City consultants find Glendora recovers about two-thirds of user-fee costs; council moves to schedule public hearing

A consultant presentation to the Glendora City Council on Tuesday found the city is recovering about 67% of its fee-related costs citywide and under-recovering by roughly $1.4 million; the council voted unanimously to move forward with the study's recommendations and schedule the public hearing required for user-fee updates.

Desiree Valdivia, finance staff, introduced the study prepared by Khushbu Engel, vice president of Matrix Consulting Group, who walked the council through the methodology and recommended next steps. “The most important purpose of these types of studies is to ensure that we're in compliance with the law,” Engel said, summarizing how she calculated fully loaded hourly rates and average processing times to arrive at maximum justifiable fees under California law.

Nut graf: The study examined roughly 450 line items, calculated fully burdened costs (salaries, benefits, productive hours, divisional and citywide overhead) and recommended a new master fee schedule, an annual index for inflation, and a schedule for future updates. The consultant presented department-level cost-recovery results and suggested council direction on policy goals (for example, whether some services should remain subsidized).

Key findings and examples from the presentation: the city currently recovers about 67% of fee-related costs overall. Building-related fees were estimated to recover about 82% of costs (within an 80–100% industry range), engineering was below typical ranges (the presentation cited a roughly 69% recovery), planning and environmental services fell in mid-range recovery, and recreation/human services were substantially subsidized (recreation was reported around 19% cost recovery). Police fee recovery was reported near 55% overall. The consultant noted that some services (for example, certain building permits or recreation programs) are commonly subsidized for policy reasons.

Council discussion focused on policy choices rather than technical methodology. Councilmember Mendel said city services should operate more like a business and urged moving many fee categories toward 85–95% cost recovery over time. Councilmember Karen Davis and others argued that services with broad public benefit — parks, recreation, library, and some social-service supports — warrant continued subsidy. Several councilmembers supported staging increases over multiple years rather than adopting an immediate, across-the-board jump.

Legal and process notes: staff and the city attorney clarified that the report is the first step; user-fee changes will follow the prop. 26 public-notice and public-hearing process (and, where applicable, Proposition 218 rules for property-related charges). The city also discussed notifying local industry groups (building trade associations, utilities) and holding focused briefings for council before the formal hearing.

The council voted 5-0 to adopt staff recommendations 1 and 2 (take the study, incorporate council direction and schedule the required Proposition 26/fee public hearing), with staff aiming to hold the formal hearing in advance of a January 1 effective date and to bring a final schedule to council by the first meeting in November.

Clarifying details: the study reviewed about 450 fee line items; the city-wide under-recovery was reported as roughly $1.4 million; overall cost recovery reported at 67%; sample department recovery figures presented by the consultant included building ~82%, engineering ~69%, police ~55%, recreation ~19%. The consultant recommended indexing fees annually (CPI or COLA) and revisiting the full study in 5–7 years (staff suggested every five years).

Ending: Councilmembers asked staff to prepare staggered implementation options, analyze legally mandated fee caps (for example, in police- and building-related statutes), and hold two-on-two briefings with staff ahead of the public hearing. The hearing and any fee changes will follow statutory notice requirements before adoption.