303) 100% 394.67 $ $ 11,051 $ (4,303) ‐$ 501.14 Pier/Carousel ‐ Film/video/street interview Flat Fee 330.72 12 $ 295.58$ 112% 3,547 $ 3,969$ $ (422) 100% 295.58 $ $ 3,547 $ (422) ‐$ 501.15 Pier/Carousel ‐ Film/video, half day (6 hrs.) Flat Fee 330.72 12 $ 271.04$ 122% 3,252 $ 3,969$ $ (716) 100% 271.04 $ $ 3,252 $ (716) ‐$ 501.16 Pier/Carousel ‐ Street interviews Flat Fee 330.72 11 $ 246.50$ 134% 2,711 $ 3,638$ $ (926) 100% 246.50 $ $ 2,711 $ (926) ‐$ 501.17 Pier/Carousel ‐ Equipment only Actual Cost ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ Fee to be set at acual cost ‐‐ 501.18 Pier/Carousel ‐ Still photography, low impact, interior only Flat Fee ‐ 132.29 $ $ 195.42 68% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 195.42 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 501.19 Pier/Carousel ‐ Still photography, exterior Flat Fee 13 $ 132.29 195.42$ 68% 2,540 $ $ 1,720 $ 821 100% 195.42 $ $ 2,540 $ 821 ‐$ 501.20 Student/Non‐Profit ‐ Film/Video Flat Fee 132.29 17 $ 179.09$ 74% 3,045 $ $ 2,249 $ 796 100% 179.09 $ $ 3,045 $ 796 ‐$ 501.21 Student/Non‐Profit ‐ Still Photography Flat Fee ‐ 64.45 $ $ 179.09 36% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 179.09 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 501.22 All Other Locations ‐ Film/Video Flat Fee 131 330.72 $ $ 327.47 101% 42,899 $ 43,324$ $ (426) 100% 327.47 $ $ 42,899 $ (426) ‐$ 501.23 All Other Locations ‐ Still Photography Flat Fee 132.29 53 $ 179.09$ 74% 9,492 $ 7,011$ $ 2,481 100% 179.09 $ $ 9,492 $ 2,481 ‐$ 501.24 Rider Fee‐Addition, change or deletion to the permit Flat Fee ‐ 128.94 $ $ 152.00 85% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 152.00 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 501.25 Location Fees Per Appl ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ property use fee; not cost‐of‐service; fee is location‐specific ‐‐ 501.26 Security Deposits Pier/Carousel ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ not cost‐of‐service; deposit amt dependent on type of permit ‐‐ Total User Fees $152,444 $180,129 ‐$27,685 $152,444 ‐$27,685 $0 % of Full Cost 118% ‐18% 100% ‐15% 0%
Footnotes
1 Pier/Carousel ‐ Equipment only (501.17) is for equipment use rental. To be set at actual cost. 2 Location Fees (501.25): In addition to the application fees shown above, each permit has a location fee that is also charged, for the use of public property. Property use fees are not cost‐of‐service and may be charged at market rate. 3 Security Deposits (501.26): In addition to the application fees shown above, the Pier/Carousel film permit fees have a security deposit collected at the time of issuance. These fees are not cost‐of‐service.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
PW ‐ Office of Sustainability & the EnvironmentFY 2020‐21 Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 502.01
Urban Run‐Off Mitigation Onsite Inspection ‐ per property, includes 2 inspections Flat Fee 90               177.32 $          170.97 $          104% 15,387 $          15,959 $          (571) $               100% 170.97 $          15,387 $          (571) $               ‐$ 502.02
Urban Run‐Off Mitigation Onsite Inspection ‐ per additional inspection Flat Fee ‐              69.81 $             $            56.06 125% ‐ $                 ‐$                 $                ‐ 100% 56.06 $             ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐$ 502.03 Landscape & Irrigation Onsite Inspection (SF/MF) Flat Fee 60               259.81 $          $         263.46 99% 15,808 $          $         15,589 $               219 100% 263.46 $          $         15,808 $               219 ‐$                502.04 Landscape & Irrigation Onsite Inspection (Comm/MU/Inst) Flat Fee 10               259.81 $          $         372.77 70% 3,728 $             $            2,598 $            1,130 100% 372.77 $          $            3,728 $            1,130 ‐$ 502.05 Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check (SF/MF) Flat Fee 60               438.15 $          $         336.33 130% 20,180 $          $         26,289 $          (6,109) 100% 336.33 $          $         20,180 $          (6,109) ‐$ 502.06 Landscape & Irrigation Plan Check (Comm/MU/Inst) Flat Fee 10               438.15 $          $         420.42 104% 4,204 $             $            4,382 $              (177) 100% 420.42 $          $            4,204 $              (177) ‐$ 502.07 EV User Fee per kWh ‐             $              0.30 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ fee not studied in this cycle; see footnote below ‐‐502.08 Water Neutrality ‐ perf based direct offset of add'l water ‐ plan check Flat Fee 200            346.43 $          $         420.42 82% 84,084 $          $         69,286 $         14,798 100% 420.42 $          $         84,084 $         14,798 ‐$ 502.09
Water Neutrality ‐ perf based direct offset of add'l water ‐ inspection Flat Fee 10               173.21 $          $         168.17 103% 1,682 $             $            1,732 $                (50) 100% 168.17 $          $            1,682 $                (50) ‐$ 502.10 Water Neutrality ‐ administrative fee ‐ SF/MFU 1‐10 Pass Thru ‐              1,183.20 $       ‐$                 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ not cost‐of‐service; see footnote below ‐‐ 502.11 Water Neutrality ‐ administrative fee ‐ MFU 11‐50 Pass Thru ‐              1,688.10 $       ‐$                 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ not cost‐of‐service; see footnote below ‐‐ 502.12
Water Neutrality ‐ administrative fee ‐ Comm/MFU 51+ units Pass Thru ‐              2,539.80 $       ‐$                 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ not cost‐of‐service; see footnote below ‐‐ 502.13 Water Neutrality ‐ in‐lieu offset fee
Water Use
Offset ‐ $              0.18 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ not cost‐of‐service; see footnote below ‐‐ 502.14 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (New Gardeners) Delete              100.00 ‐ $          $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ see footnote below on recommended new pricing structure ‐‐ 502.15 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (Renewal) ‐ Small Flat Fee 35               100.00 $          $         803.22 12% 28,113 $          $            3,500 $         24,613 12% 100.00 $          $            3,500 $                 24,613 ‐ $ 502.16 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (Renewal) ‐ Medium Flat Fee 31               100.00 $          $         803.22 12% 24,900 $          $            3,100 $         21,800 14% 116.00 $          $            3,596 $                21,304 496 $ 502.17 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (Renewal) ‐ Large Flat Fee 59               100.00 $          $         803.22 12% 47,390 $          $            5,900 $         41,490 16% $         132.00 $            7,788 $            1,888 $         39,602 502.18 Community Gardens Program Management Progr Ovhd 1 ‐$                 $                ‐ 0% ‐ $                 ‐$                 ‐$                 ‐‐ costs have been redistributed through annual permit fees, above ‐‐ Total User Fees $245,475 $148,334 $97,141 $159,956 $11,622 $85,519 % of Full Cost 60% 40% 65% 8% 35%
Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
PW ‐ Office of Sustainability & the EnvironmentFY 2020‐21 Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Footnotes
Current Fee Recommended Fee ‐ Year 1 Recommended Fee ‐ Year 2 Recommended Fee ‐ Year 3 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (Renewal) ‐ Small $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (Renewal) ‐ Medium $100.00 $116.00 $132.00 $150.00 Community Gardens ‐ Annual Permit (Renewal) ‐ Large $100.00 $132.00 $164.00 $200.00 Community Garden Annual Permit fees are currently set at $100, regardless of plot‐size.  Staff recommend three changes to the current fee structure for these annual permits: 1) a tiered structure be implemented, based on plot‐size, 2) increases to the proposed fees be implemented over a three‐year time period, and 3) these fees should not be adjusted by CPI factors during non‐study years.  This pricing structure has been approved by the Community Garden Committee.

Community Garden Annual Permit (New Gardeners) fees are are pro‐rated (from a flat fee of $100), based on the month the permit is initially issued. Staff recommend this fee be deleted from the fee schedule, and replaced with language added to the Annual Permit fees, stating that the fee will be pro‐rated based on plot‐size and the quarter the permit is initially issued (January ‐ March @100%, April ‐ June @75%, July ‐ September @50%, October ‐ December @25%).

Electronic Vehicle Charger fee was studied in the Spring (2020) and the current fee of $0.30 per kWh was approved by City Council in June. Because of this recent analysis, no updates were made in this cost‐of‐service analysis but will be re‐visited in the next user fee cycle.Water Neutrality Administrative fees are not cost‐of‐service; the fees shown above are considered pass‐thru fees collected by OSE but then given to the contract vendor to cover the administrative costs of the Water Neutrality Direct Install Program (indoor water fixture retrofits). Per the contract #10496, OSE may adjust these fees by 2% each year. Water Neutrality In‐Lieu Offset fee is not cost‐of‐service; this fee is is considered a pass‐thru fee collected by OSE but then given to the contract vendor to cover the labor and material costs of the Water Neutrality Direct Install Program (indoor water retrofits).

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Public LandscapeFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 507.01 PARK, BEACH, TREE MAINTENANCE FEES 0‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ 507.02 Public Landscape Administrator Delete 146.52 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; obsolete ‐‐ 507.03 Park Maintenance Service New ‐ Hourly $ 113.64 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 113.64 $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.04 Park Asset Damage New ‐ Actual Cost ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ proposed as actual cost recovery; see footnote below ‐‐507.05 Park Event Clean Up Deposit (0‐500 people) New ‐ Deposit ‐ $ 500.00 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 500.00 $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.06 Park Event Clean Up Deposit (501‐1000 people) New ‐ Deposit ‐ $ 1,000.00 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $ 1,000.00 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.07 Park Event Clean Up Deposit (1000+ people) New ‐ Deposit ‐ $ 1,500.00 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $ 1,500.00 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.08 Beach Maintenance Service New ‐ Hourly ‐ $ 125.92 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 125.92 $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.09 Beach Asset Damage New ‐ Actual Cost ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ proposed as actual cost recovery; see footnote below ‐‐ 507.10 Beach Event Clean Up Deposit (0‐500 people) New ‐ Deposit ‐ $ 500.00 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 500.00 $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.11 Beach Event Clean Up Deposit (501‐1000 people) New ‐ Deposit ‐ $ 1,000.00 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $ 1,000.00 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.12 Beach Event Clean Up Deposit (1000+ people) New ‐ Deposit ‐ $ 1,500.00 ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $ 1,500.00 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 507.13 Tree Planting 24" Box New ‐ Flat Fee 8 $ 290.80 ‐ $ 0% 2,326 $ $ ‐ $ 2,326 100% 290.80 $ $ 2,326 $ 2,326 ‐$ 507.14 Tree Planting 36" Box New ‐ Flat Fee 4 $ 793.15 ‐ $ 0% 3,173 $ $ ‐ $ 3,173 100% 793.15 $ $ 3,173 $ 3,173 ‐$ 507.15 Tree Planting 48" Box New ‐ Flat Fee 2 $ 2,009.25 ‐ $ 0% 4,019 $ $ ‐ $ 4,019 100% 2,009.25 $ $ 4,019 $ 4,019 ‐$ 507.16 Tree & Stump Removal 0‐24 DSH Per Inch New ‐ Flat Fee 190 $ ‐ $ 31.70 0% 6,023 $ $ ‐ $ 6,023 100% 31.70 $ $ 6,023 $ 6,023 ‐$ 507.17 Tree & Stump Removal >24 DSH Per Inch New ‐ Flat Fee 188 $ ‐ $ 42.30 0% 7,952 $ $ ‐ $ 7,952 100% 42.30 $ $ 7,952 $ 7,952 ‐$ 507.18 Full Prune 7‐12 DSH New ‐ Flat Fee 5 $ 158.60 ‐ $ 0% 793 $ $ ‐ $ 793 100% 158.60 $ $ 793 $ 793 ‐$ 507.19 Full Prune 13‐18 DSH New ‐ Flat Fee 20 $ 237.90 ‐ $ 0% 4,758 $ $ ‐ $ 4,758 100% 237.90 $ $ 4,758 $ 4,758 ‐$ 507.20 Full Prune 19‐24 DSH New ‐ Flat Fee 12 $ 290.80 ‐ $ 0% 3,490 $ $ ‐ $ 3,490 100% 290.80 $ $ 3,490 $ 3,490 ‐$ 507.21 Full Prune 25‐30 DSH New ‐ Flat Fee 12 $ 396.50 ‐ $ 0% 4,758 $ $ ‐ $ 4,758 100% 396.50 $ $ 4,758 $ 4,758 ‐$ 507.22 Full Prune 31‐36 DSH New ‐ Flat Fee 6 $ 475.85 ‐ $ 0% 2,855 $ $ ‐ $ 2,855 100% 475.85 $ $ 2,855 $ 2,855 ‐$ 507.23 Full Prune >36 DSH New ‐ Flat Fee 6 $ 528.75 ‐ $ 0% 3,173 $ $ ‐ $ 3,173 100% 528.75 $ $ 3,173 $ 3,173 ‐$ 507.24 Tree Restitution ‐ Cost Per Required Replacement 24" Box Tree New ‐ Flat Fee 26 $ 704.36 ‐ $ 0% 18,313 $ $ 18,313 ‐ $ 100% 704.36 $ $ 18,313 $ 18,313 ‐$ 507.25 PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEES 0‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ 507.26 Presubmittal Review Flat Fee 287.94 14 $ $ 224.82 128% 3,147 $ $ 4,031 $ (884) 100% 224.82 $ $ 3,147 $ (884) ‐$ 507.27 Standard Plan Review Flat Fee 287.94 400 $ $ 449.64 64% 179,854 $ $ 115,176 $ 64,678 100% 449.64 $ $ 179,854 $ 64,678 ‐$ 507.28 Plan Checks Not Otherwise Classified Delete 287.94 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; obsolete ‐‐ 507.29 Permit Revisions Flat Fee 287.94 1 $ $ 112.41 256% 112 $ $ 288 $ (176) 100% 112.41 $ $ 112 $ (176) ‐$ 507.30 Permit Renewals Flat Fee 287.94 1 $ $ 112.41 256% 112 $ $ 288 $ (176) 100% 112.41 $ $ 112 $ (176) ‐$ 507.31 More Than Three Plan Reviews Hourly 287.94 20 $ $ 149.88 192% 2,998 $ $ 5,759 $ (2,761) 100% 149.88 $ $ 2,998 $ (2,761) ‐$ 507.32 Minimun Plan Check Fee ‐ All Categories Delete 287.94 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; obsolete ‐‐ 507.33 Constr Insp $0 ‐ $100k Delete 287.94 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; obsolete ‐‐ 507.34 Constr Insp $0 ‐ $300k Flat Fee 491.92 50 $ $ 224.82 219% 11,241 $ $ 24,596 $ (13,355) 100% 224.82 $ $ 11,241 $ (13,355) ‐$ 507.35 Constr Insp $300k ‐ $1M Flat Fee 899.90 30 $ $ 449.64 200% 13,489 $ $ 26,997 $ (13,508) 100% 449.64 $ $ 13,489 $ (13,508) ‐$ 507.36 Constr Insp $1M ‐ $20M Flat Fee 1,307.87 15 $ $ 1,348.91 97% 20,234 $ $ 19,618 $ 616 100% $ 1,348.91 $ 20,234 $ 616 ‐$ 507.37 Constr Insp $20M ‐ up Flat Fee 1,715.85 1 $ $ 1,798.54 95% 1,799 $ $ 1,716 $ 83 100% $ 1,798.54 $ 1,799 $ 83 ‐$ 507.38 Verify Existing Tree Conditions Delete 287.94 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; obsolete ‐‐ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Public LandscapeFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Total User Fees $294,619 $198,469 $96,150 $294,619 $96,150 $0% of Full Cost 67% 33% 100% 48% 0% Footnotes507.03 Park Maintenance Service Proposed fee to offset the cost of staff labor for specialized public requests within the public parks. 507.04 Park Asset Damage507.08 Beach Maintenance Service Proposed fee to offset the cost of staff labor for specialized public requests within Santa Monica State Beach. 507.09 Beach Asset DamageThe Tree Maintenance items (507.13 ‐ 507.24 above) are proposed due to the elimination of the 3.0 FTE urban forest field staff and associated equipment and approxmiately 30% reduction to the contracted tree maintenance services budget as part of citywide restructuring in June 2020. PLD can no longer absorb the cost of work that done before, during, and sometimes after construction projects. For example, in‐house staff or contractor would sometimes peform tree maintenance so a developer could begin a construction project. Pruning cycles have also needed to be extended in some instances; e.g. a resident or group of residents request their tree to be trimmed prior to the new scheduled pruning cycle. Proposed description: Fees for public tree maintenance required for construction projects or specialized requests for public trees.

Proposed footnote added to Deposit amounts, to recover the repair/replacement of assets if damage is beyond the deposit amount collected for events described above. Assessed in increments of $100 up to the actual cost of repairs/replacement.Proposed footnote added to Deposit amounts, to recover the repair/replacement of assets if damage is beyond the deposit amount collected for events described above. Assessed in increments of $100 up to the actual cost of repairs/replacement.

The Beach Maintenance Service and Park Maintenance Service items (Fee's 507.03 and 507.08 above) are in response to occasional requests (e.g. once per year) for staff to perform a task at the request of the public that is not part of the routine maintenance they peform. These are not related to deposits used as collateral for events. One example of beach maintenance service is an ultimate frisbee tournament on the beach requested sand berms created for its activity.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Resource Recovery and RecyclingFY 2020‐21 Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 513.01 Additional Pick‐Up Service: Bin Flat 245 $ 64.84 $ 110.77 59% 27,138 $ $ 15,886 $ 11,252 70% 77.54 $ $ 18,996 $ 3,111 $ 8,141 513.02 Additional Pick‐Up Service: Cart Flat 43.28 40 $ $ 86.41 50% 3,456 $ $ 1,731 $ 1,725 62% 53.57 $ $ 2,143 $ 412 $ 1,313513.03 Construction & Demo Waste Mgt Plan Delete 593.48 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.04 Container Rental (Rent‐A‐Bin per each four week period) Flat 183.12 49 $ $ 300.36 61% 14,718 $ $ 8,973 $ 5,745 100% 300.36 $ $ 14,718 $ 5,745 ‐$ 513.05 Container (Bin) Rentals (Events) Delete 275.19 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.06 Curby Rental per hour (2 hour minimum/4 hour maximum) Hourly 206.65 2 $ $ 238.04 87% 476 $ $ 413 $ 63 87% 207.09 $ $ 414 $ 1 $ 62 513.07 Event Rental / Party Truck per hour (2 hour minimum/4 hour maximum) Hourly 103.89 3 $ $ 232.84 45% 699 $ $ 312 $ 387 59% 137.37 $ $ 412 $ 100 $ 286 513.08 Kitchen Food Scrap Pail Sales Flat + Pail ‐ $ 6.87 $ 6.50 106% ‐ $ $ ‐ $ ‐ 100% 6.50 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 513.09 Pressure Washing Services (per Hour) (Minimum of 1 hour) Per Hour 148.09 40 $ $ 187.53 79% 7,501 $ $ 5,924 $ 1,578 100% 187.53 $ $ 7,501 $ 1,578 ‐$ 513.10 Private Refuse Hauler Permit Flat 499.47 63 $ $ 526.91 95% 33,195 $ $ 31,467 $ 1,729 100% 526.91 $ $ 33,195 $ 1,729 ‐$ 513.11 Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program‐Additional Cans Delete ‐ $ 8.24 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.12 Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program‐Annual Service (12 times per year) Delete 197.98 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.13 Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program‐Quarterly Service (4 times per year) Delete ‐ $ 98.99 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.14 Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program‐Semi‐Annual Service (2 times per year Delete ‐ $ 65.98 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.15 Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program (once a year service) Delete ‐ $ 32.98 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.16 Sale of Composting Bins (Santa Monica Residents Only) Flat + Bin 17.21 26 $ $ 74.64 23% 1,941 $ $ 447 $ 1,493 50% 37.32 $ $ 970 $ 523 $ 970 513.17 Solid Waste Encl Plan Check: Complex (Major) Flat 717.28 189 $ $ 608.41 118% 114,990 $ $ 135,566 $ (20,576) 100% 608.41 $ $ 114,990 $ (20,576) $ ‐ 513.18 Solid Waste Encl Plan Check: Simple (SFR) Flat 553 $ 63.32 $ 76.42 83% 42,259 $ $ 35,016 $ 7,243 100% 76.42 $ $ 42,259 $ 7,243 ‐$ 513.19 Solid Waste Encl Plan Check: Medium Flat 454.33 784 $ $ 509.48 89% 399,435 $ $ 356,195 $ 43,241 100% 509.48 $ $ 399,435 $ 43,241 $ ‐ 513.20 Solid Waste Handling Fee (per ton) Surcharge ‐ $ 21.75 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 21.75 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 513.21 Street Sweeping Services Flat 120.98 112 $ $ 254.41 48% 28,494 $ $ 13,550 $ 14,944 100% 254.41 $ $ 28,494 $ 14,944 $ ‐ 513.22 Rent‐A‐Bin Roll out Services Delete ‐ $ 45.32 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.23 Cart Rollout Services Flat 312 $ 8.65 $ 19.83 44% 6,187 $ $ 2,699 $ 3,488 100% 19.83 $ $ 6,187 $ 3,488 ‐$ 513.24 Bin Washing Services Flat ‐ $ 49.49 $ 62.10 80% ‐ $ $ ‐ $ ‐ 100% 62.10 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 513.25 Extra Refuse Bag Sales Flat + Bag 17 $ 6.87 $ 45.38 15% 771 $ $ 117 $ 655 36% 16.34 $ $ 278 $ 161 $ 494 513.26 Container (Cart) Rentals (Events) Remove 176.19 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.27 Bulky Item Collection (one‐hour minimum) New‐Hourly 106.29 1 $ $ 218.90 49% 219 $ $ 106 $ 113 100% 218.90 $ $ 219 $ 113 ‐$ 513.28 Event Coordination Fee (Bins or Carts) Flat 236.64 67 $ $ 275.87 86% 18,483 $ $ 15,855 $ 2,628 100% 275.87 $ $ 18,483 $ 2,628 ‐$ 513.29 Bin Delivery & Removal (up to 5 bins) Delete ‐ $ 39.90 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.30 Event Rental ‐ Refuse/Food Waste Carts (per cart) Delete 135.52 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.31 Event Rental ‐ Recycling Carts (per cart) Delete 135.52 ‐ $ $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ 513.32 Cart Delivery and Removal (up to 10 carts) Delete ‐ $ 26.60 $ ‐ 0% ‐ $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ staff recommends removing ‐‐ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Resource Recovery and RecyclingFY 2020‐21 Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
513.33 Constr & Demo Waste Management Plan Review: Complex Repl ‐ Flat 593.48 65 $ 792.81 $ 75% 51,532 $ 38,576 $ 12,956 $ 100% 792.81 $ 51,532 $ 12,956 $ ‐ $ 513.34 Constr & Demo Waste Management Plan Review: Medium Repl ‐ Flat 593.48 306 $ 606.66 $ 98% 185,639 $ 181,605 $ 4,034 $ 100% 606.66 $ 185,639 $ 4,034 $ ‐$ 513.35 Constr & Demo Waste Management Plan Review: Simple (SFR) Repl ‐ Flat 593.48 203 $ 511.84 $ 116% 103,904 $ 120,476 $ (16,572) $ 100% 511.84 $ 103,904 $ (16,572) $ ‐ $ 513.36 Truck Ad Space Rental (per panel, per side, per month) New ‐ Per Month ‐ 6 $ 245.11 $ 0% 1,471 $ ‐ $ 1,471 $ 100% 245.11 $ 1,471 $ 1,471 $ ‐$ 513.37 Roll out Services ‐ Crew Pullout Repl ‐ Flat 45.32 12 $ 120.54 $ 38% 1,446 $ 544 $ 903 $ 100% 120.54 $ 1,446 $ 903 $ ‐$ 513.38 Roll out Services ‐ Bin Truck Pullout Repl ‐ Flat 45.32 13 $ 139.15 $ 33% 1,809 $ 589 $ 1,220 $ 100% 139.15 $ 1,809 $ 1,220 $ ‐$ 513.39 Event Cart Rental (per cart) Repl ‐ Per Cart 135.52 326 $ 146.34 $ 93% 47,708 $ 44,180 $ 3,527 $ 100% 146.34 $ 47,708 $ 3,527 $ ‐$ 513.40 Event Bin Rental (per Bin) New ‐ Per Bin ‐ 25 $ 281.56 $ 0% 7,039 $ ‐ $ 7,039 $ 100% 281.56 $ 7,039 $ $ 7,039 ‐$ 513.41 Constr & Demo Project Waste Management Plan Review: Demo Only Repl ‐ Flat 593.48 ‐ $ $ 606.66 98% ‐ $ $ ‐ $ ‐ 100% 606.66 $ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Total User Fees $1,100,511 $1,010,226 $90,284 $1,089,244 $79,017 $11,267% of Full Cost 92% 8% 99% 8% 1% Footnotes
Rent‐a‐Bin Roll Out Services (513.22) is being replaced by the proposed new fees ‐ Rent‐A‐Bin Roll Out Services ‐ Crew Pullout (513.37) and Rent‐A‐Bin Roll Out Services ‐ Bin Truck Pullout (513.38)Event Rental ‐ Refuse/Food Waste Carts (513.30), Event Rental ‐ Recycling Carts (513.31), and Cart Delivery and Removal (up to 10 carts) (513.32) are being replaced by the proposed new fee ‐ Event Cart Rental (513.39) Fee 513.05 and 513.29 are being removed as they were combined into fee 513.40.

Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan (513.03) is being broken out by size. Broken out into fees 513.33‐513.35 and 513.41. Fee 513.03 is now redundant and should be removed.

Residential Clean‐A‐Can Program Fees (513.11‐513.15) should be removed from the fee schedule; these services are already provided as part of the City's regular trash program.Fee 513.06 ‐ Curby Rental ‐ RRR is the operator of the Curby unit. It is used for public outreach regarding recycling initiatives. RRR staff is ok to subidize the cost of the unit so that more people, both children ad adults, become familiar with the City's recycling efforts.

Fee 513.25 (Extra Refuse Bag Sales) is being phased in to keep the public from illegal dumping. If the cost of bags is too high, the public may dump overflow trash in the alley.

Fees 513.01, 513.02, 513.07, 513.25 will be phased in to recover 100% of cost over a 4 year time period.

Fees 513.01 (Additional Pickup Service: Bin) and 513.02 (Additional Pickup Service: Cart) are being phased in because if the fee is raised too quickly, it is thought that people will leave their trash in the alley rather than call for an additional pickup. A phased in approach may mitigate that possibility.Fee 513.07 ‐ Event Rental / Party Truck per hour (2 hour minimum/4 hour maximum) is being phased in so that the rental rate does not go up too fast. The rental refuse truck is considered an educational tool and the division would rather have it rented at a subsidized rate rather than not rented at all due to cost.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Water ResourcesFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 510.01 Water Service Install: 3/4" to 1" Partial Upgrade Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 29 1,237.27 $ $ 818.47 151% 23,736 $ $ 35,881 $ (12,145) 100% 818.47 $ $ 23,736 $ (12,145) $ ‐ 510.02 Water Service Install: 3/4" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 2 5,004.41 $ $ 6,737.71 74% 13,475 $ $ 10,009 $ 3,467 100% 6,737.71 $ $ 13,475 $ 3,467 ‐$ 510.03 Water Service Install: 1" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 45 5,046.06 $ $ 6,822.16 74% 306,997 $ $ 227,073 $ 79,924 100% 6,822.16 $ $ 306,997 $ 79,924 ‐$ 510.04 Water Service Install: 1‐1/2" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 15 6,319.85 $ $ 7,581.13 83% 113,717 $ $ 94,798 $ 18,919 100% 7,581.13 $ $ 113,717 $ 18,919 ‐$ 510.05 Water Service Install: 2" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 5 6,717.61 $ $ 7,806.13 86% 39,031 $ $ 33,588 $ 5,443 100% 7,806.13 $ $ 39,031 $ 5,443 ‐$ 510.06 Water Service Install: 3" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 4 17,971.07 $ $ 15,856.73 113% 63,427 $ $ 71,884 $ (8,457) 100% 15,856.73 $ $ 63,427 $ (8,457) ‐$ 510.07 Water Service Install: 4" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 1 19,434.07 $ $ 16,750.73 116% 16,751 $ $ 19,434 $ (2,683) 100% 16,750.73 $ $ 16,751 $ (2,683) ‐$ 510.08 Water Service Install: 6" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 1 21,932.05 $ $ 17,545.73 125% 17,546 $ $ 21,932 $ (4,386) 100% 17,545.73 $ $ 17,546 $ (4,386) ‐$ 510.09 Water Service Install: 8" Meter Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 1 34,356.03 $ $ 26,379.17 130% 26,379 $ $ 34,356 $ (7,977) 100% 26,379.17 $ $ 26,379 $ (7,977) ‐$ 510.10 Water Service Install: 10"+ Meter** Actual Cost ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ actual cost ‐‐ 510.11 Fire Svc Install: 2" Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 1 6,083.36 $ $ 7,350.63 83% 7,351 $ $ 6,083 $ 1,267 100% 7,350.63 $ $ 7,351 $ 1,267 ‐$ 510.12 Fire Svc Install: 3" Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 23 12,401.34 $ $ 11,900.75 104% 273,717 $ $ 285,231 $ (11,514) 100% 11,900.75 $ $ 273,717 $ (11,514) $ ‐ 510.13 Fire Svc Install: 4" ‐ 10" Flat + Wtr Cap Fac 3 18,375.51 $ $ 18,196.79 101% 54,590 $ $ 55,127 $ (536) 100% $ 18,196.79 $ 54,590 $ (536) ‐$ 510.14 Damaged Water Meter Repair Actual Cost 2 $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ actual cost ‐‐ 510.15 Water Meter Downsize Actual Cost 10 $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ actual cost ‐‐ 510.16 Water Inspection Not Identified Elsewhere Flat Fee 207.41 120 $ $ 262.09 79% 31,450 $ $ 24,889 $ 6,561 100% $ 262.09 $ 31,450 $ 6,561 ‐$ 510.17 Temp Water Service Flat Fee 210.50 35 $ $ 264.99 79% 9,275 $ $ 7,368 $ 1,907 100% $ 264.99 $ 9,275 $ 1,907 ‐$ 510.18 Moved Meter Flat Fee 105.25 10 $ $ 164.87 64% 1,649 $ $ 1,053 $ 596 100% $ 164.87 $ 1,649 $ 596 ‐$ 510.19 Water Meter Test: 3/4" ‐ 2" Meter Flat Fee 280.68 5 $ $ 317.05 89% 1,585 $ $ 1,403 $ 182 100% $ 317.05 $ 1,585 $ 182 ‐$ 510.20 Water Meter Test: 3" and Over Flat Fee 1,684.09 1 $ $ 951.15 177% 951 $ $ 1,684 $ (733) 100% $ 951.15 $ 951 $ (733) ‐$ 510.21 Delinquent Water Bills Tags Flat Fee 495 $ 70.15 $ 66.74 105% 33,037 $ $ 34,724 $ (1,688) 100% $ 66.74 $ 33,037 $ (1,688) ‐$ 510.22 Storm Drain Connect of Existing Box Flat Fee 541.57 20 $ $ 486.54 111% 9,731 $ $ 10,831 $ (1,101) 100% $ 486.54 $ 9,731 $ (1,101) ‐$ 510.23 Storm Drain Pipe Installation/Connection Per Install 541.57 20 $ $ 486.54 111% 9,731 $ $ 10,831 $ (1,101) 100% $ 486.54 $ 9,731 $ (1,101) ‐$ 510.24 Storm Drain Saddle Installation Flat Fee 1,106.67 2 $ $ 1,024.02 108% 2,048 $ $ 2,213 $ (165) 100% $ 1,024.02 $ 2,048 $ (165) ‐$ 510.25 Storm Dye Test Flat Fee 260.75 ‐ $ $ 248.02 105% $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 100% $ 248.02 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 510.26 Emergency Sewage Spill Response Actual Cost 25 $ ‐ $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ $ ‐ ‐$ ‐‐ actual cost ‐‐ 510.27 Sewer Reinspection Flat Fee 260.38 5 $ $ 269.30 97% 1,346 $ $ 1,302 $ 45 100% $ 269.30 $ 1,346 $ 45 ‐$ 510.28 Same Day Emergency Turn‐Off (regular hours) Flat Fee 70.15 48 $ $ 155.07 45% 7,443 $ $ 3,367 $ 4,076 100% $ 155.07 $ 7,443 $ 4,076 ‐$ 510.29 Same Day Emer Turn‐Off (after hours, holidays) Flat Fee 421.02 120 $ $ 288.55 146% 34,626 $ $ 50,522 $ (15,896) 100% $ 288.55 $ 34,626 $ (15,896) $ ‐510.30 Industr Waste Discharge Variance Request Flat Fee 87.83 25 $ $ 105.43 83% 2,636 $ $ 2,196 $ 440 100% $ 105.43 $ 2,636 $ 440 ‐$ 510.31 Industr WW Permit: Class 1 Annual 253.27 361 $ $ 279.97 90% 101,070 $ $ 91,430 $ 9,640 100% $ 279.97 $ 101,070 $ 9,640 ‐$ 510.32 Industr WW Permit: Class 2 Annual 930.07 283 $ $ 926.97 100% 262,332 $ $ 263,210 $ (878) 100% $ 926.97 $ 262,332 $ (878) ‐$ 510.33 Industr WW Permit: Class 3 Annual 1,425.33 89 $ $ 1,419.45 100% 126,331 $ $ 126,854 $ (523) 100% $ 1,419.45 $ 126,331 $ (523) ‐$ 510.34 Industr WW Permit: Class 4 Annual 2,061.20 4 $ $ 1,929.45 107% 7,718 $ $ 8,245 $ (527) 100% $ 1,929.45 $ 7,718 $ (527) ‐$ 510.35 Industr WW Permit: Class 5 Annual 2,556.48 12 $ $ 2,667.58 96% 32,011 $ $ 30,678 $ 1,333 100% $ 2,667.58 $ 32,011 $ 1,333 ‐$ 510.36 Industr WW Permit: Class 6 Annual 5,833.03 1 $ $ 5,053.01 115% 5,053 $ $ 5,833 $ (780) 100% $ 5,053.01 $ 5,053 $ (780) ‐$ 510.37 Industr WW Permit: Class 99 Annual 145.48 120 $ $ 149.54 97% 17,945 $ $ 17,458 $ 487 100% $ 149.54 $ 17,945 $ 487 ‐$ 510.38 Industr WW Permit: New Application Fee Flat Fee 81.93 70 $ $ 108.43 76% 7,590 $ $ 5,735 $ 1,855 100% $ 108.43 $ 7,590 $ 1,855 ‐$ Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaPW ‐ Water ResourcesFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
510.39 Fire Hydrant Relocation ‐ new tap & killout Flat Fee 17,528.16 1 $ $ 15,799.36 111% 15,799 $ $ 17,528 $ (1,729) 100% $ 15,799.36 $ 15,799 $ (1,729) ‐$ 510.40 Fire Hydrant Installation Flat Fee 17,872.81 2 $ $ 17,332.16 103% 34,664 $ $ 35,746 $ (1,081) 100% $ 17,332.16 $ 34,664 $ (1,081) ‐$ 510.41 Fire Hydrant Flow Test Flat Fee 1,010.76 32 $ $ 930.31 109% 29,770 $ $ 32,344 $ (2,574) 100% $ 930.31 $ 29,770 $ (2,574) ‐$ 510.42 Reestablish Delinquent Account Flat Fee 70.15 55 $ $ 66.74 105% 3,671 $ $ 3,858 $ (188) 100% $ 66.74 $ 3,671 $ (188) ‐$ 510.43 Sewer Saddle Connection Flat Fee 1,106.67 100 $ $ 1,024.02 108% 102,402 $ $ 110,667 $ (8,265) 100% $ 1,024.02 $ 102,402 $ (8,265) ‐$ 510.44 Sewer Cap: At Time of Saddle Install Flat + Materials 25 806.81 $ $ 533.14 151% 13,329 $ $ 20,170 $ (6,842) 100% $ 533.14 $ 13,329 $ (6,842) ‐$ 510.45 Sewer Cap: After Saddle Install Flat + Materials 10 937.18 $ $ 657.15 143% 6,572 $ $ 9,372 $ (2,800) 100% $ 657.15 $ 6,572 $ (2,800) ‐$ 510.46 Sewer Lateral Inspection Flat Fee 628.36 100 $ $ 569.11 110% 56,911 $ $ 62,836 $ (5,925) 100% $ 569.11 $ 56,911 $ (5,925) ‐$ 510.47 Manifold Service (3 or more, 3/4" to 1" install) Flat Fee 7,416.69 5 $ $ 4,921.63 151% 24,608 $ $ 37,083 $ (12,475) 100% $ 4,921.63 $ 24,608 $ (12,475) $ ‐ 510.48 Sewer Study Review New ‐ Flat Fee 15 $ 4,443.42 ‐ $ 0% 66,651 $ $ 66,651 ‐ $ 100% $ 4,443.42 $ 66,651 $ 66,651 ‐$ 510.49 Water Study Review New ‐ Flat Fee 15 $ 3,332.56 ‐ $ 0% 49,988 $ $ 49,988 ‐ $ 100% $ 3,332.56 $ 49,988 $ 49,988 ‐$ Total User Fees $2,066,640 $1,926,827 $139,812 $2,066,640 $139,812 $0% of Full Cost 93% 7% 100% 7% 0% Footnotes
All Actual Cost fees are too variable to perform an average cost analysis; these fees are charged at actual cost (time‐and‐materials).Water and Wastewater Capital Facility Fees (Authorizing Resolution 10969 ) are development impact fees and not calculated as cost‐of‐service).Fees 510.01‐ 510.13 ‐ The Water Capital Facility fee is an existing system capacity fee as authorized by Municipal Code Section 7.12.090.Sewer Study Review ‐ this new fee proposal is to recover costs associated with a review done by Water Resources' Civil Engineer for projects requesting wastewater services and to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the project.Water Study Review ‐ this new fee proposal is to recover costs associated with a review done by Water Resources' Civil Engineer for projects requesting water services and to ensure sufficient capacity is available to serve the project.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Police
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Police
The user fee/cost analysis for this department combines two of the City’s fee schedules into one whole:
 Animal Control  Police Permits/Records
Most fees are charged on a flat (or fixed) fee basis – the fee is the same, regardless of size or complexity, and based on the time required to provide the service applied to the fully burdened hourly rate. False alarm fines and penalties, which escalate with each additional occurrence, are not limited to cost. This department’s fee and fine schedule also lists hourly billing rates by classification and hourly equipment rates for use with special event and film permits. Animal control and police records and permit services benefit those individuals or businesses specifically requesting or utilizing the services and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. Animal control services also provide a benefit to the community at large. The City’s policy is to generally ‐ but with some exceptions ‐ set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee‐for‐service activities. Animal control services would be one of the exceptions to the policy of 100% cost recovery, leaving a portion of the costs to be subsidized by the general fund. Most public agencies subsidize animal control services with the idea that licensing compliance and responsible pet ownership is more important than additional revenue collection. Certain animal control fees (licensing fees associated with spayed/neutered dogs) are capped by state law at 50% of the fee otherwise imposed. Current fees recover 77% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged. Department staff recommend that animal control fees be increased by 18% overall, while most of them will still remain subsidized due to the community benefit of providing these services. Other fees will remain subsidized due to State law which caps the fee that can be charged. Most police records and permit fees have recommended fees set at 100% of cost. Four new fee proposals are included in this analysis, reflective of new or additional services now being provided:
 Conditional Animal Permit – The proposed fee is $135.68  Beehive Permit – The proposed fee is $135.68  Dead Animal Pickup – The proposed fee is $119.66  Dead Animal Disposal – The proposed fee is $36.67 The department has several fees which will need to decrease since the full cost is less than the current fee. Most of these decreases are related to permit fees, and the most significant is the Alarm Registration fee, which will need to decrease from $39.11 down to $12.09. The department now contracts with a vendor to provide registration and billing services at considerably less cost than when they provided those services in‐house.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Eight fees are recommended for deletion from the City’s Master Fee Schedule either because the services are no longer being provided, or they are being replaced with fees that have a different name or different method of charging. Each proposed deletion is noted with a Delete notation in the Fee Description column on the User Fee Study Summary Sheet following this narrative.

Eight fees are being proposed to replace or supplement existing fees:
 Massage Technician Permit
– This permit is being proposed to split into two fees, one for New permits and one for Renewals. During the course of this study, it was determined that renewals take only about two‐thirds of the time spent to process a new permit and department staff felt that the fee of $76.22 (down from $108.32) should reflect this time savings.  Massage Establishment Permit
– The fee that is currently being collected for this permit is the $108.32 fee charged for Permit – all others required by code not listed. Department staff recommend that this fee be listed separately and charged at the full cost rate of $281.37.  Report Copies
– Three report copy fees are being proposed to replace the existing Police Reports and Records fees. If the custo
mer
requests an electronic copy and knows the DR#, there will be no charge. If the customer does not know the DR#, the fee will be chargedat actual time and materials. Hard copy requests will be charged at $0.20 per page.  Digital Image Extraction or Compilation
– This fee would replace the Photos
– Color and Black
& White fee and would be charged at
actual time and materials.
 Audio Extraction or Compilation – This fee would replace the Audiotape copy fee and would be charged at actual time and materials. Video Extraction or Compilation – This fee would replace the Videotape copy fee and would be charged at actual time and materials.

Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will result in a net loss of $144,717 in revenue next year, recovering 63% of total cost excluding costs related to false alarm responses.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
Police DepartmentFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 181.01 Adoptions ‐ basic fee, dog/puppy/cat/kitten Flat Fee            227 $           56.62 $           97.72 58% $         22,183 $         12,853 $           9,330 70% $           68.41 $         15,528 $           2,676 $           6,655 181.02 Adoptions ‐ vaccine Flat Fee            438 $           21.30 $         102.52 21% $         44,902 $           9,329 $         35,573 30% $           30.75 $         13,471 $           4,141 $         31,431 181.03 Adoptions ‐ spay/neuter surgery Flat Fee            123 $           96.81 $         177.72 54% $         21,860 $         11,908 $           9,952 60% $         106.63 $         13,116 $           1,208 $           8,744 181.04 Adoptions ‐ basic fee, rabbit Flat Fee                6 $           21.30 $           97.72 22% $               586 $               128 $               459 31% $           30.29 $               182 $                 54 $               405 181.05 Adoptions ‐ basic fee, small animal Flat Fee              18 $           21.30 $           97.72 22% $           1,759 $               383 $           1,376 31% $           30.29 $               545 $               162 $           1,214 181.06 Adoptions ‐ basic fee, large animal Flat Fee               ‐    $           56.62 $           97.72 58% $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    70% $           68.41 $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐ 181.07 Adoptions ‐ home again microchip Flat Fee            130 $           21.30 $           42.56 50% $           5,533 $           2,769 $           2,764 70% $           29.80 $           3,873 $           1,104 $           1,660 181.08 Adoptions ‐ rabies vaccinations Flat Fee            124 $           13.40 $         103.17 13% $         12,794 $           1,662 $         11,132 20% $           20.63 $           2,559 $               897 $         10,235 181.09 Annual dog license ‐ spayed/neutered Flat Fee        4,622 $           43.83 $           51.94 84% $       240,044 $       202,582 $         37,462 50% $           25.97 $       120,022 $        (82,560) $       120,022 181.10 Annual dog license ‐ unspayed/unneutered Flat Fee            380 $           87.67 $           51.94 169% $         19,735 $         33,315 $        (13,579) 100% $           51.94 $         19,735 $        (13,579) $                  ‐   181.11 Annual dog license ‐ duplicate (replacement) Flat Fee            109 $              6.08 $           51.94 12% $           5,661 $               663 $           4,998 100% $           51.94 $           5,661 $           4,998 $                  ‐ 181.12 Non resident permit tag ‐ airport park Flat Fee            677 $           22.52 $           50.83 44% $         34,414 $         15,246 $         19,168 55% $           27.96 $         18,928 $           3,682 $         15,486 181.13 Conditional Animal Permit New ‐ Flat Fee                7 $                  ‐    $         193.82 0% $           1,357 $                  ‐    $           1,357 70% $         135.68 $               950 $               950 $               407 181.14 Beehive Permit New ‐ Flat Fee                1 $                  ‐    $         193.82 0% $               194 $                  ‐    $               194 70% $         135.68 $               136 $               136 $                 58 181.15 Impound ‐ dog Flat Fee            179 $           56.62 $         282.53 20% $         50,573 $         10,135 $         40,438 26% $           73.46 $         13,149 $           3,014 $         37,424 181.16 Impound ‐ cat Flat Fee            147 $           21.30 $         282.53 8% $         41,532 $           3,131 $         38,401 10% $           28.25 $           4,153 $           1,022 $         37,379 181.17 Dead Animal Pickup New ‐ Flat Fee            254 $                  ‐    $         239.32 0% $         60,787 $                  ‐    $         60,787 50% $         119.66 $         30,393 $         30,393 $         30,393 181.18 Dead Animal Disposal New ‐ Flat Fee            254 $                  ‐    $           36.67 0% $           9,315 $                  ‐    $           9,315 100% $           36.67 $           9,315 $           9,315 $                  ‐ 181.19 Owner surrender ‐ dog licensed Flat Fee              15 $           43.83 $           97.72 45% $           1,466 $               657 $               808 70% $           68.41 $           1,026 $               369 $               440 181.20 Owner surrender ‐ dog unlicensed/altered Penalty                4 $           87.67 $           97.72 90% $               391 $               351 $                 40 90% $           87.67 $               351 $                  ‐    $                 40 181.21 Owner surrender ‐ dog unlicensed/unaltered Penalty              10 $         135.78 $           97.72 139% $               977 $           1,358 $             (381) 139% $         135.78 $           1,358 $                  ‐    $             (381) 181.22 Owner surrender ‐ cat Flat Fee              39 $           43.83 $           97.72 45% $           3,811 $           1,709 $           2,102 70% $           68.41 $           2,668 $               958 $           1,143 181.23 Boarding ‐ dog, cat, other Per Day            381 $           13.40 $         239.37 6% $         91,199 $           5,105 $         86,093 10% $           23.94 $           9,120 $           4,014 $         82,079 181.24 Trap rental ‐ 10 days + $50 deposit              14 $           22.52 $           33.67 67% $               471 $               315 $               156 80% $           26.94 $               377 $                 62 $                 94 181.25 Permit‐Entertainment in Bar, Nightclub, Restaurant Flat Fee               ‐    $         108.32 $           49.18 220% $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    100% $           49.18 $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐   181.26 Permit‐Fire Arm Sales Flat Fee               ‐    $         108.32 $           49.18 220% $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    100% $           49.18 $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐ 181.27 Permit‐Tow Truck Operator Flat Fee               ‐    $         108.32 $           49.18 220% $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    100% $           49.18 $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐ 181.28 Permit ‐ all others required by code not listed Flat Fee              92 $         108.32 $           49.18 220% $           4,525 $           9,965 $          (5,441) 100% $           49.18 $           4,525 $          (5,441) $                  ‐ 181.29 Local Records Check Flat Fee               ‐    $           26.39 $           26.54 99% $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    100% $           26.54 $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐ 181.30 Firearms Storage and Release Flat Fee                2 $         174.06 $           44.65 390% $                 89 $               348 $             (259) 100% $           44.65 $                 89 $             (259) $                  ‐   181.31 Massage Technician Permit ‐ New Flat Fee                1 $         108.32 $         114.12 95% $               114 $               108 $                   6 100% $         114.12 $               114 $                   6 $                  ‐   181.32 Massage Technician Permit ‐ Renewal Repl ‐ Flat Fee              12 $         108.32 $           76.22 142% $               915 $           1,300 $             (385) 100% $           76.22 $               915 $             (385) $                  ‐   181.33 Massage Establishment Permit Repl ‐ Flat Fee              40 $         108.32 $         281.37 38% $         11,255 $           4,333 $           6,922 100% $         281.37 $         11,255 $           6,922 $                  ‐   181.34 Second Hand Dealer Permit ‐ New Flat Fee               ‐    $         430.68 $         396.90 109% $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    100% $         396.90 $                  ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐ 181.35 Second Hand Dealer Permit‐ Renewal Flat Fee                7 $         382.19 $         375.17 102% $           2,626 $           2,675 $               (49) 100% $         375.17 $           2,626 $               (49) $                  ‐ Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
Police DepartmentFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
181.36 Pawnbroker Permit‐ New Flat Fee               ‐    $         430.68 $         396.90 109% $ ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐    100% $         396.90 $ ‐    $                  ‐    $                  ‐   181.37 Pawnbroker Permit ‐ Renewal Flat Fee                2 $         274.74 $         266.51 103% $               533 $               549 $               (16) 100% $         266.51 $               533 $               (16) $ ‐   181.38 Alarm Registration Fee Flat Fee        4,555 $           39.11 $           12.09 323% $         55,078 $       178,146 $     (123,068) 100% $           12.09 $         55,078 $     (123,068) $ ‐   181.39 Police Reports Delete               ‐    $              1.00 ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule; replace with 3 fees below ‐‐181.40 Records ‐ traffic accident reports Delete               ‐    $              1.00 ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule; replace with 3 fees below ‐‐181.41 Police Report ‐ Correct DR#, electronic copy Repl ‐ No Charge               ‐    $ ‐    ‐‐ Department recommends no charge for electronic report copies ‐‐ 181.42
Data Compilation Fee for Police Reports (unknown DR#) and other SMPD records ‐ electronic copy Repl ‐ Actual Cost               ‐    $ ‐ ‐‐ Recommend actual time and materials ‐‐
181.43 Police Report ‐ hard copy Repl ‐ Per Page               ‐    $ ‐    ‐‐ Recommend $0.20 per page for hard copies ‐‐ 181.44 Photos ‐ color or black & white Delete               ‐    $ 82 ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule; replace with 3 fees below ‐‐181.45 Audiotape copy Delete               ‐    $ 53 ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule; replace with 3 fees below ‐‐181.46 Videotape copy Delete               ‐    $               107 ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule; replace with 3 fees below ‐‐181.47 Digital Image Extraction or Compilation Repl ‐ Actual Cost               ‐    $ ‐    ‐‐ convert from fixed fee to billed at actual time and materials ‐‐ 181.48 Audio Extraction or Compilation Repl ‐ Actual Cost               ‐    $ ‐    ‐‐ convert from fixed fee to billed at actual time and materials ‐‐181.49 Video Extraction or Compilation Repl ‐ Actual Cost               ‐    $ ‐    ‐‐ convert from fixed fee to billed at actual time and materials ‐‐181.50 Data Compilation Hourly                1 $         147.76 $         121.23 122% $               121 $               148 $               (27) 100% $         121.23 $               121 $               (27) $ ‐ 181.51 Crime analysis/research ‐ multiple searches Delete               ‐    $         221.65 $ ‐    ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule ‐‐ 181.52 Fingerprinting ‐ public Delete               ‐    $           63.22 $ ‐    ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule ‐‐ 181.53 Vehicle impound & release Flat Fee            823 $         157.90 $         155.10 102% $       127,644 $       129,952 $          (2,308) 100% $         155.10 $       127,644 $          (2,308) $ ‐   181.54 30 day vehicle impound Flat Fee            124 $      1,083.40 $      1,095.05 99% $       135,786 $       134,342 $           1,444 100% $      1,095.05 $       135,786 $           1,444 $ ‐   181.55 Boot removal Delete               ‐    $         172.28 ‐‐ remove from the Master Fee Schedule ‐‐ 181.56 False alarm ‐ 2nd & 3rd response in calendar year Penalty           836 $         164.86 $         173.65 ‐‐ penalty ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐181.57 False alarm ‐ 4th & subsequent in calendar year Penalty         278 $         247.29 $         310.28 ‐‐ penalty ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐ 181.58 Police Billable Services (per hour) Actual Cost ‐‐ billed at actual time and materials ‐‐ 181.59
Equipment fees for special events and film permits‐
police horse Rental               ‐    $           31.47 ‐‐ Equipment rental ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐ 181.60
Equipment fees for special events and film permits‐PD Vehicle Rental               ‐    $           94.43 ‐‐ Equipment rental ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐ 181.61
Equipment fees for special events and film permits‐motor Rental               ‐    $           62.95 ‐‐ Equipment rental ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐ 181.62
Equipment fees for special events and film permits‐command post Rental               ‐    $           94.43 ‐‐ Equipment rental ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐ 181.63
Equipment fees for special events and film permits‐rescue boat (4 hour minimum charge) Rental               ‐    $         251.83 ‐‐ Equipment rental ‐ cost not analyzed ‐‐ 181.64 Parking Citation Dismissal ‐ Disabled Placard Flat Fee        452 $           20.84 $           27.32 76% $         12,349 $           9,420 $           2,929 92% $           25.00 $         11,300 $           1,880 $           1,049 181.65 Parking Citation Dismissal ‐ Preferential R Permit Flat Fee            240 $           20.84 $           35.70 58% $           8,568 $           5,002 $           3,567 100% $           35.70 $           8,568 $           3,567 $                  ‐ Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
Police DepartmentFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Total User Fees $1,031,148 $789,887 $241,261 $645,170 ‐$144,717 $385,978% of Full Cost 77% 23% 63% ‐18% 37% Footnotes
Fees 181.09, 181.10 ‐ Per G.C. Section 38792, the license fee for spayed/neutered dogs cannot exceed more than 50% of the fee otherwise imposed.Fees 181.20, 181.21 ‐ Fines and penalties are exempt from Prop 26 and can be set at whatever City deems appropriate.Fee 181.32 ‐ Proposing to split current Massage Technician permit fee into New and Renewal, since it takes less time to proceess a renewal permit.Fees 181.39 and 181.40 are recommended to be replaced with Fees 181.41, 181.42, and 181.43.

Fees 181.44, 181.45, and 181.46 are recommended to be replaced with Fees 181.47, 181.48, and 181.49.

Fee 181.50 ‐ Formerly called "Crime Analysis Research"Fee 181.51 ‐ Combined with Fee 181.50Fee 181.52 ‐ Police department no longer provides fingerprinting services.Fee 181.55 ‐ Police department no longer removes boots.Fee 181.64 ‐ Fee capped at $25 by CA VC 40226.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Community Services
Beach House Operations
Community Recreation
Cultural Affairs
Housing & Human Services
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Community Services
The user fee/cost analysis for this department was developed for four divisions that provide fee‐for‐service activities:
 Beach House Operations  Community Recreation  Cultural Affairs  Human Services Fees are charged in a variety of ways including:
 Per participant/team/use or entry for recreation programs  Per entry for community events  Hourly facility rentals  Flat fees for various permit fees  Sliding scale fees based on size of event, or user‐type (resident vs. non‐resident, commercial vs. non‐profit, etc.) MGT’s analysis for CSD programs was done at a higher level than that of the other departments included in this study, comparing annual program costs to annual revenues collected. It is difficult to develop a detailed cost analysis at the per‐participant or per‐use level with any degree of accuracy because program offerings are constantly changing due to changes in seasons, high vs. low demand levels, etc. MGT’s analysis provided the department with cost recovery levels by program area. Department staff then reviewed its Pricing Policy for Recreation Programs and Permit Services for desired cost recovery ranges and used pricing indicators to assess when an increased fee may be warranted for activities within each program or service. The user fee summary on the following pages illustrates the department’s proposed fee adjustments by program area and provides overall cost/revenue comparisons. Within this department, current fees recover 29% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged. Implementation of the department’s proposed fee adjustments will result in an additional $242,978 in new revenue per year, increasing the overall cost recovery level for CSD user fee programs to 30% of total cost.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Beach House Operations
The Beach House has been closed for the majority of the year due to COVID 19 restrictions. Also, due to staffing cuts resulting from the COVID restructuring the Division currently does not have the ability to offer most of the revenue generating programing that it had in the past. There are budget requests in to bring back some of that staffing. If council approves those requests, the Division anticipates a greater cost recovery when those programs are reinstated. Community Recreation This Division recommends slight increases to many of its program fees. At projected participation levels, these adjustments would result in an overall increase in cost recovery from 28% to 30%, with an additional $155,755 in revenue.

Cultural Affairs MGT was unable to analyze the cost and projected revenue of The Miles Playhouse since it was temporarily closed due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The Division is proposing adding a fee that was adopted previous to this fee study but never implemented: Cultural Arts Development Requirement Application Processing Fee. Per ordinance, developers adding significant new commercial or residential space are required to create openly accessible on‐site public art or cultural facilities. This fee is intended to recover the cost of reviewing the applications for the cultural arts requirements. The proposed fee is $6,312.99. The implementation of this fee is projected to increase the Division’s revenue by $12,626.

Housing & Human Services This Division is proposing increases to its CREST programs, including the Enrichment Program, Camp Santa Monica and the CREST Club (childcare). Fees for the Enrichment Program and the CREST Club are proposed to increase between 7% and 9%. Camp Santa Monica fees are recommended to increase by approximately 84%. Implementing these recommended adjustments would increase this Division’s revenue by $74,597.The User Fee Study Summary Sheet following this narrative shows the results of MGT’s analysis at the program level. Following MGT’s summaries, individual fee adjustments for Community Recreation and CREST program fees are displayed.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaCSD ‐ Beach House Operations
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 406.01 Aquatics‐Adults total program $ ‐ ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 406.02 Aquatics‐Seniors total program $ ‐ ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 406.03 Aquatics‐Youth total program $ ‐ ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 406.04 Classes‐Adults total program $ 5,320 $ 128,960 4% $ 128,960 $ 5,320 $ 123,640 4% 5,320 $ $ 5,320 $ ‐ $ 123,640 406.05 Classes‐Seniors total program $ 1,330 $ 77,799 2% 77,799 $ $ 1,330 $ 76,469 2% 1,330 $ $ 1,330 ‐$ 76,469 $ 406.06 Classes‐Youth total program $ 6,650 $ 179,290 4% $ 179,290 $ 6,650 $ 172,640 4% 6,650 $ $ 6,650 $ ‐ $ 172,640 406.07 Private Events & Film all facility rentals 38,500 $ 1, $ 985,883 2% $ 1,985,883 $ 1, 38,500 $ 947,383 2% 38,500 $ $ 38,500 $ ‐ $ 1,947,383 Total User Fees $2,371,933 $51,800 $2,320,133 $51,800 $0 $2,320,133 % of Full Cost 2% 98% 2% 0% 98%
FootnotesThe cost analysis for all Community Services programs was performed at the program level, comparing total annual costs to current annual revenues. Individual fees vary, dependent upon activity levels, seasonality, and popularity.

This type of analysis provides the department with an overall picture of how each program is recovering costs, and allows for minor adjustments to individual fees based on economic and policy considerations.Please note that the revenues for all programs, including Private Events & Film, are much lower than typical; this is due to the fact that the Annenberg Community Beach House has been closed due to the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CSD ‐ Community Recreation
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 403.01 Outdoor Facility Permits ‐ Community Events facility rental $ 9,028 $ 3% 280,754 $ 9,028 280,754 $ $ 3% 9,028 271,726 $ 9,028 $ ‐ $ $ 271,726 403.02 Aquatics ‐ Youth total progr 92,000 $ 1, $ 7% 237,049 $ 92,000 1,237,049 $ 1, $ 8. 145,049 5% 105,149 $ $ 13,149 105,149 $ 1, $ 131,900 403.03 Aquatics ‐ Adult total progr 185,000 $ 1, $ 17% 065,187 $ 1,065,187 $ 185,000 $ 20% 880,187 $ 213,037 $ 28,037 213,037 $ $ 852,150 403.04 Aquatics ‐ Seniors total progr 108,000 $ $ 16% 662,748 $ 662,748 $ 108,000 $ 16% 554,748 $ 108,000 $ ‐ 108,000 $ $ 554,748 403.05 Aquatics ‐ Youth Permits total progr 235,000 $ $ 38% 620,501 $ 620,501 $ 235,000 $ 43% 385,501 $ 266,815 $ 31,815 266,815 $ $ 353,685403.06 Aquatics ‐ Adult Permits total progr 168,000 $ $ 45% 376,837 $ 376,837 $ 168,000 $ 51. 208,837 5% 194,071 $ $ 26,071 194,071 $ $ 182,766403.07 SMC ‐ Aquatics total progr 243,000 $ $ 810,656 30% $ 810,656 $ 243,000 $ 567,656 30% $ 243,000 $ 243,000 $ ‐ $ 567,656 403.08 Classes ‐ Youth total progr 137,000 $ $ 745,207 18% $ 745,207 $ 137,000 $ 608,207 19% $ 143,825 $ 143,825 $ 6,825 $ 601,382 403.09 Classes ‐ Adult total progr 137,000 $ $ 354,954 39% $ 354,954 $ 137,000 $ 217,954 41% $ 143,756 $ 143,756 $ 6,756 $ 211,198 403.10 Classes ‐ Seniors total progr 137,000 $ $ 325,649 42% $ 325,649 $ 137,000 $ 188,649 44.2% 143,774 $ $ 143,774 $ 6,774 $ 181,875403.11 Meeting Facilities facility rental $ 88,000 $ 291,634 30% $ 291,634 $ 88,000 $ 203,634 36% $ 104,988 $ 104,988 $ 16,988 $ 186,646 403.12 Picnic Permits facility rental $ 8,260 $ 50,804 16% 50,804 $ $ 8,260 $ 42,544 20% 10,161 $ $ 10,161 $ 1,901 $ 40,643 403.13 Outdoor Facility Permits ‐ Lawn Bowling facility rental $ 2,371 $ 56,793 4% 56,793 $ $ 2,371 $ 54,422 4% 2,371 $ $ 2,371 ‐$ 54,422 $ 403.14 Non‐allocable Admin (Special Olympics) non‐fee $ ‐ $ 155,628 0% $ 155,628 $ ‐ $ 155,628 ‐‐ non‐fee generating program ‐‐ 403.15 Non‐allocable Admin (CRD Marketing) non‐fee $ 70,854 ‐ $ 0% 70,854 $ ‐$ 70,854 $ ‐‐ non‐fee generating program ‐‐ 403.16 Gym ‐ Youth total progr 10,000 $ $ 132,818 8% $ 132,818 $ 10,000 $ 122,818 8% 10,000 $ $ 10,000 $ ‐ $ 122,818 403.17 Gym ‐ Adult total progr 30,000 $ $ 132,818 23% $ 132,818 $ 30,000 $ 102,818 23% 30,000 $ $ 30,000 $ ‐ $ 102,818403.18 Gym ‐ Seniors total progr 5,000 $ $ 30,099 17% 30,099 $ $ 5,000 $ 25,099 17% 5,000 $ $ 5,000 ‐$ 25,099 $ 403.19 Memorial Park Gym Rentals facility rental $ 65,000 $ 297,356 22% $ 297,356 $ 65,000 $ 232,356 22% 65,000 $ $ 65,000 $ ‐ $ 232,356 403.20 Coaching Fee total progr 6,000 $ $ 13,875 43% 13,875 $ $ 6,000 $ 7,875 43% 6,000 $ $ 6,000 ‐$ $ 7,875403.21 Fitness Room total progr 25,000 $ $ 133,202 19% $ 133,202 $ 25,000 $ 108,202 26% 34,633 $ $ 34,633 $ 9,633 $ 98,569 403.22 Skate Park ‐ Youth total progr 30,000 $ $ 155,237 19% $ 155,237 $ 30,000 $ 125,237 19% 30,000 $ $ 30,000 $ ‐ $ 125,237 403.23 Skate Park ‐ Adult total progr 20,000 $ $ 70,548 28% 70,548 $ $ 20,000 $ 50,548 28% 20,000 $ $ 20,000 ‐$ 50,548 $ 403.24 Commercial Fitness Trainers facility rental $ 47,500 $ 133,902 35% $ 133,902 $ 47,500 $ 86,402 35% 47,500 $ $ 47,500 ‐$ 86,402 $ 403.25 Outd Fac Pmts ‐ Fields YOUTH facility rental $ 125,000 $ 437,720 29% $ 437,720 $ 125,000 $ 312,720 29% $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ ‐ $ 312,720403.26 Outd Fac Pmts ‐ Fields ADULT facility rental $ 125,000 $ 227,042 55% $ 227,042 $ 125,000 $ 102,042 55% $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ ‐ $ 102,042403.27 SMMUSD Fields (SAMOHI, Lincoln, JAMS) facility rental $ 66,000 $ 74,421 89% 74,421 $ $ 66,000 $ 8,421 89% 66,000 $ $ 66,000 ‐$ $ 8,421403.28 SMMUSD Tracks (SAMOHI, Lincoln) facility rental $ 3,000 $ 7,168 42% 7,168 $ $ 3,000 $ 4,168 42% 3,000 $ $ 3,000 ‐$ $ 4,168403.29 Outd Fac Pmts ‐ Basketball Courts facility rental $ 10,000 $ 26,300 38% 26,300 $ $ 10,000 $ 16,300 38% 10,000 $ $ 10,000 ‐$ 16,300 $ 403.30 Outd Fac Pmts ‐ Concession Stands facility rental $ 10,000 $ 13,380 75% 13,380 $ $ 10,000 $ 3,380 75% 10,000 $ $ 10,000 ‐$ $ 3,380403.31 Outd Fac Pmts ‐ Sports Storage facility rental $ 15,000 $ 13,380 112% 13,380 $ $ 15,000 $ (1,620) 112% 15,000 $ $ 15,000 $ (1 ‐ $ ,620) 403.32 Soccer Leagues ‐ Adult total progr 220,000 $ $ 289,077 76% $ 289,077 $ 220,000 $ 69,077 76% $ 220,000 $ 220,000 ‐$ 69,077 $ 403.33 Basketball Leagues ‐ Adults total progr 60,000 $ $ 139,115 43% $ 139,115 $ 60,000 $ 79,115 46% 63,993 $ $ 63,993 $ 3,993 $ 75,122403.34 Softball Leagues ‐ Adults total progr 65,000 $ $ 151,838 43% $ 151,838 $ 65,000 $ 86,838 45.0% 68,327 $ $ 68,327 $ 3,327 $ 83,511 403.35 Volleyball Leagues ‐ Adults total progr 5,250 $ $ 31,425 17% 31,425 $ $ 5,250 $ 26,175 18% 5,735 $ $ 5,735 $ 25,690 485 $ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CSD ‐ Community Recreation
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
403.36 Tennis Res ‐ Youth total progr 50,000 $ $ 103,184 48% $ 103,184 $ 50,000 $ 53,184 48% 50,000 $ $ 50,000 ‐$ 53,184 $ 403.37 Tennis Res ‐ Adult total progr 130,000 $ $ 131,184 99% $ 131,184 $ 130,000 $ 1,184 99% $ 130,000 $ 130,000 ‐$ $ 1,184 403.38 Tennis Res ‐ Seniors total progr 50,000 $ $ 92,493 54% 92,493 $ $ 50,000 $ 42,493 54% 50,000 $ $ 50,000 ‐$ 42,493 $ 403.39 Tennis Tourneys ‐ Youth total progr 10,000 $ $ 24,100 41% 24,100 $ $ 10,000 $ 14,100 41% 10,000 $ $ 10,000 ‐$ 14,100 $ 403.40 Tennis Tourneys ‐ Adult total progr 10,000 $ $ 24,100 41% 24,100 $ $ 10,000 $ 14,100 41% 10,000 $ $ 10,000 ‐$ 14,100 $ 403.41 Tennis Tourneys ‐ Seniors total progr 4,000 $ $ 20,867 19% 20,867 $ $ 4,000 $ 16,867 19% 4,000 $ $ 4,000 ‐$ 16,867 $ Total User Fees $9,785,422 $2,746,409 $7,039,013 $2,902,164 $155,755 $6,883,258% of Full Cost 28% 72% 30% 6% 70% FootnotesThe cost analysis for all Community Services programs was performed at the program level, comparing total annual costs to current annual revenues. Individual fees vary, dependent upon activity levels, seasonality, and popularity.This type of analysis provides the department with an overall picture of how each program is recovering costs, and allows for minor adjustments to individual fees based on economic and policy considerations.

All programs that are labeled as "Facility Rentals" (under the fee description above) have fees that are charged for the use of City of Santa Monica property. One of the noted exceptions to Prop 26 (clarifying the requirement that user fees must be limited to the reasonable cost of providing a service) is that fees charged for facility rental or use of public property may be set based on what the market will bear, and need not meet the requirement of tying fees to cost.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CSD ‐ Cultural Affairs
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 404.01 Miles Playhouse total progr 1 ‐‐ Miles Playhouse temporarily closed ‐‐ 404.02 Cultural Arts Development Requirement Application Processing Fee New Flat Fee ‐ 2 $ 6,312.99 $ 0% 12,626 $ ‐ $ 12,626 $ 100% 6,312.99 $ 12,626 $ 12,626 $ ‐$ Total User Fees $12,626 $0 $12,626 $12,626 $12,626 $0
% of Full Cost 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Footnotes
Current Recommendations
The cost analysis for all Community Services programs (except for a new fee proposal, discussed below) was performed at the program level, comparing total annual costs to current annual revenues. Individual fees vary, dependent upon activity levels, seasonality, and popularity. This type of analysis provides the department with an overall picture of how each program is recovering costs, and allows for minor adjustments to individual fees based on economic and policy considerations.Cultural Arts Development Requirement Application Processing Fee ‐ Per Ordinance No. 2212(CCS), developers adding significant new commercial or residential space are required to create openly accessible on‐site public art or create on‐site cultural facilities. Per Resolution 10309, four application filing fees for that purpose were adopted but never implemented: 1) reviewing applications for on‐site art work at $2,500; 2) reviewing applications for on‐site cultural facilities at $2,900, 3) reviewing application amendments for on‐site art work at $900; and 4) reviewing application amendments for on‐site cultural facilties at $1,300. The department's time study found no significant difference in processing times for the various applications; therefore staff are proposing adding just one application fee to the schedule.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
CSD ‐ Housing & Human Services
FY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 402.01 CREST Club (formerly Childcare) total program 708,509 $ 1,085,079 $ 65% 1,085,079 $ 708,509 $ 376,570 $ 67% 728,097 $ 728,097 $ 19,588 $ 356,982 $ 402.02 Enrichment total program 654,000 $ 820,994 $ 80% 820,994 $ 654,000 $ 166,994 $ 86% 708,353 $ 708,353 $ 54,353 $ 112,641 $ 402.03 Camp Santa Monica total program 97,319 $ 553,105 $ 18% 553,105 $ 97,319 $ 455,786 $ 18% 97,975 $ 97,975 $ 656 $ 455,130 $ Total User Fees $2,459,178 $1,459,828 $999,350 $1,534,425 $74,597 $924,753 % of Full Cost 59% 41% 62% 5% 38%
FootnotesThe cost analysis for all Community Services programs was performed at the program level, comparing total annual costs to current annual revenues. Individual fees vary, dependent upon activity levels, seasonality, and popularity.This type of analysis provides the department with an overall picture of how each program is recovering costs, and allows for minor adjustments to individual fees based on economic and policy considerations.

The cost analysis and proposed additional revenues shown above include potential recovery of an additional $66,907 in ADA accommodations expenses required for some users of these services.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Program Category Current Rate Proposed Rate % Change $ Increase Program Category Current Rate Proposed Rate % Change $ Increase Basketball Residents $ 337.00 $ 354.00 5% $ Resident Daily 17.00 Youth $ 1.75 2.00$ 14% 0.25$ Live/work $ 382.00 $ 401.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Daily 19.00 Youth $ 3.50 4.00$ 14% 0.50$ Non‐Resident $ 420.00 $ 441.00 5% $ Resident Daily 21.00 Adult $ 4.00 4.50$ 13% 0.50$ Volleyball Residents $ 255.00 $ 268.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Daily 13.00 Adult $ 8.00 9.00$ 13% 1.00$ Live/work $ 292.00 $ 307.00 5% $ Resident Daily 15.00 Senior / Student $ 2.00 2.25$ 13% 0.25$ Non‐Resident $ 318.00 $ 334.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Daily 16.00 Senior / Student $ 4.00 4.50$ 13% 0.50$ Softball ‐ men's Residents $ 476.00 $ 500.00 5% $ Resident Daily 24.00 Family $ 9.00 10.25$ 14% 1.25$ Live/work $ 551.00 $ 579.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Daily 28.00 Family $ 18.00 20.50$ 14% 2.50$ Non‐Resident $ 617.00 $ 648.00 5% $ Resident Swim Pass 31.00 Youth $ 22.00 25.00$ 14% 3.00$ Softball ‐ women's Residents $ 400.00 $ 420.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Swim Pass 20.00 Youth $ 44.00 50.00$ 14% 6.00$ Live/work $ 460.00 $ 483.00 5% $ Resident Swim Pass 23.00 Adult $ 60.00 68.25$ 14% 8.25$ Non‐Resident $ 520.00 $ 546.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Swim Pass 26.00 Adult $ 120.00 $ 137.00 14% 17.00$ Softball ‐ co‐ed Residents $ 454.00 $ 477.00 5% $ Resident Swim Pass 23.00 Senior / Student 33.00 $ 37.50$ 14% 4.50$ Live/work $ 522.00 $ 548.00 5% $ Non‐Resident Swim Pa 26.00 ss Senior / Student 66.00 $ 75.00$ 14% 9.00$ Non‐Resident $ 588.00 $ 617.00 5% 29.00$
Non‐Profit Youth ‐ Santa Monica Youth $ 5.45 6.00$ 10% 0.55$ Fitness Room Daily Adult Resident $ 3.00 $ 4.00 33% $ 1.00 Non‐Profit Youth ‐ Non‐Santa Monica Youth $ 10.90 12.00$ 10% 1.10$ Non‐Resident $ 4.00 $ 6.00 50% $ 2.00 Private Schools ‐ Santa Monica Youth $ 9.54 11.00$ 15% 1.46$ Fitness Room Daily Senior Resident $ 1.50 $ 2.00 33% $ 0.50 Private Schools ‐ Non‐Santa Monica Youth $ 17.50 22.00$ 26% 4.50$ Non‐Resident $ 2.00 $ 3.00 50% $ 1.00 Tournaments ‐ Santa Monica Non‐Profit Youth Youth $ 203.83 $ 225.00 10% 21.17$ Non‐Profit Adult ‐ Santa Monica Adult $ 9.54 11.00$ 15% 1.46$ Per Registration Admin Fee All $ 3.00 5.50$ 83% $ Non‐Profit Adult ‐ Non‐Santa Monica 2.50 Adult $ 17.50 22.00$ 26% 4.50$ Other Organizations ‐ Santa Monica Adult $ 21.80 23.00$ 6% 1.20$ Small Room Rate ‐ Resident Meeting Room $ 28.00 33.00$ 18% $ Other Organizations ‐ Non‐Santa Monica Adult 5.00 $ 43.60 46.00$ 6% 2.40$ Small Room Rate ‐ Non‐Resident Meeting Room $ 40.00 47.00$ 18% $ Tournaments ‐ Santa Monica Non‐Profit Adult Adult 7.00 $ 340.08 $ 375.00 10% 34.92$ Small Room Rate ‐ SM Non‐Profit Meeting Room $ 14.00 16.50$ 18% $ Filming Fees ‐ Pool ‐ Motion 2.50 Adult $ 400.00 $ 500.00 25% $ 100.00 Large Room Rate ‐ Resident Meeting Room $ 57.00 67.00$ 18% $ Filming Fees ‐ Pool ‐ Still 10.00 Adult $ 250.00 $ 300.00 20% 50.00$ Large Room Rate ‐ Non‐Residents Meeting Room $ 81.00 95.50$ 18% $ Filming Fees ‐ Deck Only ‐ Motion 14.50 Adult $ 250.00 $ 300.00 20% 50.00$ Large Room Rate ‐ SM Non‐Profit Meeting Room $ 28.00 33.00$ 18% $ Filming Fees ‐ Deck Only ‐ Still 5.00 Adult $ 125.00 $ 150.00 20% 25.00$ Resident Permit BBQ Resv $ 65.00 77.00$ 18% 12.00$ Non‐Resident Permit BBQ Resv $ 98.00 $ 116.00 18% 18.00$ Each Additional Hour ‐ Resident BBQ Resv $ 15.00 18.00$ 20% 3.00$ Each Additional Hour ‐ Non‐Resident BBQ Resv $ 22.50 27.00$ 20% 4.50$ COMMUNITY PERMITSFITNESS Community Recreation Division
SPORTSCLASSES ADMINISTRATION FEE
AQUATICSAQUATICS ‐ Permits
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Program Current Fee Proposed Fee
ENRICHMENT PROGRAM
Programs & Classes $131 ‐ $218 $143 ‐ $237
CAMP SANTA MONICA
Resident Full Day $245/week $450/weekResident Half Day $152/week $280/weekNon‐Resident Full Day $272/week $500/weekNon‐Resident Half Day $169/week $310/weekExtended Care $38/week $70/week

CHILDCARE
CREST Club $350/month $375/month
Housing & Human Services
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Records & Elections Services (City Clerk)
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Records & Election Services (City Clerk)
The user fee/cost analysis for this department follows the basic structure of City’s fee schedule and was developed as a whole for the department.

Most fees are charge at a flat fee basis with the exception of copy fees which are charged per page. Records & Election Services (City Clerk) fees benefit those individuals or businesses specifically requesting or utilizing the services and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. The City’s policy is to generally ‐ but with some exceptions ‐ set fees to recover 100% of all costs associated with providing fee‐for‐service activities. Within this department, current fees recover 81% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged. Most recommended fees are set at 100% of cost; some fees have been rounded down for ease of collection. Exceptions to the 100% cost recovery recommendation have been made for the following fees:
 Passport Execution fee – remains unchanged at $35.00  Election Filing fee – remains unchanged at $25.00  Campaign Disclosure Statements (per page) – remains unchanged at $0.10 per page Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will result in an additional $2,834 in new revenue per year, recovering 85% of total cost.

Three fees are marked for deletion from the City’s fee schedule:
 City Charter Copy – this information is available online Precinct Map – 24” x 36” – this information is available at the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office Precinct Map – 36” x 44” – this information is available at the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office One new fee is proposed in this analysis:
 Nomination Packet for Non‐Candidates or Candidates (after the first set) – This $45 fee is to recover staff and materials cost for nomination packets for non‐candidates or candidates requesting more than one set. Staff recommends that this fee NOT increase by the annual CPI, COLA adjustments that typically adjust all fees during a non‐study year.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaRecords & Election Services (City Clerk)2020‐21 Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 111.01 Domestic Partner Filing Flat Fee $20.66 $22.71 91% 568 25 $ $ 517 $ 51 100% $22.71 568 $ $ 51 ‐$ 111.02 Domestic Partner Notice of Revocation Flat Fee $13.04 $13.34 98% 4 $ 53 $ 52 $ 100% $13.34 1 $ 53 $ 1 ‐$ 111.03 Domestic Partner Amendment Flat Fee ‐ $13.04 $13.34 98% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $13.34 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 111.04 Document Certification Flat Fee ‐ $20.12 $21.15 95% ‐ $ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $21.15 $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ 111.05 Flash Drive Copy (For PRA) Flat Fee $4.88 $25.12 19% 1 $ 25 $ 5 $ 20 20% $5.00 $ 5 $ 0 $ 20 111.06 City Charter Copy Delete ‐ $6.52 $0.00 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; see footnote below ‐‐ 111.07 Passport Execution Fee (plus Federal application fees) Set by State 1,663 $35.00 $36.77 95% 61,154 $ $ 58,205 $ 2,949 95% $35.00 58,205 $ ‐$ $ 2,949 111.08 Passports Photos Flat Fee 964 $13.00 $14.62 89% 14,095 $ $ 12,532 $ 1,563 99% $14.50 13,978 $ $ 1,446 $ 117 111.09 Public Records Act Copies Per page 544 $0.20 $13.41 1% 7,297 $ $ 109 $ 7,188 1% $0.20 109 $ $ ‐ $ 7,188 111.10 Lobbyist Registration Flat Fee $69.00 $95.38 72% 858 9 $ $ 621 $ 237 100% $95.00 855 $ $ 234 $ 3111.11 Lobbyist Renewal/Amendment/Addendum Flat Fee $37.00 $54.35 68% 1,739 32 $ $ 1,184 $ 555 99% $54.00 1,728 $ $ 544 $ 11 111.12 Election Filing Fee Set by State 39 $25.00 $74.55 34% 2,907 $ $ 975 $ 1,932 34% $25.00 975 $ $ ‐ $ 1,932111.13 Campaign Disclosure Statements (per page) Set by State 51 $0.10 $16.47 1% 840 $ $ 5 $ 835 1% $0.10 $ 5 $ ‐ $ 835 111.14 Passport Overnight Delivery Fee Actual Cost ‐ $0.00 $0.00 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ fee will be based on actual cost ‐‐ 111.15 Precinct Map ‐ 24 x 36" Delete $19.03 $0.00 ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; see footnote below ‐‐ 111.16 Precinct Map ‐ 36 x 44" Delete $24.47 $0.00 ‐ 0% ‐ $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐‐ delete from fee schedule; see footnote below ‐‐ 111.17 Nomination Petitions ‐ Every Additional Set (after the first two sets) Flat Fee 107 $1.00 $11.84 8% 1,267 $ $ 107 $ 1,160 17% $2.00 214 $ $ 107 $ 1,053111.18 Nomination Packet for Non‐Candidates or Candidates (after the first set) New ‐ Flat Fee $0.00 $45.28 10 0% 453 $ $ ‐ $ 453 99% $45.00 450 $ $ 450 $ 3 Total User Fees $91,257 $74,311 $16,945 $77,145 $2,834 $14,112% of Full Cost 81% 19% 85% 4% 15% FootnotesFee 111.6: Staff recommends fee be removed from fee schedule. This is available online. Fee 111.8: Recommending a minimum of $14.50 and not to increase with the CPI, COLA's, etc.Fee 111.9: Recommending fee kept at $0.20 to stay in line with industry standardsFee 111.10: Recommending a minimum of $95 and not to increase by CPI, COLA's, etc.Fee 111.11: Recommending a minimum of $54 and not to increase by CPI, COLA's, etc.Fee 111.14: Fee will be set at actual cost. Fees 111.7, 111.12 and 111.13 are all set by the State and cannot be adjusted. Fees 111.15 and 111.16: Staff recommends removing this fee as it is available at LA County Clerk's Office.

Fee 111.18: Staff recommends a minimum of $45 and not to increase with the CPI, COLA's, etc.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City Manager's Office
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City Manager’s Office
CityTV is the government community cable channel for the City of Santa Monica, and the cost of its operations are contained within the City Manager’s Office. The majority of costs for operating CityTV are appropriately subsidized by the General Fund; however, production services are made available to the public and fees are charged for these services. Rental fees for equipment are currently charged on an hourly basis. Rental fees may be set at market rates. There are no recommendations for adjustments to these fees. City staff is made available for assistance, using fully burdened hourly rates. MGT has prepared fully burdened hourly rates by classification for all City Manager Administration/Communications staff. Production personnel are as‐needed staff and these rates have also been updated to reflect current costs (excluding the burden factors that were applied to city staff rates). Copies of DVD’s are provided for a fee. The original Master DVD fee is recommended to increase from $22.00 to $34.08; however, the fee for Up to 9 Additional DVD Copies is recommended to remain the same at $1.50. The Production Administration Fee (charged as a flat fee per use of the program) is recommended to increase from $141.42 up to $161.52.

No annual volume was provided by staff as there has been little to no activity recently other than for the Production Administration fee. Based on that fee alone, CityTV recovers 88% of total cost; recommended fees are set at 100% of cost. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments will generate an additional $2,171 in new revenue per year.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaCMO ‐ Admin/Communications2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 201.01 Rental/Equip Use: Truck Rental Hourly ‐ $ 100.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ $ 100.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.02 Rental/Equip Use: Studio Rental (inc. lighting) Hourly ‐ $ 80.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 80.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.03 Rental/Equip Use: Graphics Hourly ‐ $ 50.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 50.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.04 Rental/Equip Use: Green Screen Hourly ‐ $ 50.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 50.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.05 Rental/Equip Use: Teleprompter Hourly ‐ $ 50.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 50.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.06 Rental/Equip Use: Camera Hourly ‐ $ 40.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 40.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.07 Rental/Equip Use: Jib Hourly ‐ $ 30.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 30.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.08 Rental/Equip Use: Audio Mixer Hourly ‐ $ 25.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 25.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.09 Rental/Equip Use: Video Switcher Hourly ‐ $ 20.00 ‐$ 0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 20.00 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.10 City Staffing Hourly ‐ Varies ‐‐ see list of recommended hourly rates, below ‐‐ 201.11 Master DVD Flat Fee ‐ $ 22.00 $ 34.08 65% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 34.08 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.12 Up to 9 additional DVD copies Flat Fee ‐ $ 1.50 $ 1.53 98% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 98% 1.50 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.13 Permanent Staff: Producer Hourly ‐ $ 67.70 $ 169.28 40% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 169.28 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.14 Permanent Staff: Production Engineer Hourly ‐ $ 48.72 $ 169.28 29% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 169.28 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.15 Permanent Staff: Director Hourly ‐ $ 44.09 $ 169.28 26% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 169.28 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.16 As‐Needed Staff: Field Producer Hourly ‐ $ 59.89 $ 63.17 95% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 63.17 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.17 As‐Needed Staff: Lighting Tech Hourly ‐ $ 37.26 $ 48.10 77% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 48.10 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.18 As‐Needed Staff: Production Tech Hourly ‐ $ 30.93 $ 34.47 90% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 34.47 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.19 As‐Needed Staff: Audio Operator Hourly ‐ $ 25.79 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ $ ‐ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.20 As‐Needed Staff: Video Editor Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.21 As‐Needed Staff: Stage Manager Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.22 As‐Needed Staff: Technical Director Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.23 As‐Needed Staff: Camera Operator Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.24 As‐Needed Staff: Graphics Operator Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.25 As‐Needed Staff: Teleprompter Operator Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.26 As‐Needed Staff: Production Assistant Hourly ‐ $ 25.66 $ 29.22 88% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% 29.22 $ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.27 As‐Needed Staff: Video Intern Hourly ‐ $ 16.77 $ 23.74 71% ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ 100% $ 23.74 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 201.28 Production Administration Fee Flat Fee 108 $ 141.42 $ 161.52 88% 17,444 $ $ 15,273 $ 2,171 100% 161.52 $ $ 17,444 $ 2,171 ‐$ Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaCMO ‐ Admin/Communications2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Current Recommendations
Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Total User Fees $17,444 $15,273 $2,171 $17,444 $2,171 $0% of Full Cost 88% 12% 100% 14% 0% FootnotesFees 201.1‐201.9: Rental/Equiment Use fees are not cost‐of‐service and may be set at market rates. Direct costs for rental and delivery of non‐city equipment (e.g. scaffolding), if any, will be charged at cost.Fee 201.10: City Staffing fees vary depending upon the position and number of staff assigned. Fully burdened hourly rates for all Office of Communications staff have been developed:

Chief Comm Officer $             247.67
Public Information Coordinator $             135.63
Public Information Officer $             187.42
Sr Marketing Manager $             187.42
Asst Admin Analyst $             124.56
Fee 201.22: Studio Rental includes lighting, use of green room, and use of two small parking spaces.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Finance
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Finance
The Revenue Division of the Finance department has 14 fees included on the City’s Master Fee Schedule, but most of these fees are either set by the State, set by ordinance, or are considered penalties. Fees that are set by the State or by ordinance cannot be changed and therefore were not analyzed as part of this study. A fee that is considered more of a penalty (such as the Pkg Citation Payment Plan – Late Fee) does not need to be tied to cost; this fee was also excluded from this cost‐of‐service analysis.

Highlights of this Division’s analysis are as follows:
 Vendor Permit – Staff recommends this fee be removed from the fee schedule and replaced with two fees, a Sidewalk Vendor Permit and a Vehicle Vendor Permit. Both of these fees will be less than the original $108.32 permit fee and are proposed at $70.50 each, which will recover 100% of cost. It should be noted that these two fees will be transferred to the Community Development Department, CodeEnforcement Division in FY22.  Tobacco Retailer License – This fee is being temporarily suspended as the costs are currently being recovered through a state grant; therefore, no analysis was performed.

Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments result in a revenue reduction of $12,480 due to the reduction in the vendor permit fees. However, this Division provides a significant amount of cross‐over support to other department’s fee‐related activities and costs will be recovered through other department’s fees.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa MonicaFinance ‐ RevenueFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 304 FINANCE FEES304.01 Returned Check Processing Fee (First NSF) Set by State ‐ 25.00 $ ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by State ‐‐304.02 Returned Check Processing Fee (Subsequent NSF) Set by State‐ 35.00 $ ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by State ‐‐304.03 Returned Check Processing Fee (License Fees) Set by ordinance ‐ 10.00 $ ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by ordinance ‐‐ 304.04 Vendor Permit Delete 108.32 ‐ $ ‐‐ Remove and replace with separate sidewalk & vendor permits ‐‐ 304.05 Sidewalk Vendor Permit Repl flat fee 108.32 110 $ 70.50 $ 154% 7,755.06 $ 11,915 $ (4,160) $ 100% 70.50 $ (4,160) 7,755 $ ‐$ 304.06 Vehicle Vendor Permit Repl flat fee 108.32 220 $ $ 70.50 154% 15,510.12 $ $ 23,830 $ (8,320) 100% 70.50 $ 15,510 $ (8,320) ‐$ 304.07 Tobacco Retailer License Suspended 264.12 ‐ $ ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee to be suspended ‐‐ 304.08 Moving Bus Stop Set by ordinance ‐ 689.28 $ ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by ordinance ‐‐ 304.09 Duplicate Licenses Set by ordinance ‐ $ 10.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by ordinance ‐‐ 304.10 Performance Permit Set by ordinance ‐ $ 37.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by ordinance ‐‐ 304.11 Replacement of a Performance Permit Set by ordinance ‐ $ 37.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by ordinance ‐‐ 304.12 Pkg Citation Payment Plan ‐ Enrollment Fee (Indigent) Set by State ‐ $ 5.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by State ‐‐ 304.13 Pkg Citation Payment Plan ‐ Late Fee (Indigent) Penalty ‐ $ 5.00 ‐‐ Penalty; not cost‐of‐service ‐‐304.14 Pkg Citation Payment Plan – Enrollment Fee (Gen'l Public) Set by State ‐ $ 25.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; fee set by State ‐‐ Total User Fees $23,265 $35,746 ‐$12,480 $23,265 ‐$12,480 $0% of Full Cost 154% ‐54% 100% ‐35% 0% FootnotesFees 304.04 ‐ 304.06 ‐ The department is proposing replacing the Vendor Permit (304.04) with separate Sidewalk Vendor (304.05) and Vehicle Vendor (304.06) permit fees.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Library
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Library
The Library is almost entirely (and appropriately) funded by the General Fund. The most significant user fee revenue comes from meeting room reservations. Meeting room reservations, as with all parks/facility/property use fees need not be tied to cost‐of‐service and may be set at market rates. Library management and staff are recommending increasing the deposit for rental of the Martin Luther King, Jr Auditorium from $100 to $250 to cover the potential cost recovery (associated with possible clean‐up or damage repair/replacement) of this room. No other recommendations for changes to meeting room rental fees or deposits are being made. The Library collects fines for overdue or lost items. As with other penalty fees described in this study, these fees do not need to be tied to cost‐ of‐service and were not analyzed in this study. Staff recommend no changes to the current list of library fines. Various copy fees also have no recommendations for adjustments and were not included in this study. At the request of Library management and staff, the focus of the cost analysis was on six existing fee‐for‐service activities:
 Processing Fee for Lost or Damaged Item – This fee is recommended to increase from $7.50 to $10.00.  Interlibrary Loan Request (plus Lending Library Charges, if any) – This fee is recommended to remain at $5.00.  Image Archives High Resolution Electronic Files & Reprints – This fee is recommended to remain at $20.00.  Technology Package Fee – This fee (associated with meeting room reservations) is recommended to increase from $35.00 to $38.00.  Security Staffing for the Martin Luther King, Jr Auditorium – This fee is recommended to remain unchanged at $70.00 per hour.  Security Staffing for the branch meeting rooms – This fee is recommended to remain unchanged at $35.00 per hour.

Implementing the recommended fee adjustments will increase the Library’s user fee cost recovery rate from 22% up to 26% and will generate an additional $3,373 in revenue on an annual basis.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
LibraryFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy 151.01 Processing Fee for Lost or Damaged Item Flat fee + mat'ls cost 1,348          7.50 $                24.52 $              31% 33,057 $            10,110 $            22,947 $            41% 10.00 $              13,480 $            3,370 $              19,577 $ 151.02 Room Rental Cancellation Fee Penalty ‐              25.00 $              ‐‐ Penalty; not cost‐of‐service ‐‐ 151.03 Interlibrary Loan Request (plus Lending Library Charges, if any) per request 151             5.00 $                82.97 $              6% 12,529 $            755 $                  11,774 $            6% 5.00 $                755 $                  ‐ $                  11,774 $ 151.04 Repl of 2nd & Subsequent Lost Adult Library Card per card ‐              2.00 $                ‐‐ Not analyzed; recommend fee remain unchanged ‐‐151.05 Repl of 2nd & Subsequent Lost Children's Library Card per card ‐              1.00 $                ‐‐ Not analyzed; recommend fee remain unchanged ‐‐151.06 Black & White Copy or Print per copy ‐ $               0.15 ‐‐ Not analyzed; recommend fee remain unchanged ‐‐151.07 Color Copy or Print per copy ‐ $               0.50 ‐‐ Not analyzed; recommend fee remain unchanged ‐‐151.08 11 x 17 Copy or Print per copy ‐ $               0.30 ‐‐ Not analyzed; recommend fee remain unchanged ‐‐151.09 Internet session for extra time or those without Library cards per session ‐ $               2.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; recommend fee remain unchanged ‐‐ 151.10 Image Archives High Resolution Electronic Files & Reprints per file 35 $             20.00 $           377.68 5% 13,219 $            $                 700 $           12,519 5% 20.00 $              $                 700 $                 ‐ $           12,519 151.11 MEETING ROOM RESERVATION RATES151.11 Technology Package Fee Flat fee                  35.00 1 $              $             57.65 61% $                   58 $                   35 $                   23 66% 38.00 $              $                   38 $                     3 $                   20 151.12 Deposit for MLK, Jr Auditorium Deposit ‐ $           100.00 ‐‐ Deposit fees not analyzed; recommended adjustment to $250 ‐‐ 151.13 Deposit for all other meeting rooms Deposit ‐ $           100.00 ‐‐ Deposit fees not analyzed; no recommended adjustment ‐‐151.13 Main Library, 601 Santa Monica Blvd151.13 Martin Luther King, Jr. Auditorium & Reception Room Use151.14 MLK Jr Auditorium Rental (3 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐ $           240.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.15 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             80.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.16 Piano Use Rental ‐ $           100.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.17
Security Staffing Fee Per Hour or Portion Thereof for use of Martin Luther King, Jr. Auditorium outside operating hours Hourly 95 $             70.00 $           246.57 28% 23,424 $            $             6,650 $           16,774 28% 70.00 $              $             6,650 $                 ‐ $           16,774 151.18 Kitchen Use Per Hour or Portion Thereof Rental ‐ $             50.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.18 Multipurpose Room151.19 Multipurpose Room Rental (3 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐ $           180.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.20 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             60.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.21 Kitchen Use Per Hour or Portion Thereof Rental ‐ $             50.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.21 Community Meeting Room151.22 Rental (3 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐ $             90.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.23 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             30.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.24 Kitchen Use Per Hour or Portion Thereof Rental ‐ $             50.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.24 Fairview Branch Community Room, 2101 Ocean Park Blvd. 151.25 Fairview Branch Comm Room Rental (3 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐ $             90.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.26 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             30.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.27
Security Staffing Fee Per Hour or Portion Thereof for use of branch meeting room outside operating hours Hourly ‐ $             35.00 $           123.28 28% ‐ $                  ‐$                  $                 ‐ 28% 35.00 $              ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$ Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
User Fee Study Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
LibraryFY 2020‐21
Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Full Cost Current Recovery % Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue2 Increased Revenue Recommended Subsidy Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
151.27 Montana Avenue Branch Community Room, 1704 Montana Avenue151.28 Montana Ave Branch Comm Room Rental (3 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐              90.00 $              ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐151.29 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             30.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.30
Security Staffing Fee Per Hour or Portion Thereof for use of branch meeting room outside operating hours Hourly ‐ $             35.00 $           123.28 28% ‐ $                  ‐$                  $                 ‐ 28% 35.00 $              ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$ 151.3 Ocean Park Branch Community Room, 2601 Main Street 151.31 Ocean Park Branch Comm Room Rental (3 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐ $             90.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.32 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             30.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.33
Security Staffing Fee Per Hour or Portion Thereof for use of branch meeting room outside operating hours Hourly ‐ $             35.00 $           123.28 28% ‐ $                  ‐$                  $                 ‐ 28% 35.00 $              ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$ 151.33 Pico Branch Annex, 2201 Pico Blvd.151.34 Pico Branch Annex Rental (2 Hour Minimum) Rental ‐ $             60.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.35 Each Additional Hour Rental ‐ $             30.00 ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ 151.36
Security Staffing Fee Per Hour or Portion Thereof for use of branch meeting room outside operating hours Hourly ‐ $             35.00 $           123.28 28% ‐ $                  ‐$                  $                 ‐ 28% 35.00 $              ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐$ 151.37 Kitchen Use Per Hour or Portion Thereof Rental ‐ $             25.00 $                 ‐ 0% ‐ $                  ‐$                  ‐$                  ‐‐ Not analyzed; facility rentals may be set at market rates ‐‐ Total User Fees $82,285 $18,250 $64,035 $21,623 $3,373 $60,662% of Full Cost 22% 78% 26% 18% 74% Footnotes
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Section III
Comparison Survey
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
Building Division
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Commercial/Industrial Plan Review fist 10K sq.ft. ($1.5M Val) $19,396.39 $19,307.94 Deposit Based - $75 per sheet $17,311.44 $14,565.37 $17,050.91 Actual Cost
Commercial/Industrial Permit fist 10K sq.ft. ($1.5M Val) $17,569.02 $13,396.07 $12,891.95 $21,639.30 $19,420.49 $14,493.27 $23,910 Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical Presubmittal Review $532.27 $327.50 - $449.85 $155.50/hr $37.50 Min 100% of total permit $112.40/Hr $104/hr $663
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $628.01 $451.59 $118.70 plus 2% of project valuation $652.90 $500 $104/hr Waived
Single Trade Permits - 3 Inspections Max $213.41 $371.90 $155.50 $209.10 $103/Hr $208 $239 Demolition Permit $215.51 $241.97 $214
Based on % of Project
Valuation Range:
0<$1M - 1.9%
1-$5M - 1%
5-$10M - .25%
Residential - $260
Commerical - $600 $208 $600
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
Code Enforcement Department
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Residential Building Report-Code Compliance Review $310.30 $311.11 N/A $350 $356.16 $200/hr Nonautomotive Impound Fee (per item) $98.99 $98.99 $150.00 $121.00 $131.00 $120.00 Noise Ordinance - After Hours Permit $1,018.57 $1,021.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
Planning Division
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Certificate of Compliance $2,185.07 $2,593.67 $989.00 $2,025.00 $2,083.00 $1,706.00 Waived Conditional Use Permit - All Others $17,240.93 $15,444.53 $5,812.00 $16,879.00 $18,655.00 $13,224.00 $9,082.00 General Plan Amendment $16,512.57 $31,002.34 $7,077 + Time/Materials $12,753 plus deposit
determined by staff with
charges at fully burdened
rates
$29,144.00 Time and Materials $19,012.00
Planning Lot Line Adjustment $2,427.86 $2,593.67 $1,404.00 $2,025.00 $1,372.00 $3,107.00 $1,389.00 Major Modification $5,099.54 $6,263.75 Deposit - Time/Materials $7,529.00 $2,456.00 $4,787.00 $8,021.00 Minor Modification $1,942.28 $1,639.62 Deposit - Time/Materials $2,428.00 $1,074.00 $1,477.00 $1,522.00 Minor Use Permit $6,070.69 $4,785.57 Deposit - Time/Materials $6,063.00 $5,403.00 $1,477 Plus T/M $6,246.00 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
PW Department - Engineering
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Certificate of Compliance $1,768.08 $2,058.37 $989.00 $1,955.10 $2,083.00 $1,262.00 Waived Lot Line Adjustment $437.71 $1,434.19 $1,404.00 $2,987 per application $1,750.00 $1,389.00 Plan Check Review Fee (rounded to the nearest 1/2 hour
increment) $218.85/hr $246.02/hr $184.70/hr $706.20 $192/hr $149/hr $250/hr Temporary No Parking Sign Issuance $1.04 Delete $1.00 $6.58 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
PW Department - Film
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Airport-public airside/landside still photography/motion, 1-20 cast/crew $731.15 $715.60 N/A N/A
Airport-leasehold property, still photography/motion $731.15 $715.60 N/A N/A Airport-complex/large productions, 21+ cast/crew $731.15 $740.14 N/A N/A Beaches - Film/Video $778.13 $513.85 N/A N/A
Beaches - Still Photography $778.13 $394.97 N/A N/A
City Hall - Film/Video $386.81 $392.75 $583 $699
(FilmLA)
$699
(FilmLA) $1,250
City Hall - Still Photography $225.63 $300.37 $256 $63
(FilmLA)
$63
(FilmLA) $300
Downtown Santa Monica - Still photography $281.68 $312.83 $311 $63 (FilmLA)
$63
(FilmLA) $350
Downtown Santa Monica - Film/video interior, man on street/walk and talk $281.68 $446.56 $699
(FilmLA)
$699
(FilmLA) $1,250
Downtown Santa Monica - Film/video, half day shoot including interior/exterior $281.68 $446.56 $699(FilmLA)
$699
(FilmLA) $1,250
Downtown Santa Monica - Film/video, all day, multiple locations $281.68 $471.10 $699 (FilmLA)
$699
(FilmLA) $1,250
Parks - Film/Video $548.33 $487.83 $2,817 $699
(FilmLA)
$699
(FilmLA) $1,250
Parks - Still Photography $548.33 $394.67 $391 $63
(FilmLA)
$63
(FilmLA) $300
All Other Locations - Film/Video $330.72 $327.47 $1,258 $699 (FilmLA)
$699
(FilmLA) $1,250
All Other Locations - Still Photography $132.29 $179.09 $265 $63 (FilmLA)
$63
(FilmLA) $300
$1,869
3-7 days - $707 for 7 days
1-2 days - $398 per day
charitable filming exempt
ctudent Filming 3-7 cays -
$100 for 7 days
ctudent 1-2 cays - $25 per
day
Street/Sidewalk Use - $200
per permit
Use of City Facility - $200
per day
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
Police Department
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Alarm Registration Fee $39.11 $12.09 $75.00 $46.00 $18.00 $48.00 $30.00 Fingerprint Fee $63.22 Delete $118.32 $22 plus fee set by DOJ $25 plus fee set by DOJ $40 plus fee set by DOJ $74.00 Police Report Copies $1.00 $12.64 $5 Each $2 - 1st page $0.25 each add'l page $.25 per page $27 full report $.10/page Massage Technician Permit $108.32 $114.11 $110.50 $241.00 $229.00 N/A Second Hand Dealer Permit $430.68 $429.40 $201.50 $291.00 $464.00 N/A False alarm - 2nd & 3rd response in calendar year $164.86 $164.86 $150.00 $261.00 $235 each $200.00 $50.00 False alarm - 4th & subsequent in calendar year $247.29 $247.29 $350.00 $366.00 $235 each $300.00 $75.00 Adoptions - basic fee, rabbit $21.30 $26.92 $15 - Previously Alt $30 - Alt by City LA City Fee $40.00 $71.00 $10.00
Adoptions - basic fee, small animal $21.30 $26.92 $35 - Previously Alt $70 - Alt by City LA City Fee Cats - $115 Cats - FreePuppies - $150 $30.00 Adoptions - basic fee, large animal $56.62 $60.79 $45 - Previously Alt $80 - Alt by City LA City Fee Dogs - $140 $102.00 $50.00 Annual dog license - spayed/neutered $43.83 $43.49 $20.00 LA City Fee $25.00 1 year - $20 3 Year - $50 $15.00
Annual dog license - unspayed/unneutered $87.67 $87.67 $100.00 LA City Fee $50.00 $100.00 $60.00 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer Fee Comparison
Records & Election Services (City Clerk)
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Photocopies $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.22 $0.15 $0.10 $0.25
Domestic Partner Filing $20.66 $22.71 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $25.00 Passport Execution Fee $35.00 $35.00 Varies - Based on rate set by State Dept $25.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer fee comparison
Aquatics Program
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Recreational & Fitness Swim: Resident - Daily Use
Youth - $1.75
Adult - $4
Senior/Student - $2
Youth - $2
Adult - $4.50
Senior/Student - $2.25
Resident - $5
Sr Resident - $3
Adults -$3
Youth - $2
Lap Swim
Adults -$4
Youth/Senior - $3
Adults -$4
Youth/Senior - $1
Child - $1
Adult - $2
Recreational & Fitness Swim: Non-Resident - Daily Use
Youth - $3.50
Adult - $8
Senior/Student - $4
Youth - $4
Adult - $9
Senior/Student - $4.50
Non-Resident - $7 Adults -$3
Youth - $2
Lap Swim
Adults -$4
Youth/Senior - $3
Adults -$4
Youth/Senior - $1
Child - $2
Adult - $5
Recreational & Fitness Swim: Resident - Family Weekend $9 $10.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A $5 Recreational & Fitness Swim: Non-Resident - Family Weekend $18 $20.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A $10 Recreational & Fitness Swim: Resident - Swim Pass (20 swims) Youth - $22
Adult - $60
Senior/Student - $33
Youth - $25
Adult - $68.25
Senior/Student - $37.50
10 Visits
Resident - $45
Sr Resident - $27
20 Visits
Resident- $113
Sr Resident - $68

N/A N/A
30 Entries
Adults -$88
Youth/Senior - $25
All Summer
Youth - $10
10 Swims
Adult - $15
Child - $10
25 Swims
Adult - $35
Child - $25
Recreational & Fitness Swim: Non-Resident - Swim Pass (20 swims) Youth - $44
Adult - $120
Senior/Student - $66
Youth - $50
Adult - $137
Senior/Student - $75
10 Visits
Non-Resident - $63
20 Visits
Non-Resident - $158

N/A N/A
30 Entries
Adults -$88
Youth/Senior - $25
All Summer
Youth - $10
10 Swims
Adult - $25
Child - $20
25 Swims
Adult - $60
Child - $35
Junior Lifeguard Program: Resident - $132
Non-Resident - $166
Resident - $132
Non-Resident - $166 N/A N/A N/A $375.00 N/A
Swim Lessons: Adult & Youth Group
Resident - $53/session
Non-Resident -
$105/session
Resident - $53/session
Non-Resident -
$105/session
$50
Residents
Adult - $105/session
Youth - $50/session
Non-Residents
Adult - $131/session
Youth - $75/session
Resident - $52/session
Non-Resident - $64/session
Adult - $30/session
Youth -$30/session
Resident - $40
Non-Resident - $50
Fitness Swim Class: Adult Resident - $6
Non-Resident - $12 $10 Resident - $137/session
Non-Res - $171/session
Low Impact
$2
AquaFit Shallow Water
$11
AquaFit Deep Water
$12
AquaFit Stand Up
$20
$5.00 Pool closed until
Fall 2021
Fitness Swim Class: Senior/Student Resident - $3
Non-Resident - $6 $10
Teen Swim Conditioning
Resident - $137/session
Non-Res - $171/session
Low Impact
Senior - $1
AquaFIt Shallow Water
Seniors - $10
AquaFit Deep Water
$12
AquaFit Stand Up
$20
$40/month Pool closed until
Fall 2021
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer fee comparison
Gym Use
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Gym User Fee: Daily Use Pass: Resident
Youth - $1.50
Adult - $3
Seniors - $1.50
Youth - $1.50
Adult - $3
Seniors - $1.50

N/A N/A N/A
Fitness Center*
Adult - $5
Seniors - $3
N/A
Gym User Fee: Daily Use Pass: Non-Resident
Youth - $1.50
Adult - $4.50
Seniors - $3
Youth - $1.50
Adult - $4.50
Seniors - $3

N/A N/A N/A
Fitness Center*
Adult - $5
Seniors - $3
N/A
Gym User Fee: Quarterly Passes: Resident
Youth - $15
Adult - $33
Seniors - $16
Youth - $15
Adult - $33
Seniors - $16

N/A N/A N/A
Fitness Center*
Monthly Pass
Adult - $35
Seniors - $18
N/A
Gym User Fee: Quarterly Passes: Non-Resident
Youth - $20
Adult - $40
Seniors - $20
Youth - $20
Adult - $40
Seniors - $20

N/A N/A N/A
Fitness Center*
Monthly Pass
Adult - $35
Seniors - $18
N/A
*Includes Fitness Room,
Pool & Gym
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer fee comparison
Tennis
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Hourly, per person, per court Resident - $4
Non-Resident - $5
Resident - $4
Non-Resident - $5
Weekdays 8am-4pm
Resident - $10
Non-Resident - $12
Weekdays 4-8pm
Resident - $16
Non-Resident $18
Weekends 4-7pm
Resident $13
Non-Resident $15
Weekends 8am-4pm
Resident $15
Non-Resident $17
Seniors $7 (any time)
Resident - $8
Non-Resident - $11
No reservations, first
come/first served
Weekdays 7am-4pm
$8
Weekdays 4-9pm
$12
Weekends & Holidays
$12
Permit Fee (2 or more
Courts)
$15 per court per hour
$8/hr
Resident Quarterly Passes
Youth - $22
Adult - $65
Seniors - $22
Youth - $22
Adult - $65
Seniors - $22

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Resident Tennis Reservation Cards $14 $14 N/A Resident - $10 Non-Resident - $20 N/A N/A $10
Santa Monica based Private Schools $11/court $11/court N/A N/A N/A N/A $8/hr Santa Monica based Non-Profit Organization $11/court $11/court N/A N/A N/A N/A $8/hr Ball Machine Fee $14/hr $14/hr N/A $10/hr N/A N/A N/A
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer fee comparison
Youth Sports and Camps
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Youth Sports Leagues:

Superstars: Grades K-2 $130/child/session $130/child/session Hap Minor
Baseball/Ponytail Softball
$394/season
Soccer
5-7 yrs: $149/session
Pintsize Soccer
$108 resident
$119 non-resident
no info available on
website. No answer at
phone # provided.
call 323.848.6308 - no
answer. Left voice mail.

Elementary Sports: Grades 3-5 $135/child/session $135/child/session Hap Minor
Baseball/Ponytail Softball
$394/season
Soccer
7-12 yrs: $149/session
YSE Basketball Clinic
$45 resident
$56 non-resident
no info available on
website. No answer at
phone # provided.
call 323.848.6308 - no
answer. Left voice mail.

Middle School Sports $135/child/session $135/child/session Hap Minor
Baseball/Ponytail Softball
$394/season
Flag Football
7-14 yrs: $210/session
YSE Basketball Clinic
$45 resident
$56 non-resident
no info available on
website. No answer at
phone # provided.
call 323.848.6308 - no
answer. Left voice mail.

Camp Programs:

Day/Sports Camps, Per Week
Resident Full Day - $245
Resident Half Day - $152
Non-Resident Full Day -
$272
Non-Resident Half Day -
$169
Extended Care $38
Resident Full Day - $350
Resident Half Day - $220
Non-Resident Full Day -
$390
Non-Resident Half Day -
$240
Extended Care $54
Soccer Camp
5-14 yrs
$190/session - full day
$154/session/half day
Sports Camp
5-14 yrs
$295/session - full day
$165/session - half day
Soccer Camp
5-14 yrs
$259/session - full day
$169 session - half day
Spring Pocket Camps
1st-6th grades
$104/week resident
$115/week non-resident
$75/week 2 Days a week - $120
4 Days a week - $240
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer fee comparison
Adult Sports
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Team Fee Per Season:

Basketball
Resident - $337
SM Workers - $382
Non Resident - $420
Resident - $354
SM Workers - $404
Non Resident - $441
Resident - $831
Non Resident - $857
Resident - $357
Non Resident $446 $60 per player Returning - $265New - $425 N/A Volleyball
Resident - $255
SM Workers - $292
Non Resident - $318
Resident - $268
SM Workers - $307
Non Resident - $334
Resident - $447
Non Resident - $473 N/A N/A $305.00 N/A
Softball - Men's
Resident - $476
SM Workers - $551
Non Resident - $617
Resident - $476
SM Workers - $551
Non Resident - $617
Resident $525
Non Resident $657
Resident $415
Non Resident $450 $415.00 N/A
Softball - Women's
Resident - $400
SM Workers - $460
Non Resident - $520
Resident - $420
SM Workers - $483
Non Resident - $546
NA N/A $415.00 N/A
Softball - Co-ed
Resident - $454
SM Workers - $522
Non Resident - $588
Resident - $477
SM Workers - $548
Non Resident - $617
Resident $525
Non Resident $657
Resident $415
Non Resident $450 $415.00 N/A
Softball - Tournament
Resident - $241
SM Workers - $272
Non Resident - $305
Resident - $241
SM Workers - $272
Non Resident - $305

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drop-In Soccer Program: Residents, Daily Use
Youth- $1
Adult - $3
Seniors - $1
Youth- $1
Adult - $3
Seniors - $1

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drop-In Soccer Program: Non-Residents, Daily Use
Youth- $1
Adult - $5
Seniors - $2
Youth- $1
Adult - $5
Seniors - $2

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Slow Pitch
Resident - $691
Non Resident -$717
Fast Pitch
Resident - $981
Non Resident -$1,007
Seniors
Resident - $580
Non Resident -$606
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
City of Santa Monica, CA
Peer fee comparison
Permits and Rentals
Activity Santa Monica
Current Fee
Santa Monica
Proposed Fee Burbank Beverly Hills Culver City City of Los Angeles West Hollywood Community Meeting Rooms:

Resident, Small Room (18-60 cap) $28/hr $33/hr $36/2 hrs $108/hr $30/hr $222 for 3 hrs $25/hr ea add'l hr
$45 1st hr
$24/hr ea add'l hr
Resident, Large Room (90-130 cap) $57/hr $67/hr $50/2 hrs $216/hr $236/hr N/A $110 1st hr $35/hr ea add'l hr
Non Resident, Small Room (18-60 cap) $40/hr $47/hr $54/2 hrs $135/hr $33/hr $222 for 3 hrs $25/hr ea add'l hr
$90 1st hr
$24/hr ea add'l hr
Non Resident, Large Room (90-130 cap) $81/hr $95.50/hr $75/2 hrs $269/hr 263/hr N/A $242 1st hr $35/hr ea add'l hr
Non Profit, Small Room (18-60 cap) $14/hr $16.50/hr $18/2 hrs N/A $10/hr $222 for 3 hrs $25/hr ea add'l hr
$65 1st hr
$24/hr ea add'l hr
Non Profit, Large Room (90-130 cap) $28/hr $33/hr $25/2 hrs N/A $165/hr N/A $121 1st hr $35/hr ea add'l hr
Group BBQ/Picnic areas
Residents (up to 150 people) $65 per 4 hours $77 per 4 hours No cost each additional hour $15/hr $18/hr No cost
Non-Residents (up to 150 people) $98 per 4 hours $116 per 4 hours No cost each additional hour $22.50/hr $27.50/hr No cost
Resident and Non Resident
- $60
Non-Profit - $200
Cheviot Hills Rec Center
Picnic Area
Group Size:
1-50: $119
51-100: $144
101-200: 194
Groups 1-50 people
$16/hr residents
$31/hr non-residents
Groups 51-100 people
$19/hr residents
$37/hr non-residents
Picnic Pavilion
$108/hr residents
$215/hr non-residents
Veterans Park Picnic
Shelter
1-100: $129 resident
$173 non-resident
Each add'l group of 25:
$32 resident
$54 non-resident
All Other Park Picnic Areas
Each group of 25:
$32 resident
$54 non-resident
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
25 David Yakobson
From: Migue Palos <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:46 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject: Support a Strong Right to Recall Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I support a strong Right to Recall Ordinance! The iconic Pier restaurant Rusty’s closed this January leading workers --some who have worked there for as long as a decade-- to lose their livelihoods. The workers want the opportunity to go back to work if and when someone comes to rent the space. A RIGHT TO RECALL Ordinance could establish that when a restaurant on public land, like the pier, closes, any new employer who takes over the same workplace would need to offer available jobs to qualified laid off workers. Please support the hospitality workers on our City-owned land and pass a strong Right to Recall Ordinance! Migue
California
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
26 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2025 8:51 AM
To: The Santa Monica Coalition
Subject: The Santa Monica Classic

EXTERNAL
Is this the best Santa Monica and LA have to offer tourists and visitors? Kids and adults step over transient addicts to participate in the Santa Monica Classic Run. Councilmembers and City Manager nowhere to be seen. And LA's Mayor Karen Bass flies to New York to study homelessness there, but really sneaks off for Fashion Week. Meanwhile, tourists continue to leave Santa Monica and LA shocked at conditions they see on the ground. And we're ready to play host to the World Cup and Olympics?
Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOTjn8CgoAy/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== YouTube
https://youtu.be/HL-y32g68Xc
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Jeff Palmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 3:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Emergency Ordinance to conform to SB1123

EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk,
I hope you are well. I would like to request a copy of the Emergency Upzoning Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in August 2025, which:
 Permits up to 20 units on vacant residential lots in singlefamily zones,  Allows three-story buildings,
 Adjusts setbacks and floor area ratios,
 Waives aƯordable housing fees for small projects (5
units or fewer).

If this ordinance is available online via the PublicDocs portal, could you please share a direct link or PDF? Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you could email me the document or guide me on how to access it.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Jeffrey Palmer
PMI Properties
310-476-1703 x108
[email protected]
www.pmiproperty.com
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Kruger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 8:05 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Judy Kruger (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce) Subject: Chamber Letter - Labor Peach Agreement Ordinance Attachments: 9.5.25 LPA Oppose Letter to City.pdf

EXTERNAL
Good Morning Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:

Over the past month, the Chamber held numerous meetings and phone calls with our Board of Directors, businesses and community members around the topic of the proposed Labor Peace Agreement ordiance.

Please see the attached letter for your consideration.

Respectfully Submitted,
Judy
Judy Kruger
CEO & President
213-703-1340
[email protected]
smchamber.com
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
September 5, 2025
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Proposed Labor Peace Agreement Ordinance - OPPOSE
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, we are writing to ask the City Council not to move forward with any blanket Labor Peace Agreement (LPA) requirement for businesses with new leases and renewals on City-owned or Cityoperated properties.

The Chamber and the City share a bold vision for a thriving community where both businesses and workers are equally supported. We strongly believe in a City that fosters job creation, encourages new business attraction and retention, and recognizes employers for creating good paying jobs.

Over the past month, the Chamber held a series of meetings with the business community and conducted hundreds of outreach phone calls and emails. Through this engagement, we have identified the following concerns if an LPA ordinance for leases on City-owned or City-operated properties is enacted.
1) Most businesses have not recovered from the economic downturn from Covid-19, recent wildfires, international instability, and a threatening recession. 2) Requiring an LPA involves significant legal costs, valuable time, and administrative burden to execute – excessive, prohibitive, and unreasonable for all small businesses. 3) Requiring an LPA on new leases will force most, if not all, outside dining to close, hurting the city’s vibrancy and tourism appeal.
4) Requiring an LPA would discourage new business investment and slow efforts to fill vacant commercial spaces. Already independent businesses state that they would be unwilling to open their businesses if an LPA is required. 5) Requiring an LPA on lease renewals will incentivize businesses to close or relocate from City-owned/operated properties, further impacting economic growth.

For these reasons, the Chamber requests that City Council NOT move forward on an ordinance requiring a Labor Peace Agreement for City-owned or City-operated new leases or lease renewals.

Respectfully Submitted,

Judy Kruger Paula Larmore
President & CEO Chair of the Board
Board Executives
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore,
Kutcher & Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Charlie LopezQuintana
ETC Hotels
Treasurer
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Vice-Chair
Dustin Peterson
Fairmont Miramar
Hotel & Bungalows
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Directors
Eddie Guerboian
Jeweler
Neil Carrey
Attorney
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars-Sinai
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Affairs
Directors
Jessica Rincon
Sanbourne
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Jenn Verma
Lionsgate
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Yvette Sims
Hair by Yvette
Cheree
Michael Altchule
UCLA Health
Shanna Johnson
Regent
Shari Davis
Santa Monica
College
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.

Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Doreen Lahav
Prism Places
Kara Block
DHF Architects
Carlos Madrid

SMPD POA
Jared Amerson
Providence Saint
John’s
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: R. Brach <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 6:30 PM
Subject: Arrest Homeless Criminals Now.

Seriously - children (and everyone else) can no longer even eat lunch in Santa Monica parks because they have been given by you to violent homeless maniacs that you invited to live here to commit crimes against good people? Homeless are chasing SAMO students around from the train to school; from the bus stop to school. Homeless are exposing themselves to SAMO students on a daily basis. This is abuse. This is criminal activity.

Arrest these people. Stop the madness. Please clean up this City.

Put homeless in one big tent area to get sober, get a job, and then get a place to live. We should not have to deal with this or pay for this. They are lawless criminals.

Enough. And, PS, Jesse - open libraries full time, you jerk. https://www.circlingthenews.com/no-more-lunches-at-santa-monicas-tongva-park/ After losing so many things that mattered in the January fires, my childhood home, my town, and my high school Palisades Charter, my school friends and I searched for a place that could mirror the natural beauty of the Palisades campus in our new Pali South environment in Santa Monica (the old Sears building, which is serving as a temporary campus). I thought Tongva Park, located just over the 10 Freeway Bridge, could serve as that place of solace, just as it did when we visited it after school last year. Sadly, this turned out to be false.

As my friends and I are now seniors, we are allowed to go off campus for lunch. It’s really nice to get out of the shoebox that is Pali South, even if the lunch prices make dining out every day untenable. And no offense to Palisades rock stars, Garden Cafe and Gracias Señor, but Santa Monica does have a lot more lunch options.

One of the biggest things that we miss about the Palisades campus is the quad. Even though the grass sometimes started dying because of student traffic, it still brought a bright and charming effect to the campus, especially on sunny, blue-sky days. Pali South is surrounded by a concrete parking lot, not a blade of grass in sight. So, when we launched out for lunch, we were dying to find any patch of grass.

We went to Tongva on August 20, meeting up there after grabbing food or just grabbing our lunchboxes (go mom or dad!). It was so nice to get out and spend time together, having somewhere to run around and play. We all thought it reminded us of spending countless lunches on the quad listening to the 2010s hits that played over the speakers.

Even though there were numerous homeless in the park, it didn’t affect us.

Just one day later, however, Tongva was ruined.

After getting our food, some of my friends and I made our way over to the park. We saw the rest of our friends coming in from the other way, smiles on all our faces. We sat down on the scalloped amphitheater steps in the center of the park and started eating our food and talking. Everything was going wonderfully, just as the day before, until the unfortunate classic Santa Monica issue, a homeless person, thwarted our lunch.

A woman was sitting far away on the benches to our left, her possessions next to her. She randomly started screamed “Hey!” in our direction. Of course, we were confused, turning towards her.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 She seemed to be mentally unwell, repeatedly screaming as she got up and started walking towards us. Now, we had no idea what she was about to do, but, in an abundance of caution, we gathered our things and made our way towards the park exit.

As she got closer, she asked why we were leaving, and instead of not engaging (which is the safest reaction although it feels the worst), my friend Jack told her we were students and we had to go back to school.

Then she said, “Let me go with you. I have something to show you.” As she kept walking towards us, we bolted up the steps to the exit, with food still in our hands as we had no time to pack up. My friend Sean was last out, and the woman called out again. He tried to be polite to her, but she forcibly took the chicken sandwich he had been eating out of his hands and then took a bite out of it. She then said she was thirsty and grabbed for his coke.

Sean resisted by pulling away, but she leaned in, took a sip, then grabbed the entire drink. He ran to catch up with us and said he was glad nobody was hurt.

As we left, we noticed that people who appeared to be homeless, many of whom seemed unwell were everywhere.

After last Thursday, we don’t think we’re going to go to Tongva to have lunch anymore. Instead, we’re hanging out in Santa Monica Place (which doesn’t have grass, but hey, at least that place is getting activity, which it needs.) It’s a shame that Tongva isn’t a safe place to hang out, though. Why have a park that most citizens are unable to use? As everyone knows, the homeless have been a longtime issue in Santa Monica, especially concentrating around the Third Street Promenade area.

There was no ambassador or official present at Tongva. It seems like no attention or resources are being devoted to the issue, despite attempts from locals such as John Alle, a property owner on the Promenade, to bring the park back to the public (I appreciate what you’re doing, John!) I’m not a city planner or a government official, but I would suggest that the city create a designated place, separate from pre-existing public spaces, for the homeless, that has everything they need: food, shelter, medicine, job help etc.

I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of the homeless, but the city should find a way to help them without making other citizens feel that they cannot use the public spaces in their city. Whatever Santa Monica decides to do, I really hope that the homeless problem can be solved. It has made Santa Monica unsafe and dirty, tarnishing its amazing potential and reputation that I, along with many others, have observed firsthand. Santa Monica is a historic spot of Pacific beauty, attracting so many diverse people from all over the world, and I hope it can remain that way.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
3 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Tongva Park has picnic benches and a children’s playground.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Jenny Rush <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 1:24 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall
Cc: Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; City of Santa Monica; Clerk Mailbox; Jeanette Gant; Micah Akerson; Erika Aklufi; Danielle Noble; Ramon Batista; amgomez48 @gmail.com; Roberto Lucio; Thomas McLaughlin; Jose Rodriguez; Annette Farmer; Maryanne LaGuardia; Albin Gielicz; Alisha Brady; [email protected]; Arthur Jeon; Arati Desai Wagabaza; Lori Brown; John Smith; Rudy Alegre; Ellen Annan; Apolonia Barkhorder; Rene Beltran; Bicko Berbere; Michael Bezerra; Bobby; Brian Bornemann; [email protected]; BPT; [email protected]; Luke Cain; Josiah Citrin; Nancy Coleman; johnnie tarandroses. com; Sandra Cordero; Phil Cummings; Mike Dobson; [email protected]; Ron Durgin; [email protected]; Jon Farzam; Ross Furukawa; Megan Gamble; Grant Gimpel; Colby Goff; Kyle Gosselin; Jerry Greenberg; Russell Grimmond; Andrew Ha; Andrew Halarewicz Subject: LPA ordinance for leases on City-owned or City-operated properties is enacted.

EXTERNAL
Hello SM City Council Members,
I am hoping some of us local business owners can get some time with you all to discuss the recent LPA ordinance for leases on City owned properties.

As small business owners, particularly in DTSM, we are struggling with sales down over 30%, tourism down, the fires and increasing costs. For example, we have clear pull down shades to protect our small outdoor patio at BP Oysterette. On multiple occasions, we have opened up in the morning to find people sleeping and human feces left behind for us to clean up. These shades protect us from this and the wind and cold in the winter allowing locals and tourists to enjoy a meal looking at the Pacific. In the past year, ours have been slashed 3 times, costing over $5,000 to replace. Video surveillance shows different people in the middle of the night vandalizing or trying to get in. One was screaming and just slashed the plastic for no reason. Many of my team members have quit as they no longer feel safe working at night in DTSM walking back to their cars or parking in public lots. One recently was threatened by a guy in the public lot with a full blown spear gun. On a daily basis, we are interfacing with so many unhoused drug addicted unpredictable people wandering the streets that it is making our already difficult job even more impossible.

Please read closing report which is one of many. We are also required to fill out annual transportation surveys that require all of our staff to register their names and addresses, which in recent months has been very challenging. We know this survey is to better understand how people are getting to work in SM and aims to promote using public transportation, but most of my team are terrified to walk to the station at night, let alone take the train as it is also very unsafe. Nobody is enforcing fares, therefore there are many unhoused drug addicted people riding. I have a very good friend who works for the LA Public Health Department and I recently went to a talk he gave for business owners on what is happening on the metro and with resources. He said that though he is in full support of providing resources to help people get off drugs and housing, but he is seeing the same people over and over taking advantage of services and getting help only to return to the streets.

In regards to the recent LPA ordinance for leases on City owned land, we have two patios that have small divided spaces between landlord owned areas and City owned land. We pay rent to the City for these spaces. Our patios are our lifeline and we are barely recovering from the fires. If this ordinance passes, from what I understand it will require us to potentially unionize our entire workforce and could increase operating costs by 10-30% plus the legal costs of putting an LPA in place simply because we rent an attached 300 square feet from the City for diners. These aren’t Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 costs we can absorb and really put small businesses at a disadvantage. As a few of you have accounting backgrounds, I would happily share our P and Ls to show that we are month over month losing money staying in business with the decline in tourism, rise in crime and locals not wanting to go to DTSM after dark.

If the goal is to target small businesses that have been paying taxes and fees in the City of SM for over a decade, this will surely do that. Is there a world in which there will be exceptions for businesses that have less employees or smaller footprints? Many of my colleagues are very concerned about the end game here and the lack of support for local mom and pop businesses. I am not sure if any of you support any of us or spend time in DTSM, particularly at night, but things have not improved.

Is there a way to schedule a meeting asap as a group so we can discuss with you? Many of us work nights and attending a City Council meeting where we get 1 minute to speak is not adequate when we think of the long term impact it could have on us. Please let us know if there is a time we can coordinate with either the Chamber or we can host if need be to get more information.

In the past, I have emailed about concerns as you are our representatives and have had no response so looking forward to hearing from all of you about this huge concern.

Jen Rush
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
3 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
4 Jennifer Rush
Blue Plate Restaurant Group
C: 310.600.3647
On Aug 28, 2025, at 2:22 PM, Arthur Jeon <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Council,
This is a long one, sorry. But like many people in the city, I’m trying to understand the sudden firing of Chief Batista. It's obvious he was fired despite all the niceties mouthed (except “he wants to spend time with his family”). No reason has been given, and as far as I can see there isn’t one. So I ask the council this question: Do you really think you can find somebody who is moderate and temperate enough for your delicate natures? Somebody who will put up with your consistent lack of support while still persistently pursuing (and slowly accomplishing) what he knows works? You must have some narrative cooked up, so which of the following stories are you telling yourselves? Chief Batista wasn't tough enough.

Can’t be it, because you relentlessly tried to tie his hands. As a reminder, Chief Batista came into a demoralized department, with historical staffing lows (177 versus, 231 today), Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
5 and a council that was (and still is) mainly anti-enforcement—despite mouth noises about “supporting our police.” Remember, after we were looted mercilessly, when the police were told to stand down because they might hurt the feelings of the looters, current Councilperson Caroline Torosis made it her mission to start a police oversight commission because… yeah, that was the problem, our police were too tough as they were forced to watch criminals set fires and destroy downtown. Rather than solving our real problems, the council aped the national mood and cried "police brutality" in Santa Monica, a lie I outlined at the time in “Fake Problem, Real Problem.” Chief Batista also had no excessive force issues in four years, something the council rightly demanded, but wasn't a problem here.

Another reminder of the times: Gleam Davis, former mayor and sitting council-member at the time, told me: “We can't have police patrol the promenade, some of our residents wouldn’t like it because it would make them uncomfortable.” She also famously said Santa Monica just "has a little grit,” as the city was overrun with criminals, encampments, and people sleeping and defecating on a daily basis in our carport. Another councilperson actually said the homeless were “unhoused residents.” Yes, Oliver, welcome to SantaWackiness! And don’t forget Jesse Zwick famously said he wouldn’t "feel safe” and “wouldn’t visit" on the promenade if there was even one armed supervisor for the promenade’s security team. As an aside, this is a decision that should be revisited given that two kids recently got shot in a Waymo downtown (and then a police officer several days later). If an active shooter shows up on the promenade before the police can get there, the victim’s blood will be on this council's hands, which halted the Covered 6 deployment of former policemen the day before they were to start.

I only bring all this up to remind people of the headwinds Chief Batista faced in a city council that is defined by luxury beliefs, because they are not the victims of crime we living near downtown experience, most of it arising from the homeless population. And don’t claim that you have seen the light or that anything has changed in your lack of police support: two months ago the council voted not to hire the 5 new officers the chief said he needs to tackle our crime wave. Unlike neighbors like Beverly Hills or Redondo Beach, you've tied his hands while expecting the impossible. Because face it, deep down you DO NOT THINK OUR TROUBLES ARE AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM and all these thousands of addicts and criminals need are free needles and a lollypop.

Chief Batista wasn’t modernizing enough.

Not supported by the facts. The chief immediately set about modernizing the force, adding a drone program that puts police on scene in a minute, something I experienced first hand as I was attacked in broad daylight a block from my house. Literally, while I was still describing the person who tried to knock-out punch me to dispatch, they said: “We see you. We see the person you’re talking about.” I was confused because I saw no police cars until she said the drone, operated by a police officer, was already hovering above. Chief Batista also launched a new computer-aided dispatch and records management system, secured a $6 million grant to establish the city's first Real-Time Crime and Information Center, and beefed up cameras around the city. I could go on and on about what’s changed, but even though it might start to feel like it, this isn’t a book.

Chief Batista wasn't prepared or proactive enough.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
6 Nope. Two recent events put the police to the test, which they passed with flying colors:
the Palisades fires, and the “No Kings” protest. The fires were met with preemptive planning, a tough response, an early request to deploy National Guard as a precautionary measure, and a robust attack on the burglary gangs and copycat arsonists inundating SM while we were evacuated. The "No Kings" protest, which I attended, was moved out of downtown, entrance ramps from the freeway were monitored or closed, and innumerable preventive measures were taken to ensure the safety of the peaceful protest, which was feisty, jubilant, and local. Compare that with the 2020 incursion of criminal gangs that looted our city while our police were instructed to stand down.

The chief also changed the culture of the demoralized department, which were famously disincentivized to "get after it." Now, putting an emphasis on proactive policing, in 2024, 50,000 officer initiated contacts were made, in addition to 128,000 responses to calls and 2800 arrests. I’ve long said these officer initiated contacts for public drug use, trespassing, harassment, and other “quality of life” issues give the police an opportunity to run warrants, confiscate weapons and drugs, and check for parole status. Many wanted felons with outstanding warrants were picked up this way. Can we do even more? Yes, and we need to. Because the ONLY solution to what’s happening on our streets is doing what Bill Bratton did in NYC—a zero tolerance, broken windows approach where public drug use and minor lawbreaking is not tolerated. This takes more cops, and real support from a council for tougher policing, neither of which the council seems ready to do.

Chief Batista wasn’t transparent, connected to the community, or DEI enough.

This doesn’t ring true either. When the chief arrived, we were a city under siege. He struggled to get control of the situation, all while adhering to the “values” that our council likes to talk about, from equity in hiring to historic transparency with the Blue Notebook to a ton of community outreach through the "coffee with a cop" program. This police force is available to the community in word and deed, often showing up at community meetings and hearing people out. He and his officers slowly and steadily rebuilt support and trust within Santa Monica, putting in long hours meeting with residents and building community.

He also hired officers who are so diverse that they look like a Benetton ad (25% women).

Chief Batista wasn’t tough enough.

Nope. And a hilarious reason, really, considering the council's history and opposition to all things enforcement. The naked hostility and indifference of the council to the police in general, and to Chief Batista in person during his city council reports, is breathtaking. You take a professional who knows what it takes to solve our problems, you hamstring him and his department with a persistent threat to remove pre-textual stops (which have yielded wanted felons, guns, dealer-lever amounts of Fentanyl). You constantly deliver lectures about "our values" and how our police can’t be too harsh, while claiming that enforcement won't really make a difference, and then you’re saying he’s not tough enough? Nah.

I’m out of ideas. Because none of the above reasons make sense, and I can’t think of any other besides petty politics, of which I don’t want to comment on because I recently ate lunch.

Advice to Oliver Chi: rescind this decision
Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
7 Oliver, despite plans to, we haven’t met yet, but I’ve got to say, this is not a good way to start in a city. It’s only been 5 days, and I suggest you take a breath and immediately rescind this decision (you won’t, but I’m ever the optimist). I would then go on a listening tour to really understand what the Chief was dealing with the past four years. This will prevent you from shooting from the hip and falling prey to politics and historical ignorance because you’ve only been here five minutes. Mainly the fact that this council, and the former city manager, have not been supportive of the police, and show NO SIGN of beginning to understand what the core issues are regarding restoring our downtown and tourism industry, (beyond adding booze and fast food joints). If you thought the Chief needed adjusting, it would have been wiser to give him a review and say something like: “I know you’ve had to deal with a council and former city manager who inherently doesn't believe in your mission beyond lip service. Those days are over. You have my support, and should consider this as the reset. I will do everything in my power to get you what you need, but I will hold you accountable as well. You’ve got six months to show me you can turn things around.”
Given your recent other firings, I know you might want to signal that change is here (and believe me there needs to be a shakeup of staff), but do not stick with this hasty dismissal on the eve of the World Cup and the Olympics, disrupting the Chief’s careful planning for both. There’s a human being here who has sweated blood working for the city. Reversing this decision would take real balls, but the chief deserves a chance to meet your mark, whatever it is. And we deserve the continuity it will bring to the city.

One final note: you wrote three years ago about implementing "professional crisis response teams of medics and mental health workers" to handle calls involving the homeless in Huntington Beach. How’d that work out in a city without a train mainlining them in? I don’t know where you stand now, but fyi, we’ve tried it, and it has failed with the service resistant populace inundating our streets off the train, many hiding wanted criminals. Unless you pair social workers with a cop that is running warrants and finding a reason to pressure addicts to accept services (or remand them back to where they are wanted), the social workers will tally their “contacts”—the BS way they all measure success, (rather than people off the streets)—and move on. Carrot needs to meet stick here.

Advice to the council: Do your job
To this council of social justice warriors trying to right every wrong as if they were living in the year 1970, which of the above stories are you telling yourselves? Because none of them track. So, here's an idea, instead of all the petty palace intrigue, why don’t you do what only the council can do?:

1. Figure out the train problem with LA county so we can stanch the never-ending influx of the criminal, the crazy, and the addicted (nothing will change until you do).

2. Immediately move SamoShell out of downtown which will reduce the number of zonked out zombies walking around our beleaguered tourism zone.

3. End the plan to put fully supportive housing (at $1.25 million a pop!!) smack in downtown at 4th and Arizona, which will embed dozens of severely unstable people a block from the promenade. I mean, this is just common sense, right? Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
8 4. Focus on the encampments above and right before the Lincoln exit and clean the waterfall of trash from them, so the first thing people see upon entering Santa Monica isn’t a garden of garbage.

5. Find some money out the 50 million we spend on failed homelessness boondoggles and hire more cops. Support, REALLY support our police department, so they can continue to change our reputation to from “easy pickings” to “not worth going there” on the crack hotline.

6. Oh, and power wash and repair sidewalks citywide while you’re at it, which are a mess. You’re failing at basic small town governance.

7. BONUS: Start by dismantling the Police Oversight Commission (wtf do they actually do?). It’s BS and you all, deep down, know it.

These initiatives would actually be an accelerant for change in Santa Monica, from which good things could waterfall, including tax money from a thriving downtown which will never recover without safe and clean streets (because surprise, businesses don’t want to invest here).

And make public why you fired our Chief, because NOBODY is buying that he suddenly decided to up and quit. We, as a city, deserve to know instead of allowing you to hide behind a cowardly silence. And to Chief Batista, thank you for your service. It must be such a gut punch and I wish you had made them fire you instead of quietly leaving, yet another time you acted in the interests of the city above your own.

I’m reminded of the Yeat’s poem, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Yeah, that’s about right. The council is too passionately ideological to act in the best interests of Santa Monica, which is to keep the chief.

Shame on you. All of you.

Arthur Jeon
Back in the days of “just a little grit” 3 years ago, with open-air drug markets in all our parks.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
9 Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Planning Commission Comments
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: PLEASE SAVE OUR PARK (before it's built)!! From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:20 AM
To: Planning Commission Comments <[email protected]> Subject: FW: PLEASE SAVE OUR PARK (before it's built)!! From: Gregory Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:48 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: PLEASE SAVE OUR PARK (before it's built)!!

EXTERNAL
Dear Planning Staff and City Council Members,
I am a resident and neighbor in the Sunset Park area, and I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed seven-story mixed-use development at 3205 Ocean Park Blvd, which borders the future Santa Monica Airport Park.

While the City Council has committed to creating a public park on the 192-acre airport site, approval of this massive development would severely compromise the quality, openness, and usability of that park. My concerns are as follows:

1. Encroachment on Green Space:
o The proposed building’s height and mass would dominate the park’s edge, creating a sense of enclosure and significantly reducing the park’s visual openness. o Even though the park itself may remain, its experience as a green, natural refuge would be compromised.

2. Shadowing and Environmental Impact:
o A seven-story structure will cast extensive shadows on the park, reducing sunlight needed for recreational areas and plant life.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 o The building’s scale may also alter local wind and microclimate, impacting the park environment.

3. Traffic and Density Pressure:
o Adding 375 units (including 44 affordable) will increase traffic and parking demand in the immediate area, straining park access and nearby streets. o Higher congestion will reduce the park’s accessibility, tranquility, and safety.

4. Community Character:
o Ocean Park and the surrounding area have long valued low-rise, human-scale development.
o Approving this project sets a precedent for overdevelopment, undermining the park’s role as a central green space for the community.

For these reasons, I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to reject this project in its current form. Approval would undermine the city’s commitment to a meaningful, open, and usable public park — one that residents have fought for and voted to protect.

Please consider the long-term consequences for the community, the park, and future generations. We need open, green space, not towering structures at the park’s edge.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Planning Commission Comments
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: PLEASE SAVE OUR PARK (before it's built)!! From: Planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:20 AM
To: Planning Commission Comments <[email protected]> Subject: FW: PLEASE SAVE OUR PARK (before it's built)!! From: Gregory Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:48 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: PLEASE SAVE OUR PARK (before it's built)!!

2. Shadowing and Environmental Impact:
o A seven-story structure will cast extensive shadows on the park, reducing sunlight needed for recreational areas and plant life.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 o The building’s scale may also alter local wind and microclimate, impacting the park environment.

Please consider the long-term consequences for the community, the park, and future generations. We need open, green space, not towering structures at the park’s edge.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: John Cyrus Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 1 - PUBLIC COMMENT - NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS

EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk,
I thought I mailed this hours ago before Noon but did not see it anywhere under ITEM 1 in the public record.

Please include.

Thank you.

ITEM 1 – Public Comment – September 9, 2025
Please include this letter as part of the public record.

Dear Santa Monica Residents, Stakeholders, Businesses and Employees, As a longtime resident, Recreation and Parks Commissioner, and Board Member of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont), I’m reaching out to you with strong conviction about why the Santa Monica City Council should continue its modest but essential funding for neighborhood groups.

Wilmont (www.Wilmont.org) is one of seven city-recognized neighborhood organizations. We’ve been around since 1990. Every City Council for the past 35 years has supported us, worked with us and respected us.

Contrast that with certain members of the current council, who almost killed our funding this Summer. Our 100% volunteer-powered organization has always worked not with fanfare or partisanship, but with steady grassroots dedication to our neighborhoods and our city. Our primary mission is to increase civic engagement, strengthen community ties, and bring understanding and information to our members, neighbors and friends.

Thanks to just $7,000 a year from the city, Wilmont and six other neighborhood groups host monthly meetings that give city officials simple and convenient forums to reach residents about programs, issues and concerns.

Wilmont also hosts neighborhood-building events such as our three “Second Saturdays” (Aug. 9th, Sept. 13th and October 11th) featuring free live music and movies for kids at Reed Park. Our Summer Finale last September was our biggest ever. City officials attended and good things started happening. The city found money to reopen the Miles Playhouse. Code Enforcement finally forced the owner of an eyesore property across the street to fence off his property, which had become a neighborhood magnet for homelessness, drug use and drug-dealing. SMPD stepped up its presence at Reed. Because of the efforts of many, the city held its Annual State of the City Address there, kicking off a series of events celebrating Santa Monica’s 150th Birthday. A lot of people have worked hard to make progress at Reed possible, but I doubt it would be happening if not for Wilmont.org.

And we do more. Neighborhood groups co-hosted the biggest City Council candidate forum of 2024. Every current Council member has attended our meetings, along with city staff from virtually every city department. If Council eliminates, reduces or handcuffs funding for the Neighborhood Grant Program, some groups will not survive.

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025
2 In the coming days and weeks, certain Council members will be telling you all about how they admire and support neighborhood groups, resident input and public discourse. When they do, please remember this… They already tried to kill our funding. Only a last-ditch effort by a handful of residents, and the eloquent leadership of Santa Monica’s Police Chief, convinced a close 4-3 majority of Council members to pass an $800- million budget that included the money to keep all seven neighborhood groups alive.

But now some Council members are gunning for us again.

Why? The most obvious reason is because the smallest of seven neighborhood groups decided to endorse four other Council candidates last November.

Wilmont has never endorsed Council candidates, even though the IRS says we and five of the seven groups are “501(c) 4” non-profits, which are allowed to do so by law. Our main goal is to inform, enlighten, discuss and explain city issues to our members and residents. We’ve always followed the rules and provided receipts to account for every penny of the $7,000 dollar grant we receive each year.

So why is THIS Council the first in 35 years to raise such a big stink about funding neighborhood groups? Why did they take the rare step of posting a new release and editorial to the media, claiming it’s all about issues such as fairness, transparency and accountability.

Here’s why…
It’s pure, partisan politics. This Council is attacking perceived enemies, just like Trump does. They are trying to defund groups that sometimes disagree with them, just like Trump is doing. They are punishing other groups for the actions of one. Just like Trump does.

Some on this Council talk about DEI, (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) as if they invented it. Yet they publicly and privately chastise so many of us as old, white, NIMBY, or even racist. They are wrong and they should be ashamed.

And they will get away with it if we don’t stand up, speak out and support residents during the Council Study Session on the Neighborhood Grant Program Tuesday, September 30th in Council Chambers.

Don’t let them do to us what Trump is doing to our country.

Sincerely,
John Cyrus Smith,
Wilmont Board Member,
Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commissioner
John Cyrus Smith
[email protected]

Item 1
September 9, 2025
Item 1
September 9, 2025

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 9, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
September 9, 2025