Santa Monica City Council
May 26, 2026

2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
• Cities may charge fees to recover the costs of services that primarily benefit individual community members, which helps preserve tax dollars for general public services that benefit the entire community.
• City policy continues to prioritize full cost recovery for services that primarily benefit individual users. Consistent with past practice, the City maintains targeted exceptions where reduced cost recovery is appropriate due to community benefit, equity priorities, or legal limitations—including in Human Services, Community Recreation, and Animal Control. In these cases, the General Fund subsidy covers the difference between the updated cost of service and the fee charged, ensuring continued access while maintaining transparency in cost-recovery practices.
• The FY 2026 User Fee Study (completed May 2026) updates the full cost of providing fee-supported services using FY 2025-26 budgeted salaries, benefits, overhead, staff time estimates, and updated activity volumes across all participating departments.
• The study reflects changes in service delivery, staffing structure, and operational demands following the City’s organizational Realignment Plan approved on October 24, 2025. These factors required updated cost models, all which informed the recommended fee adjustments.
• Per Council direction, Santa Monica conducts a comprehensive citywide User Fee / Cost of Service Study at least once every five years to ensure ongoing cost alignment for services that benefit individuals. In interim years, administrative CPI or estimated total cost of compensation adjustments are applied. The previous citywide fee study was completed, and the recommended revisions were implemented in 2021. Administrative adjustments have been applied annually to maintain alignment with the costs to provide the services. • The 2026 Study analyzed fees across the General, Beach, Water, Wastewater, Resource Recovery & Recycling, and Airport funds, covering approximately 800 individual fees across multiple city operations.
• The study identified $32.8 million in annual fee-supported service costs. Under current fee levels, the City recovers $19.5 million (60%) of its costs. If recommended fees are adopted, cost recovery is projected to increase by $2.1 Attachment D 1
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
million ($1.5 million in the General Fund), raising overall cost recovery to 66%.

Annual revenue increases reflect updated costs, current staffing levels and related operational factors. Estimated volumes were derived from the latest full year of activity. All recommendations comply with Proposition 26, which requires that fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing services. • Recommended updates include:
o Fee increases — where updated cost of service analysis shows current charges fall below the recalculated cost of delivering the service under the City’s current service delivery model.
o Fee reductions — where charges exceed the updated cost of service, consistent with California user fee law and cost recovery limits. o New fees — for services that are currently provided without cost recovery but now have defined measurable costs under the updated model.
o Fee removals — eliminating fees tied to services that are no longer provided, or that are redundant with other fee categories based on the modernized service structure.
o Cleanup and restructuring — clarifying and reorganizing fee descriptions to better reflect actual service delivery. • Most fee adjustments were targeted to align with full cost recovery, except where Council policy or state law requires continued subsidy. Key revenue changes include major restructuring in Code Enforcement (including new Vacant Property Monitoring fees), increased cost recovery in Planning and Library Services, and substantial new revenue in Water Resources. Programs such as Human Services, Community Recreation, and Animal Control continue to maintain lower cost recovery due to policy, equity considerations, or legal requirements.
• Several divisions—including Mobility, Resource Recovery & Recycling, Public Landscape, and Airport—also updated fee structures to align with current service models, improve transparency, and ensure compliance with State law. • The study emphasizes a balanced approach to cost recovery, community benefit, and legal compliance. Fees for services that primarily benefit individuals are recommended at or near full cost, while fees that promote Attachment D 2
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
accessibility, support community objectives, or are capped by State law remain subsidized.

Significant Fee Adjustments
The largest proposed increases affect 31 fees. These adjustments reflect:
• Refined cost calculations — updated full-cost accounting that incorporates direct service costs as well as support provided by multiple departments. • Workflow and staffing changes — revisions tied to process updates and staffing shifts implemented through the City’s organizational Realignment Plan.
• Current labor and staffing structures — recalculated costs based on current staffing classifications, compensation, and overhead.
• Reduced General Fund subsidy — alignment to decrease subsidy levels for certain historically subsidized fees where higher cost recovery is appropriate.

Full detail on fee changes is included in the attached Fee Study Report. The summary table below lists the 31 fees with the largest proposed increases.

Attachment D 3
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 4
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 5
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 6
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
New and Revised Fees
Proposed new fees generally fall into three categories:
• Cost-recovery for existing services — fees that recover the cost of services the City has historically provided without charging. These include new charges in Public Landscape, Resource Recovery & Recycling, Public Works, and Recreation & Arts. Examples include tree evaluations, special-event support, construction-related reviews, and new container and waste-management fees.
• Compliance-driven fees — fees required to meet new or existing legislation or policy mandates, such as stormwater inspections, developer transportation-demand requirements, and waste-management review obligations.
• Fees for newly offered services — charges for services not previously provided by the City, including Vacant Property Monitoring tiers (Code Enforcement), new Airport staff-support fees, new Mobility fees (curb modifications, expanded plan-review tiers, and hourly classifications), and new recreation program offerings.

Proposed revised fees primarily reflect restructuring and modernization of existing fee categories to simplify processes, better align charges with staff time and resources, and update fee descriptions to reflect current operations.

Additional details on all proposed new and revised fees is provided in the attached Fee Study report. The following tables present the specific new and revised fees corresponding to each category described above.

Attachment D 7
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 8
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 9
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 10
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 11
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 12
2026 Citywide User Fee Study Report Summary
Attachment D 13
User Fee Study
Report of Findings
City of Santa Monica, CA
MAY 2026
MGT.us
Attachment D 14
City of Santa Monica
User Fee Study Report of Findings
May 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Scope and Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4 Study Findings............................................................................................................................................. 6 Summary of User Fee Cost and Revenue Analysis ..................................................................................................... 7 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Hourly Rates .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Time Spent..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Fee Calculations and Revenue Projections ................................................................................................................. 9 Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations................................................................................................................. 10 USER FEE SUMMARIES BY DEPARTMENT ............................................................................ 12 City Manager’s Office (CMO) .................................................................................................................... 12 Administration ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Administration - User Fee Summary Sheet............................................................................................................... 13 Office of Sustainability & the Environment (OSE)..................................................................................................... 15 Office of Sustainability & the Environment - User Fee Summary Sheet.................................................................. 16 Community Development ......................................................................................................................... 17 Code Enforcement...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Code Enforcement - User Fee Summary Sheet ........................................................................................................ 19 City Planning............................................................................................................................................................... 20 City Planning - User Fee Summary Sheet.................................................................................................................. 21 Records and Election Services (City Clerk)............................................................................................... 25 Records and Election Services (City Clerk) - User Fee Summary Sheet ................................................................. 27 Finance ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 Finance - User Fee Summary..................................................................................................................................... 29 Fire ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Fire - User Fee Summary Sheet ................................................................................................................................. 31 Housing and Human Services .................................................................................................................. 37 Housing and Human Services - User Fee Summary Sheet...................................................................................... 38 Housing and Human Services – Proposed Fee Adjustments ................................................................................. 39 Library ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 Library - User Fee Summary Sheet ............................................................................................................................ 41 Police & Animal Control ............................................................................................................................ 43 Police & Animal Control - User Fee Summary Sheet................................................................................................ 44 Public Works ............................................................................................................................................. 46 Airport ......................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Engineering ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Mobility........................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Public Landscape and Downtown Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 48 Attachment D Attachment D 15
Resource, Recovery & Recycling................................................................................................................................ 49 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 50 Airport User Fee Summary Sheet .............................................................................................................................. 51 Engineering User Fee Summary Sheet...................................................................................................................... 52 Mobility User Fee Summary Sheet ............................................................................................................................ 54 Public Landscape and Downtown Maintenance User Fee Summary Sheet........................................................... 57 Resource, Recovery & Recycling User Fee Summary Sheet .................................................................................... 58 Water Resources User Fee Summary Sheet............................................................................................................. 60 Recreation & Arts ...................................................................................................................................... 62 Beach House............................................................................................................................................................... 62 Beach House - User Fee Summary Sheet ................................................................................................................. 63 Community Events ..................................................................................................................................................... 64 Community Events - User Fee Summary Sheet........................................................................................................ 65 Community Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 66 Community Recreation - User Fee Summary Sheet ................................................................................................. 67 Community Recreation – Programmatic Fee Summary (DRAFT)........................................................................... 68 Cultural Affairs............................................................................................................................................................ 69 Cultural Affairs - User Fee Summary Sheet .............................................................................................................. 70 Film.............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Film - User Fee Summary Sheet ................................................................................................................................ 72 Transportation .......................................................................................................................................... 73 Parking ........................................................................................................................................................................ 73 Parking - User Fee Summary Sheet........................................................................................................................... 75 Recommendations Going Forward ........................................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX – PEER COMPARISONS ...................................................................................... 77 City Manager’s Office: Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE)........................................................... 78 Community Development: Code Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 79 Records and Election Services .................................................................................................................................. 80 Finance........................................................................................................................................................................ 82 Police and Animal Control ......................................................................................................................................... 83 Public Works: Engineering ......................................................................................................................................... 84 Public Works: Mobility Systems ................................................................................................................................ 85 Public Works: Public Landscape ............................................................................................................................... 87 Public Works: Resource, Recovery & Recycling........................................................................................................ 88 Public Works: Water Resources ................................................................................................................................ 89 RAD: Beach House ..................................................................................................................................................... 90 RAD: Community Events ............................................................................................................................................ 91 RAD: Community Recreation ..................................................................................................................................... 92 RAD: Film .................................................................................................................................................................... 93 RAD: Cultural Affairs .................................................................................................................................................. 94 Use of Public Property Fees Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 95 Memo on Small Wireless Facility Attachments to City-Owned Infrastructure ....................................................... 95

EXHIBITS
Use of Public Property Fees Analysis
Memo on Small Wireless Facility Attachments to City-Owned Infrastructure Attachment D Attachment D 16
Executive Summary
Introduction
MGT is pleased to present the City of Santa Monica with this report of findings from the City’s updated User Fee Study. This report summarizes the cost-of-service analysis, cost recovery results, and recommended fee adjustments for fee-for-service activities within participating City departments.

Since 2013, MGT has partnered with the City to support its user fees, including fee calculations and maintenance of the underlying cost models used to ensure fees are aligned with the reasonable cost of providing services.

City policy is to recover, through fees, the full cost of providing services that provide benefit to the person or entity using the service. 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. Recreation and Arts fees and Animal Control fees are examples of this determination in past fee establishments.

The findings in this report reflect a combined effort: MGT’s original cost analysis and fee modeling, along with City-led updates using more recent budgeted expenditures, salary and benefit information, review and update of time estimates, and annual activity volumes. Together, these inputs provide an updated basis for evaluating current cost recovery levels and considering targeted fee adjustments.

This report was developed in collaboration with the City’s management and staff. MGT appreciates the time, input, and coordination provided throughout the study process, which were essential to completing the analysis and presenting the results summarized herein.

Study Scope and Objectives
The study included a review of fee-for-service activities within the following departments:
 City Manager’s Office
o Administration
o Office of Sustainability and Environment
 Community Development
o Building & Safety – Temporary Hold
o Code Enforcement
o Planning
 Records and Election Services
 Finance
 Fire
 Housing and Human Services
o Human Services
Attachment D Attachment D 17
 Library
 Police and Animal Control
 Public Works
o Airport
o Engineering
o Mobility
o Public Landscape
o Resource Recovery & Recycling
o Water Resources
 Recreation and Arts
o Beach House
o Community Events
o Community Recreation
o Cultural Affairs
o Film
 Transportation
o Parking
The study was performed under the general direction of the Budget Division with the participation of representatives from each department. 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.

Attachment D Attachment D 18
Study Findings
The study's primary objective was to provide the City's decision makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. 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.

The fee analysis adheres to Proposition 26 which is based on the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service". 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 column represents what the actual cost is for each of the departments to provide annual user fee services based on the annual volume statistics. In total, this study evaluated $32,798,272 in costs to provide services for which the City charges fees. It is this amount that was the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user fee-related revenues for the City.

Column B, Current Revenues – This column represents what the City is currently recovering in revenue for these same services based on the annual volume statistics. Based on current fee levels, the city receives fee-related cost recovery in the amount equal to $19,532,423 and is experiencing an overall 60% cost recovery level.

Column C, Current Subsidy – Current fee levels recover 60% of full cost, leaving 40%, or $13,265,824 to be funded by other 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 $21,633,232. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 66%.

Column E, Increased Revenue – Assuming activity levels remain relatively static, approximately $2,100,809 in additional cost recovery could be received by the City. This would represent an 11% increase over the amounts currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annualized basis.

Attachment D Attachment D 19
Summary of User Fee Cost and Revenue Analysis
Attachment D Attachment D 20
Methodology
A cost-of-service study is comprised of two basic elements:
 Hourly rates of staff providing the service.
 Time spent providing the service.

The product of the hourly rate calculation and 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 expenses, or Attachment D Attachment D 21
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 2025-26 budgeted expenditures, salaries and benefits.

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 required to complete each task associated with all user fee services. Annual volume statistics 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) were identified.

User fee summaries by department may be seen in the next section of this report.

Attachment D Attachment D 22
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. Except where permitted by law, 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. For example, many Community Recreation and Human 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.
 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 Attachment D Attachment D 23
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.
 Comparative Data - 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 the Appendix of this report.

Attachment D Attachment D 24
User Fee Summaries by Department
City Manager’s Office (CMO)
Administration
The fee analysis for City Manager - Administration primarily reflects a cleanup and restructuring of the department’s fee schedule to better align listed fees with the services that may actually be provided.

Rather than maintaining outdated or overly broad fee descriptions, the recommended schedule is intended to identify the actual positions, equipment, and cost structures that may be charged when those services are needed.

The recommended changes also improve clarity and administrative usability by replacing legacy fee descriptions with more specific and operationally relevant billing categories. This approach provides a cleaner fee schedule and better positions the City to assess charges when services are requested.

Highlights:
 New Fees. Five (5) new hourly fees are proposed to be added to the fee schedule. They are Production Coordinator, Production Specialist, Production Technician, Production Assistant, and Production Supervisor. These fees more accurately reflect the actual staff resources that may be used when production-related services are required.
 Fee Removals. Fifteen (15) fees are recommended for removal from the current fee schedule.

These legacy Area of Expertise fees for permanent staff and as-needed production positions are being removed to eliminate outdated classifications and replace them with clearer, positionbased fee descriptions.  Existing Fees Retained for Use as Needed. Equipment-related hourly fees remain on the schedule for use when applicable, and File Transfer Proposal (FTP) - Actual Cost remains structured to recover actual costs when incurred.
 Fee Schedule Cleanup. The recommended structure simplifies the fee schedule by removing fee descriptions that do not clearly correspond to how services are currently delivered and replacing them with charges that better reflect actual service condition.  Use-Based Application. These fees are not routine charges. They are intended to be applied only in situations where the related service, staff support, equipment use, or cost recovery is actually needed.

The User Fee Summary Sheet following this narrative provides further details of MGT’s fee analysis for City Manager - Administration.

Attachment D Attachment D 25
Administration - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 26
Attachment D Attachment D 27
Office of Sustainability & the Environment (OSE)
The user fee analysis for the CMO - Office of Sustainability & the Environment reviewed four departmentowned fees reflected in the workbook. No separate cross-support activities were modeled for this department. The workbook shows a limited direct-fee schedule, and the central policy issue is not broad fee restructuring but whether to maintain the existing Community Garden permit fee structure despite modeled costs above current charges.

Highlights:
 Three of the four fees were reviewed.
 No cross-support activities were separately modeled.
 Three Community Garden renewal permit fees are the primary direct fees with modeled costs.  Staff recommends keeping Community Garden renewal fees at current levels for FY 2026-27.  The current tiered fee structure is intended to preserve equity across smaller and larger garden plots.
 No new fees or fee deletions are identified in the workbook.

The model applies direct labor-based costing to the department’s fee schedule using time allocations and hourly rates. The three Community Garden renewal fees are analyzed as flat fees, while the EV User Fee is expressed as a unit charge per kWh.

Although the modeled cost for each Community Garden renewal permit is $216.85, compared with current fees of $100 for Small, $150 for Medium, and $200 for Large, staff recommend that these fees remain unchanged for FY 2026-27. This recommendation reflects the existing tier-based structure adopted to preserve fairness across plot sizes, with smaller plots generally at or below 100 square feet and larger plots exceeding 500 square feet. The current structure was supported by the Community Gardens Advisory Committee, and staff have indicated that future small increases may be considered in consultation with that body. No new fees, deleted fees, or material fee cleanup items are recommended at this time.

Attachment D Attachment D 28
Office of Sustainability & the Environment - User Fee Summary Sheet Attachment D Attachment D 29
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 and Safety – see note
 Code Enforcement
 City Planning
Note: Community Development is currently involved in the implementation of a new permitting and land management system. As part of the Realignment Plan’s charge to develop a modernized development services experience, this work has necessarily involved changing multiple permit, plan review and inspection categories and fee structures that are foundational to Building and Safety’s fees. The potential modification of fee structures at this point would complicate, and potentially delay, the implementation process. In order to ensure alignment between updated process and fee structure with launch of the new system, Building and Safety’s fee analysis results will be presented at a later date. .

Development 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.

Code Enforcement
Code enforcement fees directly 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.

Code Enforcement would like to establish fees associated with the Vacant Property Monitoring program.

This regulatory program will help to alleviate current issues surrounding vacant properties within the City.

Current City expenditures related to this program exceed $700,000. This program will be broken into four separate tiers based on property condition, location and number of required visits. Because of the addition and inclusion of this new program, current Code Enforcement fees recover 5% of the total costs to provide services for which fees are charged. All Code Enforcement fees are recommended to be set at 100% of cost. Assuming no loss in demand, recommended fee adjustments will result in an additional $793,972 revenue per year.

Attachment D Attachment D 30
Highlights:
 Four of the nine current fees are recommended to decrease in fee level.  Thirteen new fees are recommended. These fees include hourly based fees related to Investigations and Vacant Property Monitoring
 Five Vacant Property Monitoring fees are being recommended. These five fees could potentially generate $736,407 in new revenue. The new fee categories are:
o Vacant Property Registration - $210
o Vacant Property Monitoring – Tier 1 - $421
o Vacant Property Monitoring – Tier 2 - $826
o Vacant Property Monitoring – Tier 3 - $2,980
o Vacant Property Monitoring – Tier 4 - $7,727

Attachment D Attachment D 31
Code Enforcement - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 32
City Planning
The City 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 community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery.

Within the City Planning division, current fees recover 81% of related fee-for-service costs. In general, the City’s policy is to set fees at 100% recovery of fully burdened costs. Exceptions are made for appeals, services related to historic resources, and services that support small business such as signs.

A combination of fee increases, and decreases are recommended. If all fee levels are approved, the City could generate an additional $95,756 in annual revenue.

Highlights of the Planning fee analysis are provided below:
 Over 80 activities and services were analyzed.
 Eight new fee services are being recommended.
 The City waives fees for seven activities.
 The names or descriptions of twenty services have been updated to better reflect current development activities
 Fee reductions are being recommended for 24 services.

Attachment D Attachment D 33
City Planning - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 34
Attachment D Attachment D 35
Attachment D Attachment D 36
Attachment D Attachment D 37
Records and Election Services (City Clerk)
The user fee analysis for Records and Election Services reviewed the fee schedule and associated service activity for 18 fee-supported services. The model focuses on direct service-level costs, using staff time, applicable materials or supplies, and relevant legal or policy constraints to evaluate whether current charges can be supported and, where appropriate, updated. The fee schedule is narrow in scope and largely transactional, covering domestic partner filings, document certification, passport-related services, Public Records Act copy services, lobbyist filings, and election-related charges.

The overall story for this section is fee cleanup rather than major revenue generation. Many fees are either constrained by state, federal, or county requirements, or are intentionally maintained at reduced levels because the City can only recover direct pass-through costs or has chosen to preserve public accessibility. Based on the executive summary totals, current annual fee revenue is $82,925 against approximately $410,091 in fee-related annual cost, with recommended changes having a negligible impact on total recovery. That result confirms that this section is not a material cost recovery opportunity and is better characterized as a limited-use fee schedule with several legal and policy exceptions.

Methodologically, the model reflects a practical service-based review. For standard administrative services, fees were compared to full cost and adjusted only where it made sense to clean up outdated or overstated amounts. For legally constrained items, the recommended fees remain capped at the allowable charge, regardless of modeled cost. For pass-through election and records services, the department generally retained fees at the amount that can actually be charged rather than attempting to recover full internal cost. This is consistent with the department’s operating reality and avoids overstating collectible revenue.

Highlights:
 The schedule includes 18 fees, with no major new fee program or broad restructuring.  Most recommendations are minor cleanups to better align charges with actual allowable or supportable fees.
 A reduction of approximately $35.00.
 Several fees remain unchanged because they are set by state, federal, or county requirements, including election filing fees, campaign disclosure copy fees, passport execution fees, initiative fees, and candidate statement fees.
 Public Records Act copy-related charges and flash drive copy charges are intentionally limited to direct cost or nominal pass-through amounts rather than full cost recovery.  The nomination packet fee is recommended to increase from $45.00 to $50.00 as a modest cleanup adjustment.
 Lobbyist registration and renewal fees appear to be the primary discretionary increases supported by the model.
 A few fees that currently recover more than modeled cost, such as domestic partner filing, document certification, and passport photos, appear to be normalized downward to align more closely with cost.

Attachment D Attachment D 38
In policy terms, this section reflects a fee schedule used only when specific services are requested, not a broad cost recovery platform. The recommended updates clean up the fee schedule to better reflect actual charges the City can lawfully or practically impose, while preserving existing treatment of legally capped and pass-through services. No significant cross-support or major subsidy policy change is evident in this section.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 39
Records and Election Services (City Clerk) - User Fee Summary Sheet Attachment D Attachment D 40
Finance
The user fee/cost analysis for this department was developed for both Finance-owned user fees and Finance cross-support activities provided to other departments. The model includes 7 Finance-owned fees and 43 cross-support fee activities. It captures direct fees such as returned check processing, duplicate licenses, performance permits, and business license processing, while also documenting Finance staff support embedded in other departments’ fee-supported activities. This approach provides visibility into cross-support provided by Finance to other departments, as well as reciprocal support relationships reflected across the broader user fee study.

Most Finance-owned fees were analyzed as flat fees based on the staff time, administrative support, and allocated program costs required to process each transaction. Returned check processing fees are set by State law and were not analyzed. Cross-support activities were not treated as separate Finance charges in this schedule but instead were identified to inform the full cost of services administered by other departments.

There are no new fees or fee deletions recommended in this model. On November 5, 2024, the voters approved Measure F, which updated the City's business license tax and authorized the City Council to establish a business licensing processing fee not to exceed $100.00. Staff recommends implementing the increase gradually through annual 10% adjustments, resulting in a fee of $44.00 in FY 2026–27. This phased approach aligns with the City’s ongoing commitment to reducing barriers for small and local businesses and ensuring operational costs are sustainably managed. The Performance Permits fee of $37.00 is below the full cost of $43.54 and is recommended to be increased to 100% cost recovery. The Duplicate Licenses current fee of $10.00 is higher than the full cost of $6.15. To comply with California user fee law, the fee will need to be reduced to $6.15, but historical volume is minimal so fiscal impact is expected to be insignificant. In addition to its direct fee schedule, Finance provides cross-support to multiple departments including City Manager’s Officer, Community Development, Public Works, Police and Transportation, supporting the various fees across 43 identified fee activities.

The analysis indicates that Finance’s direct fee schedule does not capture the full scope of departmental activity, as a substantial share of staff work supports services and fee activities administered in other departments. As a result, the department’s cost structure is heavily influenced by cross-support and nonfee activity in addition to its limited direct fee base.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 41
Finance - User Fee Summary
Attachment D Attachment D 42
Fire
The Fire department contains many different operational divisions. Most Fire activities are heavily supported by the City General Fund. Fire Prevention, however, provides services directly to individuals and businesses and is heavily supported by fees and charges. Fire Prevention activities generally aim to recover 100% of the costs associated with providing the service. Current Fire Prevention fees are recovering 99% of costs.

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 foot or per device – the fee is based on size of the project and or number of devices to be installed.
 As a pass thru for other agencies (i.e LA County or the State)  Hourly or Actual Cost – city staff track time and materials expense, and fees are calculated to recover actual costs.

Highlights:
 Over 200 services were analyzed.
 Five Commercial High-Rise inspection categories are proposed to better reflect and track existing services currently provided by the City. These are not new services, but a reclassification of existing inspection activities.
 Over 80 fees will have a reduction in fee level.
 Fire Prevention performs over 8,000 inspections and Plan Reviews a year.

Attachment D Attachment D 43
Fire - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 44
Attachment D Attachment D 45
Attachment D Attachment D 46
Attachment D Attachment D 47
Attachment D Attachment D 48
Attachment D Attachment D 49
Housing and Human Services
Human Services was previously a division in Community Services but now is part of the Housing and Human Services department (HHS). HHS administers the following fee-for-service activities:
 CREST (Childcare, Recreation, Enrichment, Sports Together)  Enrichment programs
 Camp Santa Monica
The following programs are also administered by HHS and are provided as a community benefit. No revenue is collected by the City for these services:
 Police Activities League
 Virginia Avenue Park
 Homeless Initiatives
 Youth/Family Initiatives
The cost analysis for HHS programs was done 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.

HHS is currently recovering 31% of its cost to provide fee-for-service activities. The department is not recommending any fee increases at this time.

The User Fee Study Summary Sheet following this narrative shows the results of MGT’s analysis at the program level. Following the summary, individual fee adjustments for CREST program fees are displayed.

Attachment D Attachment D 50
Housing and Human Services - User Fee Summary Sheet
City of Santa Monica
HHS - Housing & Human Services
FY 2025-26
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 total program $ 344,290 $ 1,525,369 23% 1,525,369 $ $ 344,290 $ 1,181,079 23% 344,290 $ $ 344,290 $ - $ 1,181,079 402.02 Enrichment total program $ 768,195 $ 1,277,691 60% 1,277,691 $ $ 768,195 $ 509,496 60% 768,195 $ $ 768,195 $ - $ 509,496 402.03 Camp Santa Monica total program $ 86,000 $ 1,120,168 8% 1,120,168 $ $ 86,000 $ 1,034,168 8% 86,000 $ $ 86,000 $ - $ 1,034,168 402.04 Police Activities League non-fee $ - $ 1,395,640 0% 1,395,640 $ $ - $ 1,395,640 -- non-fee generating program -- 402.05 Virginia Avenue Park non-fee $ - $ 2,199,735 0% 2,199,735 $ $ - $ 2,199,735 -- non-fee generating program -- 402.06 Homeless Initiatives non-fee $ - $ 5,099,222 0% 5,099,222 $ $ - $ 5,099,222 -- non-fee generating program -- 402.07 Youth / Family Initiatives non-fee $ - $ 1,540,068 0% 1,540,068 $ $ - $ 1,540,068 -- non-fee generating program -- 402.10 Division Administration program admin $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - -- admin cost re-allocated to programs -- Total User Fees $3,923,228 $1,198,485 $2,724,743 $1,198,485 $0 $2,724,743 % of Full Cost 31% 69% 31% 0% 69%
The cost analysis for all Human 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.

Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual
Current Recommendations
Attachment D Attachment D 51
Housing and Human Services – Proposed Fee Adjustments
Program Current Fee Proposed Fee

ENRICHMENT PROGRAM
Programs & Classes $143-$237 $143-$237

CAMP SANTA MONICA
Resident Full Day $450/week $450/week
Non Resident Full Day $500/week $500/week

CHILDCARE
CREST Club $375/month $375/month
Attachment D Attachment D 52
Library
The Library is almost entirely funded by the General Fund. The most significant user fee revenue comes from meeting room and facility reservations and the processing fee for lost or damaged items.

Meeting room reservations, as with all facility use fees, need not be tied to cost-of-service and may be set at market rates. No recommendations for changes to meeting room rental fees or deposits are being made. Various copy and print fees are self-service, vendor-managed, and were not included in the costof-service analysis; no adjustments to copy fees are recommended. The Room Rental Cancellation Fee ($25.00) is a penalty, and the Internet Session fee ($2.00) is a market-rate fee; no changes to either are recommended.

The focus of the cost analysis was on the following fee-for-service activities:
• Processing Fee for Lost or Damaged Item – This is the highest-volume fee in the Library with 10,048 annual transactions. The current fee is $10.00, and the full cost of service is $16.77.

Department is recommending increasing to 89% recovery at $15.00. • Interlibrary Loan Request – The current fee is $5.00 and the full cost-of-service is $41.59 per request. Department is recommending a slight increase to $6.00. • Image Archives High Resolution Electronic Files & Reprints – The department is recommending increasing this fee to $30.00.
• Technology Package Fee – This fee is associated with meeting room reservations. The current fee is $70.00 and the full cost-of-service is $86.78.
• Security Staffing for the Martin Luther King, Jr Auditorium - The current fee is $140.00 per hour and the full cost-of-service is $279.93 per hour. The department is recommending increasing the hourly rate to $200, recovering 71% of cost.
• Security Staffing for the branch meeting rooms – The current fee is $70.00 per hour and the full cost-of-service is $139.97 per hour. The department is recommending increasing the hourly rate to $100, recovering 71% of cost.

Implementing the recommended fee adjustments will increase the Library's user fee cost recovery rate from 57% to 86% and could generate an additional $50.625 in revenue, assuming demand levels remain consistent.

Attachment D Attachment D 53
Library - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 54
Attachment D Attachment D 55
Police & Animal Control
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 52% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged. Department staff recommend that animal control fees be increased by 17% overall, while most of them will 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. All police records and permit fees have recommended fees set at 100% of cost, except for the Parking Citation Dismissal for a Disabled Placard, which is recommended to remain the same at $25.00.

No new fees are proposed, and no fees are recommended for removal.

If all department recommendations are approved, a revenue increase of $85,180 is projected, assuming demand remains consistent.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 56
Police & Animal Control - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 57
Attachment D Attachment D 58
Public Works
The user fee/cost analyses for Public Works mirror the structure of City’s fee schedule and was developed separately for each division. Divisions that are included in the cost analysis include:
 Airport
 Engineering
 Mobility
 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 was the only Airport fee analyzed in the previous study. The current fee for an Airport Event Permit is $689.94. The full cost of processing this permit is calculated at $1,937.92. Staff recommend this fee be adjusted to recover 100% of cost. Increasing the fee to recover full cost is anticipated to provide $96,094 in new revenue on an annual basis (assuming an average of 77 events per year).

In addition, Airport has added a new fee proposal: an Airport Operation Support hourly fee. Occasionally film crews rent the airport facilities, and this fee will allow the city to recover cost should Airport staff be needed on-site during filming. Full cost for this fee is $194.60, and staff recommend it be set at full cost.

Since this fee has not been charged previously, annual volume data has not been tracked, and no revenue increases can be projected at this time.

Attachment D Attachment D 59
Engineering
Within the Engineering division, current fees recover 88% 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 $134,999 (assuming no change in demand for services).

Engineering is proposing one new fee: Urban Run-off Mitigation On-site Inspection. The full cost of providing this service is $1,206.83, and staff recommend full-cost recovery. At current demand levels, this new fee is projected to generate an additional $49,480 in revenue.

Engineering also provides cross-support to twenty Water Resources fees and one Building and Safety fee. These costs have been incorporated into the respective divisions.

The Use of Public Property fees (Residential and Commercial) were excluded from MGT’s study and were analyzed separately by another vendor. That vendor’s findings are provided as an exhibit for informational purposes.

Mobility
The Mobility division analysis evaluates the full cost of transportation planning, permitting, and regulatory services within Public Works. The model reflects FY 2025–26 budgeted expenditures, updated staffing reconciliations, and revised volume data provided by Division staff. The analysis covers 109 fee line items across 10 major sections: Traffic Studies and Plan Reviews, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Permits, Curb Modifications, Shared Mobility, Staff Hourly Rates, Inspections, Legal and Administrative Agreements, and Taxi/Pedicab fees.

The model identifies approximately $1.4 million in total annual user fee costs. Current revenue is $1,072,158 (77% recovery). Under the recommended schedule, revenue increases to approximately $1.2 million (88% recovery), generating approximately $156,287 in additional annual revenue. The increase is driven primarily by new fee categories that formalize cost recovery for services previously provided without a direct charge.

Study Findings:
• Fee Schedule Restructuring. Of the 109 line items: 34 new fees, 9 revised/restructured fees replacing prior tiers, and 66 existing fees with updated costs. TTCP review has been reorganized into three tiers (standard first review, subsequent reviews, and expedited review per project). Plan check fees were consolidated from six tiers to three. Several legacy fees are recommended for removal.
• Curb Modification Program (New). New fees formalize services previously provided without a direct charge residential driveway red curb, disabled parking zones (blue curb), and loading zone/parking meter changes.
• Employee Annual Transportation Fee (EATF). Largest revenue source at approximately $431,000 annually, representing roughly 37% of recommended division user fee revenue and approximately 79% of current user fee revenue. Current fee of $20.33 per employee recovers 97% of the full cost Attachment D Attachment D 60
($20.98), based on 24,360 billed employees. Because the fee is already at near-full recovery, staff recommend maintaining the current fee with no adjustment. No additional revenue is generated from this category under the recommended schedule.
• Temporary Traffic Control Plan (TTCP) Review (Restructured). The former combined TTCP tiers have been reorganized into Standard First Review ($384.15/page), Standard Subsequent Reviews ($202.77/page), and Expedited Review ($281.55/project). The Expedited Review replaces the prior Urgency Action fee and is assessed only when approved; applicants denied are not charged. • Valet Permits. Annual renewal currently at $1,628.29 vs. full cost of $771.25 (211% overrecovery); one-day permit at $889.29 vs. $572.25 (155%). Staff recommends reducing fees to 100% of cost. A new annual application fee ($935.57) and Valet Zone Sign Installation ($1,048.14) are proposed.
• Block Parties. Current fee of $75.98 recovers 8% of cost Staff recommends maintaining a significant subsidy to support community building and neighborhood engagement, consistent with the 2021 study recommendation and prior Recreation and Parks Commission direction. • Developer TDM Fees. Staff are recommending removing the Developer Initial TDM Fee – Simple and Developer Annual TDM fee – Simple, and adding a Preliminary Developer TDM Plan fee.. • Oversized Load Permits. Current fees ($16.00 one-way / $32.00 two-way) recover 13% and 25%, respectively, of the full cost of $126.51. These fees are subject to regulatory limits under California Vehicle Code Section 35795.
• New Hourly Rates & Other New Fees. New positions added: Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineer, Transportation Management Specialist, and Transportation Planning Technician (each with overtime rates). Overtime rates added for five existing classifications. • Unchanged Categories. Taxicab franchise fees, mileage rates, pedicab fees, and shared mobility device fees remain unchanged (Council-set or ordinance-based). Automated citation fees (bike lane, red light) are penalty fees and were not analyzed as part of this cost-of-service study.

Public Landscape and Downtown Maintenance
Most of the services provided by this division are not related to fees, as they are associated with general park and landscape maintenance. Fees for service provided by the Public Landscape division include plan review and inspection services related to new construction, tree planting and maintenance, and beach and park maintenance services.

Within this division, current fees recover 129% of total costs to provide the services for which fees are charged; recommended fees are set at 100% of cost. Certain fees that are over-recovering cost will need to be lowered in accordance with California law. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments are projected to result in a revenue loss of $96,048, however this loss may be offset by three new fees proposed for consideration. Six existing fees are recommended for removal.

Items of note for Public Landscape:

Attachment D Attachment D 61
 Park Event and Event Maintenance Fee – These refundable deposit fees are now being collected by the Recreation and Arts Department and are therefore recommended for removal from the Public Landscape fee schedule.
 Tree Removal Evaluation – This is a new fee proposal and recommended to be set at the full cost of $458.33.
 Event Hourly Rates – Two new fee proposals are recommended to be charged as needed when special events require support from Public Landscape staff.

Resource, Recovery & Recycling
Refuse collection rates that fall under Proposition 218 guidelines were set in 2023 using the appropriate Proposition 218 guidelines and requirements. The fees reviewed in this study relate to special services requested by the public and are not subject to Proposition 218. Within this division, current fees recover 121% of total costs to provide services for which fees are charged. Recommended fees are set at 100% of cost, with two exceptions noted below. Assuming no loss in demand, fee adjustments may result in a revenue loss of $152,301; but it should be noted that there are several new fee proposals where the annual volume was unknown. These new fees could result in additional fee revenue to offset the loss mentioned above.

Highlights of this division’s analysis are as follows:
 Trash Enclosure Key Replacement – This is a new proposal, recommended at $57.11.  Event Coordination Fee (Bins or Carts) – This fee is being replaced by four proposed fees based on the size of the event.
 Event Containers – Cardboard (per Pack of 3 Boxes + 15 Liners) – This is a new proposal, recommended to be charged per pack of three boxes plus 15 liners at $69.58.  Curby Rental – This fee is recommended for removal.
 Event Rental/Party Truck – This fee is proposed to be changed from an hourly fee to a base fee for the first two hours and a new “Additional Hours” fee to after the first two hours.  Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan Review – Complex, Medium, Simple (SFR), Demo Only – Proposing to replace the four-fee structure with two fees: Multi-Family and Commercial, and SFR and Demo Only, under the title, Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan Compliance Review.
 Potential Route Change Review Fee – This is a new fee proposal, recommended at $513.72.  Solid Waste Enclosure Self-Certification Final Inspection – Complex, Medium, Simple (SFR) – These are three new proposals, recommended at $291.17, $196.99, and $55.46.  Additional Pick-Up Services for Attempted Pickup (Bin or Cart) – Two new proposals recommended at $221.67 for bins and $150.13 for carts.

Attachment D Attachment D 62
 Contamination Charge (per Bin or Cart) – Two new proposals recommended at $195.86 for bins and $144.09 for carts.
 Hazardous Waste Material Processing Fee – Complex, Medium, Simple – Three new fee proposals recommended at $166.23, $83.32, and $47.79.
 Pressure Washing Services Overtime Rate (Hourly) – Proposing to add an overtime fee for this existing service.
 Street Sweeping Services Overtime Rate (Hourly) – Proposing to add an overtime fee for this existing service.
 Solid Waste Enclosure Cleanup (Hourly) – New proposal recommended at $352.46.  Compost/Worm Bins (Santa Monica residents only) – Staff recommend this fee continue to be set at 50% of cost.
 Kitchen Food Scrap Pail Sales – Staff recommend this fee be set at 50% of cost.

Water Resources
Within this division, current fees recover 80% 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 $507,571 in new revenue per year (this revenue will be credited to the Water and Wastewater funds).

No fees are recommended for removal, and no new fees are recommended.

User fee summary sheets for all the above Public Works divisions are on the following pages.

Attachment D Attachment D 63
Airport User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 64
Engineering User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 65
Attachment D Attachment D 66
Mobility User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 67
Attachment D Attachment D 68
Attachment D Attachment D 69
Public Landscape and Downtown Maintenance User Fee Summary Sheet Attachment D Attachment D 70
Resource, Recovery & Recycling User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 71
Attachment D Attachment D 72
Water Resources User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 73
Attachment D Attachment D 74
Recreation & Arts
Beach House
The Beach House user fee analysis evaluates the full cost of providing services associated with facility use, programming, and rentals.

The Beach House is entirely funded by the Beach Fund, essentially functioning as an enterprise fund. The most significant user fee revenue comes from Private Event Rentals fee, with $484,000 in revenue coming in from that fee alone, per the FY 2025-26 budget that was used during the study. The Private Event Rentals fee also represents the most room for improvement as it is only recovering 60% of the $806,500 in annual costs.

Implementing the recommended fee adjustments will increase the Beach House’s total user fee cost recovery rate from 65% to 76% and is forecasted to generate an additional $118,152 in revenue on an annual basis, assuming demand remains consistent.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 75
Beach House - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 76
Community Events
The Community Events user fee analysis evaluates the cost of services associated with permitting, coordination, and support of community events.

Community Events is currently recovering only 7% of the cost to provide services. This is primarily due to 14 Signature Events that receive automatic fee waivers of the Application and Administrative fees, per Council direction. If the recommended cost recovery levels are implemented, revenue can be expected to increase by $40,845.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 77
Community Events - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 78
Community Recreation
The Community Recreation Division user fee analysis evaluates the cost of a broad range of recreational programs, classes, and facility-based services. The model includes approximately 31 department-owned fees and reflects a predominantly direct-fee structure with limited cross-support, consistent with the Division’s program-based service delivery model.

The Division operates largely independently, with minimal reliance on cross-support from other departments, with some effort from Community Recreation staff spent on Human Services fees. Where cross-support exists, it is limited and does not significantly affect the structure of the fee schedule.

Overall, the model reflects a program-driven service approach where fees are one component of a broader recreational service strategy.

The Community Recreation Division is entirely funded by the General Fund. The most significant user fee revenue comes from Community Classes, both Youth and Adult, with $1,682,473 in revenue coming in from those fees alone, per the FY 2025-26 budget that was used during the study. While the most room for improvement is with the Trainers Commercial Fitness facility rental fee that is only recovering 22% of costs. Four new programmatic fees were added: Pickleball, Drop-in Soccer (Airport), Beach Recreation, and SAMOHI Pool.

Implementing the recommended fee adjustments will increase the Community Recreation user fee cost recovery rate from 59% up to 60% and will generate an additional $160,833 in revenue on an annual basis.

A User Fee Summary Sheet and proposed fee schedule provided by the City follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 79
Community Recreation - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 80
Community Recreation – Programmatic Fee Summary (DRAFT) Footnote:

This fee summary table was provided by the City
Attachment D Attachment D 81
Cultural Affairs
The Cultural Affairs Division user fee analysis evaluates fees associated with cultural programming, facility use, and arts-related services. The model includes approximately 3 department-owned fees and reflects a hybrid structure, with both direct fees and activities that are not fully cost-recovered due to policy and community objectives. There are also contracts that are in place where direct fees are not recovered but work is done by City staff in exchange for contract revenue (Airport), and vice-versa for Cultural Classes, which are all run by non-City contractors.

The Cultural Affairs Division includes cross-support interactions with the Beach House so not all time spent by the Cultural Affairs staff is on Cultural Affairs fees. Where cross-support occurs, it contributes to the full cost of service but is not typically billed through the Division’s fee structure. Overall, the model reflects a balance between cost alignment and supporting cultural programming for the community.

The Cultural Affairs Division is entirely funded by the General Fund. The most significant user fee revenue comes from the Miles Playhouse, with $102,768 in revenue coming in from that fee alone, per the FY 2025-26 budget that was used during the study.

Implementing the recommended fee adjustments will keep the Cultural Affair’s user fee cost recovery rate relatively unchanged, staying at 5%. The reason for there being no expected increase in revenue is due to the Miles Playhouse cost recovery policy being set at 45% to remain competitive, and other Cultural Affairs Projects / Duties that currently do not, and don’t intend to collect revenue moving forward. This is fairly commonplace for a Cultural Affairs Division because of the community benefit aspect.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 82
Cultural Affairs - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 83
Film
The user fee/cost analysis for this program mirrors the City’s film permit fee schedule and was developed at the individual fee level for each permit type and location category, including Airport, Beaches, City Hall, Downtown Santa Monica, Parks, Pier/Carousel, Student/Non-Profit, All Other Locations, rider fees, and newly identified locations.

Most fees in this schedule were analyzed as flat fees based on the staff time, administrative support, and allocated program costs required to process and administer each permit type. For services where the level of effort can vary significantly, a fixed fee is less appropriate. Accordingly, the Pier/Carousel equipment-only charge is better suited to actual cost recovery when those services are required.

This update is primarily a clean-up and recalibration of the fee schedule to better reflect services the City can appropriately charge when needed. Staff are recommending one new fee for Bergamot Station and Library (Ocean Park and Main Library), with a cost of $535.14. No fees are recommended for deletion.

Several fees are already relatively close to the full cost of service, while others show a wider variance between current and modeled rates. It is noted that City Resolution No 11746 has waived many film fees that are noted within the model. As these fees are waived, the revenue has been removed from the model totals, however, full cost and has been determined.

Based on current billed volumes, aligning the fee schedule to modeled full cost would reduce annual revenue by approximately $379.00.

A User Fee Summary Sheet follows.

Attachment D Attachment D 84
Film - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 85
Transportation
The Santa Monica Department of Transportation (SMTD) provides a range of services related to traffic management, parking operations, and transportation planning. Parking was the only division included in MGT’s user fee analysis.

Parking
For this FY 2025–26 update, MGT worked with SMTD staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the Parking fee schedule. The analysis included recalculating fully burdened hourly rates using FY 2025–26 budgeted salary and benefit data, updating time estimates for each fee activity based on current service delivery practices, gathering revised annual volume statistics, and evaluating the fee schedule structure for alignment with how services are actually provided.

The Parking Operations division within SMTD manages event permitting, parking meter infrastructure services, and staff-based hourly rate services. The division operates with 12 budgeted FTE positions and a total departmental budget of $18,713,145 for FY 2025-26.

The study evaluated 10 existing fee-generating services across three categories: event permits, hourly staff rates, and parking meter installation services. Current cost recovery levels range from 87% to 96%, indicating that fees have generally kept pace with costs through prior annual adjustments but have not fully closed the gap with rising personnel and operating expenses. • Event Permits are charged at the hourly rate of the staff member assigned to the event (Parking Manager, Parking Operations Specialist, or Customer Service Supervisor). Cost recovery ranges from 87% to 96%.
• Hourly Staff Rates cover five existing positions whose time may be directly billed when requested.

Cost recovery ranges from 87% to 96%.
• Parking Meter Pole Removal and/or Installation. The current fee of $714.90 recovers 89% of the $804.86 full cost.
• Parking Meter Head Removal and/or Installation. The current fee of $431.54 recovers 87% of the $497.15 full cost.

The study identified four positions that support parking operations but were not previously included in the fee schedule. The table below shows the fully burdened hourly rate for each position at full cost recovery.

New Position Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
Senior Administrative Analyst $372.63
Fiscal Staff Assistant III $241.79
Lead Parking Meter Technician $307.71
Parking Meter Technician $303.84
Attachment D Attachment D 86
The majority of the Parking Operations budget ($4,254,242) supports non-fee-generating activities, including day-to-day parking facility operations, meter monitoring and maintenance, enforcement support, and general administrative functions. These costs are identified for transparency but are not associated with any fee-generating service.

Attachment D Attachment D 87
Parking - User Fee Summary Sheet
Attachment D Attachment D 88
Recommendations Going Forward
Once the commitment is made to understand the full cost of providing services, it is important to review and update the analysis in order to keep pace with changes in service delivery, staffing changes, and demand levels.

Most of our agencies ask us at the conclusion of the study: how often should this type of study be undertaken? Our advice is to conduct this detailed analysis at least every three but not more than five years, with minor adjustments in the non‐study years to keep pace with economic impacts. MGT recommends the City apply an inflation adjustment to fees annually, based on the most recent CPI from All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles area or the City’s total compensation increases to keep pace with inflation. The best industry practice is to apply this index once per year as part of the City’s annual budget process. This is particularly helpful once an agency has chosen to adopt a cost recovery policy – whether 100% of cost or something less – in order to keep fees at the desired level.

Attachment D Attachment D 89
Appendix – Peer Comparisons
Attachment D Attachment D 90
City Manager’s Office: Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) Line Item / Activity by Department City of Santa Monica Los Angeles Beverly Hills West Hollywood Culver City Burbank Office of Sustainability and the
Environment Current Fee
Community Gardens - Annual Permit
(Renewal) - Small (less than 150 Sq. Ft) $217.00 $120.00 (not updated since 2011) No exact match $120.00 (Similar) $31.00 (Similar) No exact match Community Gardens - Annual Permit
(Renewal) - Medium (150-249 Sq. Ft.) $217.00 $120.00 (not updated since 2011) No exact match $120.00 (Similar) $31.00 (Similar) No exact match Community Gardens - Annual Permit
(Renewal) - Large (250 Sq Ft. and
Larger)
$217.00 No exact match No exact match $120.00 (Similar) $31.00 (Similar) No exact match Peer Agencies
City of Santa Monica - Office of Sustainability and the Environment Peer Comparison Study Notes: Where a jurisdiction does not publish an exact analog to Santa Monica’s line item, the closest published category is used (or N/A).

Attachment D Attachment D 91
Community Development: Code Enforcement
Attachment D Attachment D 92
Records and Election Services
Attachment D Attachment D 93
Attachment D Attachment D 94
Finance
Attachment D Attachment D 95
Police and Animal Control

Attachment D Attachment D 96
Public Works: Engineering
Attachment D Attachment D 97
Public Works: Mobility Systems
Attachment D Attachment D 98
Attachment D Attachment D 99
Public Works: Public Landscape
Attachment D Attachment D 100
Public Works: Resource, Recovery & Recycling
Attachment D Attachment D 101
Public Works: Water Resources
Attachment D Attachment D 102
RAD: Beach House
Attachment D Attachment D 103
RAD: Community Events
City of Santa Monica - Recreation and Arts Comparison Study Line Item / Activity by Department City of Santa
Monica Units/ Description Beverly Hills, CA Burbank, CA Culver City, CA Los Angeles, CA West Hollywood, CA Recreation and Arts Current Fee
Community Events
Application fee $138 Application fee
Special event permitting (Community
Development): Large Special Event Permit $4,214
per application. Large Special Event
Permit—Nonprofit BH-based $1,025 per
application. Small Special Event Permit $962 per
permit. Small Special Event Permit—Nonprofit BHbased $702 per permit.

APPLICATION FEE: Park Facility Permit /
Reservation acts as application; standard
reservation fee $90 (2
‑
hr block). Large organized
events require additional permit
processing/insurance via Special Event
application through City (contact Parks & Rec for
application-specific processing fees).

Closest official application/processing fees tied to
events/permits: Film permits—Film LA application
fee $660 (set by FilmLA; listed in fee schedule). City
Film Permit Approval $318 per permit. (Culver City
FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Exhibit G Police—Film
Permits)
Closest official application fee for facility/event
permitting in published excerpt: reservations
require advance deposit of 50% of total fees; some
uses add per-permit charges (e.g., additional $25
per permit for social gatherings with
refreshments). Formal citywide special-event
application fees are not consolidated in this
excerpt. (LA RAP Board Report 24-166, Attachment
A)
Event application/appeal fees (Special Event
Permit Modification Fees): Appeal fee
(reconsideration of special event application
denial) $360; Permit modification fee $286. (West
Hollywood FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Special Event
Fees)
Administrative fee $509.31 Administrative fee
Admin/processing & staffing examples: Special
Event Permits—After Hours Service Fee $129/hr.

Special Event—Sworn Police Personnel $133/hr (4-
hr minimum + outside costs). Police Planning &
Supervision: Filming $325/permit; Major Private
Events $13,019/permit; Other Non-Major Private
Events $798/permit. Special Event Personnel Fees =
Actual Cost. Special Event cancellations: generally
50% of permit fee non-refunded if cancelled within
<2 business days (see notes).

Administrative fees & staffing: Staffing/insurance
billed separately per event; permit schedule
references insurance and security requirements.

No flat 'admin processing' fee in park fee doc;
staffing billed as actual cost or per contract (use
Go! Party/party rental staffing add-ons as
example).

Administrative / processing-type fees shown in
Parks rentals: Reservation deposit (refundable)
$26; Extended permit time $27/hr; Custodial fee
$60/hr; refundable security deposit $216;
Moonbounce reservation fee $32/use. (Culver City
FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Exhibit F-3 Park Facilities &
Fields)
Administrative-type fees within RAP Schedule
excerpt: additional $25 per permit for social
gatherings with refreshments; cancellation
refunds depend on timing; refundable deposits
($50 for ≤2 hr permits; $100 for ≥3 hr permits). (LA
RAP Board Report 24-166, Attachment A)
Administrative-type fees in Recreation Services +
Special Event schedules: Security deposit $150
(many facilities). Special Event Encroachment Fee
$100; Post-event inspection & facility repairs
$195 (if applicable). (West Hollywood FY25-26 Fee
Schedule)
Event administrative fee – Drone light show NEW Administrative fee No specific ‘drone light show’ event administrative
fee identified in the FY25-26 fee schedule; use
Special Event permit fees + staffing/personnel
(Actual Cost) and police rates as applicable.

Event administrative fee — Drone light show: No
specific drone fee in schedule. Drone shows would
fall under Special Event or Park Permit with
additional staff/insurance costs (use 'actual cost'
staffing & insurance clauses).

No drone/light-show-specific line item located in
official FY25-26 fee schedule. Closest analog:
special event-related permit + staffing fees (e.g.,
additional staff hourly $26; security guard hourly
$26; after-hours staff $26/hr) plus any
Police/FilmLA permit requirements if applicable.
(Culver City FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Exhibit F-3 +
Exhibit G)
No drone/light-show-specific line item in the
published RAP Schedule excerpt; treat as special
event/venue permit with applicable facility rental
rate(s) + required deposits and any staffing
charges. (LA RAP Board Report 24-166)
No drone/light-show-specific line item in FY25-26
fee schedule. Closest analog: Special Event
Property Use ($350/day public property; $400/day
city facilities/parks) + any street-use fees and postevent inspection/repair charges if applicable. (West Hollywood FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Special
Event Fees)
Neighborhood notification fee $0.78 Per piece
No explicit neighborhood notification fee
identified in the FY25-26 fee schedule (may be
handled operationally or via event permit
conditions rather than a separate fee line item).

Neighborhood notification fee: Not listed
separately in park schedule. Notifications
typically handled through event permit conditions
rather than a fee; treat as administrative
requirement (no fee).

No separate neighborhood notification fee located
in FY25-26 fee schedule for PRCS events. Closest
analog: film/special event permitting may require
notifications as a condition; costs handled
operationally rather than as a listed fee.

No separate neighborhood notification fee listed
in the published RAP Schedule excerpt; typically
handled as a permit condition rather than a
standalone fee (not in Attachment A).

No standalone neighborhood notification fee
found in FY25-26 fee schedule sections reviewed;
special event permitting includes
modification/appeal fees and property/street-use
fees, but notifications appear as requirements
rather than itemized fees. (West Hollywood FY25-
26 Fee Schedule, Special Event Fees)
Site Fee (deposit) $229.75 Deposit
Deposits / site fees (examples): Indoor Refundable
Surety Deposit $1,000 per rental. Library Kitchen
refundable security deposit $154 per rental.

Nonrefundable Booking Fee (Receptions) $1,500
per permit. Park Closure for Private Rental
$25,000/day (in addition to rental charges).

For a 2 hour facility reservation there is a cleaning
deposit that is charged.which is between $113-
$280 depending on facility size
$216
Deposits: indoor/outdoor permits include
refundable deposit $50 (permit ≤2 hours) or $100
(≥3 hours). Reservations require 50% advance
deposit of total fees. (LA RAP Board Report 24-166,
Attachment A)
Deposits: Recreation Services security deposit
commonly $150 (listed as ‘Security
Deposit’/‘Deposits’ with room rentals). (West
Hollywood FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Recreation
Services)
Peer Agencies
Attachment D Attachment D 104
RAD: Community Recreation
Attachment D Attachment D 105
RAD: Film
Attachment D Attachment D 106
RAD: Cultural Affairs
City of Santa Monica - Recreation and Arts Comparison Study Line Item / Activity by Department City of Santa
Monica Units/ Description Beverly Hills, CA Burbank, CA Culver City, CA Los Angeles, CA West Hollywood, CA Recreation and Arts Current Fee
Cultural Affairs
Miles Playhouse $700
Full day rental fee
+ $55/hr for
meetings, staffing,
and security
Closest comparable to Miles Playhouse: Greystone
Theatre Rental—Mon–Fri 9am–6pm $300/hr
(Resident) / $375/hr (Non-Resident) (2-hr min).

Evenings (Mon–Fri 6pm–10pm) & Weekends
(9am–10pm) $400/hr (Resident) / $500/hr (NonResident) (2-hr min). Reception add-on $1,500/day (Resident) / $1,875/day (Non-Resident).

Miles Playhouse analog / Performance Venues: No
direct theater named; multipurpose rooms (Ovrom
A/B) $225 Resident / $338 Non
‑
Resident per 2
‑
hr
block can be used as small performance space
analog; larger off-site theater rentals handled
separately.

Closest analog: Veterans Memorial Complex /
auditorium-type space rentals (hourly rates vary
by room and classification; e.g., large rooms
$245/hr private party resident; $308/hr
commercial resident). Specific theater/playhouse
line item not identified in FY25-26 fee schedule
excerpt. (Culver City FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Exhibit
F-2)
Closest analog in official published RAP Schedule
excerpt: indoor room rentals (hourly tiers by
capacity and whether income-generating) and
kitchen rental $75; no specific ‘playhouse’ line
item in Attachment A. (LA RAP Board Report 24-166,
Attachment A)
Closest analog: Plummer Park Great Hall, Combo
Rooms 1&2 or 5&6: $10/hr (Resident and Nonprofit) + $150 security deposit Developer Fee - Cultural Arts Requirement
Application Processing $7,307.29 Application Processing Fee Fine Art / Cultural requirement analog: In Lieu of
Fine Art Payment = 90% of the required art value
(calculated per BHMC 3-1.802 based on total
construction costs; no maximum amount stated).

Developer Fee - Cultural Arts Requirement: Not
listed in Parks fee schedule
No PRCS ‘cultural arts requirement’ developer
processing fee identified in Culver City FY25-26
schedule sections reviewed. Closest official
application/processing fee concept in document:

FilmLA application fee $660 or City Film Permit
Approval $318 (processing-type permit fees).
(Culver City FY25-26 Fee Schedule, Exhibit G)
CDP-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: $15281
No ‘cultural arts requirement’ processing fee
identified in FY25-26 fee schedule sections
reviewed. Closest development-processing style
fees within fee schedule include various
planning/building fees and City Manager ‘in-lieu’
fees (e.g., Affordable Housing in-lieu fees). (West
Hollywood FY25-26 Fee Schedule)
Unsolicited art installation permit proposals
(.5x/month) NEW Permit proposal Fee
No specific fee line found for unsolicited public
art/installation proposals in the FY25-26
schedule; closest related item is the Fine Arts ‘In
Lieu of Fine Art’ obligation (90% of required art
value) tied to development projects.

No separate fee - handled via project review Art in Public Places Fee: "Set by City Resolution" No specific unsolicited public art
proposal/permitting fee found in sources
reviewed. Closest official published fees related to
‘permits’ are RAP facility/court permit rates and
park development mitigation fees. (LA RAP Board
Report 24-166; LA RAP Park Fees)
No specific unsolicited art installation proposal
fee identified in FY25-26 fee schedule sections
reviewed. West Hollywood fee schedule does
include many permit/application fees across
departments, but not a public-art proposal line
item. (West Hollywood FY25-26 Fee Schedule)
Peer Agencies
Attachment D Attachment D 107
Exhibits
Use of Public Property Fees Analysis
Memo on Small Wireless Facility Attachments to City-Owned Infrastructure Reports are included as exhibits for informational purposes only on the following pages.

Attachment D Attachment D 108