1. Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Glendale
May 10, 2011
Chris Fisher
Pierce Rossum
Gregg Tobler

2. Overview Project Team Introduction Study Objectives Scope of the Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Findings and Results
Questions & Answers

3. Project Team Chris Fisher – Consulting Services Group Manager
Leading expert in cost of service studies
Understands regulatory, political and implementation issues
Pierce Rossum – Project Manager
Acted as City’s day-to-day contact
Cost of service expert
Familiar with City (Water Nexus and Rate Redesign)
Gregg Tobler – Senior Project Analyst
Lead data collection and analysis efforts
Also working on the Water Rate Redesign

4. Study Objectives Identify the true cost of providing user fee services
Determine fee subsidies and overall revenue impacts
Identify new fees and cost recovery strategies
Fairly and appropriately distribute indirect and overhead costs
Develop a strong, defensible, fee schedule

5. Scope of the Study
Full review and calculation of the user fees charged by:
City Clerk’s Office
Community Services
Community Development
Building & Safety
Neighborhood Services
Planning Division
Fire Department
Hazardous Materials
Library
Police Department
Public Works
Parking Fund

6. Project Approach and Methodology
Data Analysis
Time Estimates
Non-Labor Costs
Labor
Overhead Costs
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy

7. Two Methodologies Case Study Method:
This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user.
This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are not easy to identify at the project’s outset.
Programmatic Approach:
This methodology utilizes a cost/revenue analysis approach that establishes the cost recovery performance of the department at various sub-levels
Calculate the full cost of each program, using staff allocation estimates and full costs
Compare the annual revenues to the full costs to establish the percent of cost recovery for each program.
Identified program-wide potential fee changes that the department can use to address the cost recovery goals of the department.

8. Police Department – Time Survey Sample

9. Findings and Results

10. Community Development - Planning

11. New & Revised Surcharges
Technology Surcharge
Long-Range Planning Surcharge
Purpose: Direct cost recovery of ISD related expenditures
Current surcharge: 6.7%
Recommended full cost recovery rate of 17.5% fee surcharge
Impact: $520,000 of additional cost recovery
Purpose: Cost recovery of Long-Range Planning services
No existing fee
Targeted cost recovery of 10% equals 3% fee surcharge
Impact: $145,000 of new cost recovery

12. Community Development – Building & Safety

13. Neighborhood Services

14. Neighborhood Services – New Fees
Rental Housing Inspection Program
Mandatory Point of Sale Inspection
The State of California requires local cities to ensure that housing units meet minimum standards of habitability.
The City of Glendale has operated and subsidized the code enforcement program for many years.
The proposed $28 fee would be charged on the property tax bill, annually. Neighborhood services may recover up to an estimated $1.2 million annually.
The Division finds that such a program is needed so that residential and commercial properties are adequately inspected before ownership of such property is transferred.
The cost analysis, calculated the full cost to provide such a service at $400 per inspection.

15. City Clerk

16. Public Works - Engineering

17. Community Services – General Fund

18. Community Services – Recreation Fund

19. Fire – Paramedic Fund

20. Fire – Hazardous Materials

21. Public Works - Parking Fund

22. General Fund Contribution

23. Library

24. Police - Administration

25. Fire - Administration

26. Fee Setting Considerations
Subsidization
Consistency with Existing Policy and Objectives
Impact on Demand (elasticity)
Social Impact / Affordability
Legal Compliance

27. Fee Comparisons Issues
Fees may be based upon historical or other subjective factors unrelated to cost
Often no way to know whether cost subsidies exist
Services included in fees may be combined in some and separated in others
The methodology used to determine the fees may be designed to recover less than full cost
Different policy goals and considerations that affect the desired level of cost recovery

28. Macro Level Fee Benchmarking Analysis (in relation to the City of Glendale)
Burbank’s fees are
Long Beach’s fees are
Pasadena’s fees are
Santa Monica’s
fees are
Torrance’s fees are
City Clerk
Higher
Community Planning
Inline
Film Permits
Lower
Finance
Fire
Library
Parks
Police
Public Works
Reproductions

29. Community Services Fee Benchmarking

30. Recommendations
For all private benefit services, Willdan recommends pursuing a full-cost recovery strategy.
For public benefit services, it is recommended the City develop a formal policy on desired subsidy levels.

31. Next Steps Discussion and determination of cost recovery goals
City Staff to develop “Recommended” Fees for the Council’s Consideration (based on determined goals)
July Implementation of Recommended Fees

32. Questions?
Thank you