Title
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add Certain Fees and Revise the Fee Schedules for the Police Department, Library, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Planning, Building and Transportation Department, and the Rent Program. (Finance 10024051)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jennifer Ott, City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Annually, City of Alameda (City) staff review existing fees and charges as part of the budget development process. Any modifications to the Master Fee Schedule (MFS) are recommended to reflect increases in the cost-of-living adjustments authorized by Resolution and the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC). Any new fees or revisions to fees require City Council approval.
Department-specific changes are proposed to improve clarity, cost recovery, and regulatory compliance. Highlights include:
• Alameda Police Department (APD) proposes revising two fees related to Carry Concealed Weapons permits to better reflect the time and resources needed for processing applications. Additionally, APD is revising the Production Report and Microfilm fees to a flat rate.
• The Library Department is simplifying its fees by eliminating the lost/damaged material processing fee and the charge for replacing lost library cards. It is also introducing new fees for replacing lost laptop equipment and accessories to recover the value of such items.
• Public Works recommends adding three new parking citation fees to improve public safety, accessibility, and compliance with state and local regulations, and removing the daily Meter Fee.
• Alameda Fire Department (AFD) proposes revisions to inspection and ambulance billing fees, including alignment with County-approved EMS rates and AB 716 compliance through billing process simplification.
• Planning, Building, and Transportation (PBT) recommends a revision of permit fees to restore appropriate granularity, improve equity, and align fees with 2025 building permit processes and state housing laws. Some fees are kept below full cost recovery to encourage home improvements and climate-friendly upgrades. The total adjustment to Planning and Building fees is 3.1%, or 0.4% over the 2.7% Consumer Price Index (CPI). Staff also recommends establishing a Vacant Building Monitoring Annual Fee, pursuant to AMC Section 13-15, and a Tobacco Retailer License Fee, pursuant to AMC Section 6-60.100, to support Code Enforcement efforts related to vacant property maintenance and tobacco sales regulations.
• The Rent Stabilization Program Fees are recommended to increase 1.3% per the April 2025 San Francisco Bay Area CPI.
• Alameda Recreation & Parks Department (ARPD) fee increases previously adopted in December 2024 took effect January 1, 2025, to support recreation programming timelines; these fees are not being revised.
Following the public hearing, staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed Master Fee Schedule for FY 2025-26 (Exhibit 1) to ensure ongoing fiscal sustainability, transparency, and alignment with City priorities and legal requirements.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 1992, City Council adopted Resolution No. 12191, codifying all fees for services and linking the rate at which the City’s fee schedule may be increased to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area (CPI). Subsequently, each year, following a public hearing, the fee structure may be revised to streamline fee collection.
On October 3, 2006, City Council approved Resolution No. 14027, Amending MFS Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline the Planning & Building, Public Works, and Fire Department Fee Schedules to allow for 100% cost recovery.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as 2.7% for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. Based on Resolution No. 12191, the eligible fees in the MFS would be increased in accordance with the CPI. However, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1928, as referenced in Resolution No. 12191 and Resolution No. 14027, City fees are subject to administrative adjustments not greater than 5% annually. Therefore, eligible fees in all departments in the Master Fee Schedule were increased by CPI of 2.7%.
The California Department of General Services announced the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area as 5.1% for FY 2024-25. Based on the fee escalator provisions of AMC Sections 27-3.12, 27-4.12, and 27-1.10, Affordable Housing Unit Fees and Development Impact Fees (DIF), would be increased in accordance with the Construction Cost Index.
The City Council approved the fees associated with the ARPD in December 2024 and they are included in the proposed schedule with no changes.
In Spring 2025, staff worked with NBS, a consultant specializing in fee studies, to conduct a review of fees within the Planning, Building and Transportation Department as detailed in the User Fees and Charges Study (Exhibit 2).
In April 2025, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved higher ambulance billing fees under their authority to set EMS rates (Exhibit 3). These changes, effective July 1, 2025, require the City to revise its ambulance fees accordingly. Additionally, a new law (AB716) aims to streamline EMS billing, prompting an AFD proposal to merge First Responder Fees into the base ambulance rate for simplicity and compliance.
DISCUSSION
Alameda Police Department
As of last year, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office transferred the responsibility of issuing Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permits to local law enforcement agencies. APD was tasked with accepting, screening, and approving these applications for City of Alameda residents. In January 2025, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction allowing residents of U.S. states and territories other than California to apply for a CCW permit with any licensing authority in California where they intend to spend time. The fees established last year are insufficient for the volume of applications and the time it takes to process them. The City’s fees for reviewing these applications are also considerably less when compared to other agencies within the County. APD proposes revising two fees relating to CCW permit applications to account for the time and resources required for an extensive background investigation of applicants. The increase will also keep the fees aligned with those of other law enforcement agencies within the County. APD also recommends changing the Production Report and Microfilm fees from a per page to a flat rate.
Library
The Library Department is recommending removing the charge for a lost library card because the fee disproportionately impacts those who are least able to pay. Separately, the current charge for a lost/damaged item includes the total cost to replace the item. As a result, the additional lost/damaged processing fee is not necessary and disproportionately impacts those in the community with limited resources. Staff recommends adding new fees to replace lost Laptop equipment and accessories to recover the value of such lost items.
Public Works and Engineering
Public Works recommends the addition of three new parking citation fees aimed at improving public safety, accessibility, and compliance with state and local regulations. The first proposed fee addresses violations of California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21209, which prohibits motor vehicles from parking in designated bike lanes, with a citation amount of $75. This statute is intended to protect cyclists and maintain the integrity of the bike infrastructure. The second proposed fee enforces AMC Section 8-8.9, which reserves designated parking spaces for electric vehicles (EVs) and prohibits unauthorized use, with a citation of $45. This supports the City’s sustainability goals and ensures EV drivers have equitable access to the necessary charging infrastructure. Lastly, staff recommends implementing a fee for violations of CVC 22500(n)(1)(A), which prohibits stopping or parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk to maintain visibility and pedestrian safety; the proposed citation is $40. These fees will improve compliance and promote safer, more accessible streets for all users.
In addition, Public Works recommends the removal of the daily Meter Fee from the MFS. AMC section 12-4.4 established a range of acceptable hourly meter rates for on-street parking meters and allows the Public Works Director to make adjustments consistent with the goal of achieving an eighty-five (85%) percent occupancy. Meter rate adjustments must be published a minimum of two (2) weeks in advance of implementation and be maintained on file at the Public Works Department. Therefore, meter rates are not suitably placed in the MFS.
Fire Department
The Fire Prevention Bureau continues to play a vital role in public safety through plan reviews, code enforcement, and life safety inspections. However, a cost analysis conducted by NBS in 2024 revealed that the current fees for new construction reviews and occupancy inspections fall short of the actual costs of providing these services. In FY 2024-25, all fees related to construction permitting and plan review were increased to achieve 100% cost recovery, as recommended by the NBS analysis. To maintain accessibility while ensuring fiscal responsibility, annual and biannual inspection fees were capped at a 55% cost recovery rate for most of the fees. The exception was inspection fees associated with business and residential inspections (11-20 units), the largest percentage of inspections conducted annually; these fees were increased to 30% cost recovery, thereby reducing the initial fiscal impact on business and property owners.
To ensure that essential services may be maintained, AFD is committed to achieving 100% cost recovery over the next seven years. To accomplish this, AFD will increase fees that currently do not achieve a 100% cost recovery by 9.12% (excluding EMS fees and new construction fees). The amount of 9.12% includes a 2.7% CPI increase and a 6.42% cost recovery catch-up increase.
AFD reviewed current business and residential fees for the following communities to ensure the proposed fees were comparable to those of other communities within the Bay Area, including Oakland, San Ramon, San Jose, Daly City, Fremont, San Leandro, Palo Alto, Albany, and Moraga-Orinda. The range of business inspection fees was $35-$753. Staff recommends the new business inspection fee for Alameda to be $235. Regarding the residential inspection fee comparison, surrounding communities charge between $74 - $753, and the recommendation is that the new residential inspection fee for 11-20 units will be $404 in Alameda. These adjustments in fees will increase business and residential fees to 36.42% cost recovery and all other life safety inspection fees to 61.42% cost recovery. These changes support the long-term financial sustainability of the General Fund and special revenue funds.
AFD also imposes a First Responder Fee, initially adopted in 2019, to recover costs associated with Advanced Life Support (ALS) responses. As part of broader EMS billing reforms and to comply with AB716, this fee will be consolidated into a new bundled ambulance transport rate, effective July 1, 2025. The bundled rate will include the County base ambulance rate and the associated First Responder Fee. The new bundled rate includes:
• Base Transport Fee (bundled): $4,953.89
• Mileage: $102.21
• Oxygen: $338.42
• Treatment/Non-Transport: $908.49
AB716, effective October 8, 2023, mandates consumer protections against surprise ambulance billing, including caps on patient costs and restrictions on debt collection and credit reporting. In response, the City is streamlining EMS billing by integrating related fees into a simplified base rate structure.
Consistent with the City's goal of equitable service delivery, AFD maintains a policy to provide EMS services at no cost to the patient under specific conditions, including:
• Patient assist only, with no medical care provided (e.g., helping someone back into bed).
• Calls made by someone other than the patient, and the patient refuses medical treatment.
• In cases of deceased on arrival (DOA), families will not be held responsible for balances after insurance resolution.
• When law enforcement requests EMS services for victims of violent crime.
Additionally, AFD has a comprehensive financial hardship policy that supports individuals who lack the funds to cover costs associated with EMS provided by the City.
These revisions reflect the City’s commitment to:
• Maintaining essential public safety services
• Ensuring compliance with State law (AB716)
• Promoting equitable, transparent, and cost-effective fee structures.
Planning, Building, and Transportation Department
Planning and Building Permit Fees
PBT completed a fee study focused on refining the comprehensive permit fee revision prepared in 2022-2023 and adopted in 2024 (Exhibit 2). That prior revision focused primarily on streamlining Building Permit fees to improve clarity and online transparency. However, it was based on 2022 staffing data, and by the time the new fees were implemented, City costs had risen significantly. In addition, several new state housing laws have taken effect, making some of the time and materials assumptions in the earlier model outdated.
In the past year, the City also hired a new Building Official who introduced best practices and led a detailed review of permitting and inspection operations. This review revealed that the previous fee structure underestimated the staff time required for inspections and did not fully account for the increasing complexity of the California Building Standards Code, particularly fees pertaining to mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP). Although the simplified fee structure adopted in 2024 made the fees easier to understand, it also created unintended outcomes including more flat fees that disproportionately increased costs for smaller residential projects and lowered fees for larger projects.
To address these issues, PBT conducted a focused study specifically on Planning and Building fees to recalibrate them based on updated staffing costs, new workflows, and current state requirements. The proposed fee schedule reintroduces tiered, project-specific fees to better align fees with the level of staff review and service required. These revisions are intended to improve equity among permit applicants, ensure compliance with state mandates, and support cost recovery of Planning and Building-services. Key changes to the Planning and Building fee schedules include:
• Planning Fee Increases: Planning fees are proposed to increase by an average of 0.7%, largely due to adjusted developer-paid deposits. This adjustment will reduce the need for the City to collect underpayments at the end of project reviews.
• State Housing Law Implementation: New Planning fee categories have been added to support streamlined review processes required by state housing legislation, including SB 35, SB 330, and other ministerial approval mandates.
• Refined Building Permit Fee Structure: While the overall change in building permit fees reflects a slight decrease of 0.3%, the revised structure introduces more detailed and granular fee categories that better align with project complexity and staff time required to provide the service.
• Reduced Fees for Home Improvement Projects: Fees for common residential improvements such as seismic retrofits, kitchen and bathroom remodels, and reroofing, have been reduced to better reflect actual staff time and to encourage residential and energy-efficient upgrades.
• New MEP Fees: Additional MEP inspection fees have been introduced for certain residential and commercial projects to account for the increased time needed to perform the full range of inspections required under the current California Building Code.
• Technology Fee: Staff recommends increasing the Technology Fee by 1%, from 5% to 6% of permit fees, to help offset rising costs of the Accela system, purchase inspector tablets and permit center workstations, support mobile permitting enhancements, and begin planning for a potential system replacement when the Accela contract expires in two years. Overall Adjustment: The average fee adjustment across all Planning and Building permit categories is 0.4%, in addition to the 2.7% CPI adjustment.
• Fee Comparison: Given that this year’s proposed fee adjustments are relatively modest, the Planning and Building permit fee levels remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2024 comprehensive fee study, which found that Planning and Building fees fall within the mid-range when compared to jurisdictions in the East Bay, including Berkeley, Fremont, Walnut Creek, San Leandro, and Hayward.
Code Enforcement Fees
In 2024, following the City Attorney’s recommendation, the City discontinued its 4x multiplier Investigative Fee on unpermitted work due to legal risks from recent court rulings. This resulted in a $250,000 reduction in Planning and Building fee revenue for the current fiscal year. To replace the multiplier model, a new Code Enforcement fee structure was adopted based on hourly staff costs in code enforcement. After nearly a year of implementation, the Planning and Building Fund has recovered approximately $150,000 of enforcement costs for permit violations. The proposed FY 2025-26 fee schedule includes minor adjustments to staff time inputs for greater accuracy, and City staff will continue monitoring the financial impact of the billing model to improve cost recovery in future budget cycles. Meanwhile, the FY 2025-27 biennial budget proposes the General Fund subsidize approximately 35% of costs to enforce non-construction related code violations, such as leaf blowers, noise complaints, property maintenance, signage, and other municipal code violations.
Vacant Building Monitoring Fee
To address vacant properties and associated blight, the fee schedule includes a Vacant Building Monitoring Fee of $2,906 annually applied per building and each vacant property. This fee is authorized by AMC Section 13-15, which imposes an annual monitoring fee on owners of boarded buildings or vacant parcels that have been unoccupied for more than 90 days. This fee covers the City’s cost of monitoring such properties. Owners may request a fee waiver if they are actively rehabilitating the property, if the property is code-compliant and marketed for sale or lease, if the fee imposes a substantial hardship, or if the vacancy is temporary. Waiver requests that are denied may be appealed to the Housing and Building Code Appeals Board. The AMC also allows the City to recover unpaid fees by placing a lien on the property. Staff recommends setting the fee at $2,906 annually to support Code Enforcement efforts in maintaining vacant properties.
Tobacco Retailer License Fee
In 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring a Tobacco Retailer License for the sale of tobacco products, but a corresponding license fee was never established in accordance with AMC Section 6-60.100. To support Code Enforcement efforts in ensuring retailer compliance with applicable regulations, staff recommends that the City Council approve an annual license fee of $981. This amount, comparable to Alameda County’s fee of $940, reflects the City’s cost for enforcement, retailer education, and periodic inspections. Additional investigation fees are also proposed to ensure cost recovery on any enforcement action.
Special Events Permit Fees
Special events encompass organized activities that utilize streets, parks, or other public spaces for public gatherings. These events include festivals, parades, races, filming, and related activities that often necessitate street closures. The majority of staff time spent reviewing special events is attributable to Public Works, and those costs are reflected in the High and Low Impact Activity fees. Overall, the Special Event permit fees have been adjusted by 2.7% CPI.
Fee Comparison with Other Cities
As part of the 2024 comprehensive fee study staff conducted a review of approximately 143 comparable fee items across neighboring jurisdictions Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, San Leandro, and Walnut Creek. At the time, 29% of the City’s fees were the highest among comparison cities, 54% fell within the mid-range, and 11% were among the lowest.
It is important to note that fee comparisons have limited usefulness as many cities have not conducted recent fee studies, and differences in terminology and permit structures make direct comparisons difficult. Furthermore, some comparison cities do not base their fees on actual cost of service, so where fees fall below cost recovery, it often reflects a policy decision to subsidize certain services with General Fund or other source of funds.
Unlike most cities in Alameda County where Planning and Building permitting functions often receive substantive General Fund support, Alameda’s Planning and Building functions are managed as a self-supporting special revenue fund, with minimal reliance on the General Fund. Taking these factors into account, staff finds that the proposed fee adjustments remain generally aligned with those of neighboring cities.
Conclusion
Staff reviewed the proposed changes to the fee schedule and concludes the fees and charges are (a) imposed for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged and does not exceed the reasonable cost to the local government of conferring the benefit, (b) imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged and which does not exceed the reasonable costs of the local government of providing such service or product, (c) imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof, and/or (d) imposed as a condition of property development.
Therefore, staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed MFS for FY 2025-26 to ensure ongoing fiscal sustainability, transparency, and alignment with City priorities and legal requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
• Adopt the proposed MFS. This would ensure City fees stay on par with the current market, allowing the City to absorb the impact of inflation and keep up with rising costs while continuing to provide essential services to our community.
• Do not increase the fees as proposed in the MFS.
• Adjust specific fees when adopting the MFS. Any fee reductions would impact the FY 2025-27 Biennial Budget as proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adopting the new fee schedule allows for full cost recovery of planning and building activities. PBT is a special revenue fund department and largely receives no General Fund revenue. While specific Public Works fees and most AFD fees do not cover 100% of their costs, the amounts they do collect reduce the impact on the General Fund and other Funds.
The projected revenues from the fees outlined in the MFS are included in the proposed budget for FY 2025-27.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
All other sections of the AMC dealing with this subject matter have been thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the AMC. This action is consistent with the Strategic Plan action to Practice Fiscally Responsible, Equitable & Inclusive Governance.
CLIMATE IMPACT
There are no climate impacts from revising the MFS. The proposed fee schedule includes keeping certain permit fees related to electrification affordable to further Climate Action and Resiliency Plan goals.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of a revised fee schedule is a governmental fiscal function and not subject to environmental review in that it is not a "project" as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), a "project" does not include the creation of governmental funding mechanisms or other governmental fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to amend Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to add and revise fees on the Master Fee Schedule.
By,
Carlos Figueroa, Senior Financial Analyst
Allen Tai, Planning, Building, and Transportation Director
Erin Smith, Public Works Director
Nicholas Luby, Fire Chief
Justin Long, Recreation and Parks Director
Michael Eitner, Library Director
Joshi Nishant, Police Chief
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Ross McCarthy, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. Proposed FY 2025-26 Master Fee Schedule
2. User Fees and Charges Study (PBT)
3. Current FY 2024-25 Master Fee Schedule
4. Alameda County EMS Agency Updated User Fees