title
Conduct a noticed public hearing on the proposed FY2025/26 user fee schedules; and Consider adopting 19 revised fee schedules by separate resolutions amending the exhibits in Chapters 2.4 and 11 of the Solano County Code, revising and establishing various fees, to become effective July 1, 2025
body
Published Notice Required? Yes __X__ No _ _
Public Hearing Required? Yes __X__ No _ _
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
The County Administrator recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Conduct a noticed public hearing on the proposed FY2025/26 user fee schedules; and
2. Consider adopting 19 revised fee schedules by separate resolutions amending the exhibits in Chapters 2.4 and 11 of the Solano County Code, revising and establishing various fees, to become effective July 1, 2025.
SUMMARY:
Annually, County departments review and revise department user fee schedules for Board consideration and approval. The County Administrator’s Office facilitates and supports the departments in their efforts and prepares the final product for the Board. Eighteen established fee exhibits included in Chapter 11 of the Solano County Code are being revised to reflect updated salary and benefit costs and programmatic changes. The Nut Tree Airport fee exhibit (Exhibit XX) included in Chapter 2.4 of the Solano County Code is also proposed to be revised to reflect fees that are tied to the productive hourly rate, comparable market rates and new development application fees.
A summary of proposed fee revisions, including new fees, and an explanation of the revisions are included in Attachment A. Resolutions for adopting the revised Fee Schedules, including the corresponding fee exhibits, are included in Attachment B. The departments that are proposing changes to their fee schedule are as follows:
• Exhibit I - Agriculture
• Exhibit II - Assessor/Recorder
• Exhibit III-A - Resource Management - Environmental Health Division
• Exhibit III-B - Resource Management - Planning Division
• Exhibit III-C - Resource Management - Building and Safety Division
• Exhibit III-D - Resource Management - Administration Services
• Exhibit III-E - Resource Management - Public Works, Engineering and Surveyor
• Exhibit IV - Public Guardian
• Exhibit V - Treasurer-Tax Collector-County Clerk
• Exhibit VI - Auditor-Controller
• Exhibit VII - Registrar of Voters
• Exhibit VIII - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
• Exhibit IX - County Counsel
• Exhibit X - County Administrator’s Office
• Exhibit XI - Health and Social Services
• Exhibit XIII - Sheriff/Coroner
• Exhibit XV - Library
• Exhibit XVII - Sheriff - Animal Care and Control
• Exhibit XX - Nut Tree Airport
Subject to Board adoption of the resolutions revising the fee schedules, the proposed fees will be effective July 1, 2025.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This year’s annual fee review and update reflects that most departments propose fee revisions, and therefore adjustments in revenue, should the Board adopt the resolutions. The following departments anticipate approximate increases in revenue as listed below as a result of the fee revisions in FY2025/26. Amounts may be rounded to the nearest hundredth/thousandth:
• Resource Management Environmental Health - $46,000
• Resource Management Building and Safety - $14,000
• Resource Management Public Works, Engineering and Surveyor - $19,000
• Treasurer/Tax Collector/County Clerk - $3,600
• Auditor/Controller - $72,000
• Sheriff/Coroner - $4,200
• Sheriff’s Office Animal Care and Control - $76,500
• General Services Nut Tree Airport - $1,000
The following departments anticipate revenue decreases as a result of the fee revisions in FY2025/26:
• Agriculture - $1,000
• Resource Management Administration Services - $2,600
The cost of preparing the fee schedules is assumed in part by the departments who prepare and charge fees for services and is included within their existing budgets. The costs associated with preparing the agenda item are nominal and absorbed by the County Administrator’s FY2024/25 Working Budget.
DISCUSSION:
Since 1992, the Board has supported the need to recover 100% of the costs associated with a service provided by the County to members of the public when allowed by law. At that time, the Board directed staff to hire a consultant to develop a user fee model and a countywide standardized cost methodology, and to establish user fees for chargeable services. Using the cost documentation compiled by the consultant, staff began the implementation of fees for provided County services based on 100% cost recovery. The basic fee methodology is as follows:
Direct Costs + Indirect Costs = Total Cost of Services
Solano County departments continue to use this standardized cost methodology for calculating countywide user fees. Annually, fees are reviewed and revisions recommended which adhere to the Board of Supervisors’ policy to recover 100% of the costs associated with the services provided by the County to members of the public when allowed by law.
The Auditor-Controller’s Office reviews the application of the standard fee methodology used by each department in the calculation of their productive hourly rates and indirect overhead rates. They concur that the methodology used was sound for calculating FY2025/26 fees. The Auditor-Controller’s staff did not review any of the statutory fees as they are mandated and set by code, statute, or law. County Counsel reviewed the fee authority as noted on the fee schedules under the Fee Authority column to confirm departments’ ongoing ability to collect the designated fee at the rate on the schedule. Mandated fees have been adjusted where permitted.
While the goal is to have 100% cost recovery whenever possible, there are exceptions to the above policy. During the economic downturn, departmental review of the fees focused on minimizing the impact to the community in an effort to encourage economic recovery and to minimize cost burdens on the public. Departments remain aware of the need to balance between recovering costs through fees versus minimizing cost burdens on the public from fees and the associated suppression of economic activity. Where appropriate, departments also review market factors which would show a decline in demand if the costs of the fees were increased beyond what the market would bear.
For FY2025/26, most departments are proposing to increase their fees as a result of higher productive hourly rates for staff who perform the work and provide the services. These higher rates are due to Board-approved increases in salaries and employee benefits, as well as other operational costs, such as time spent in performing services, which trigger fee changes due to a change in the amount of time needed to perform the services. Several fees are recommended to be eliminated and several new fees are proposed to be established. Check marks in the New Fee column of each department’s Fee Exhibit (Attachment B) indicate a new fee being proposed. Check marks in the Revised Fee columns of each Fee Exhibit reflects changes to current fees (increases and decreases). Fee deletions are marked as deletes.
Some departments’ fees are not commensurate with the actual cost per unit, typically due to federal and state mandates. Such is true of the Sheriff’s Office, where most of their fees are capped by code or statute, and Health and Social Services (H&SS). Most of H&SS’ fees are based on similar provider fees in the market and are dependent on federal and state reimbursements. Patients are charged on a sliding fee discount scale to ensure income or lack of insurance is not a barrier in acquiring the services needed. H&SS may need to adjust fees charged to clients during the year as reimbursement rates from Medi-Cal, Medicare or other third-party payers change, actual cost per unit information becomes available, or as the volume of services rendered changes to allow the department to recover more of the actual costs. Any new procedures added during the fiscal year will be based on existing or established methodologies for setting rates. If actual costs for services, procedures or supply items increase, H&SS may elect to pass the increased cost on to the client. Similarly, many of Animal Care and Control’s costs are based on similar fees charged to neighboring jurisdictions and are designed to encourage use of their adoption and spay/neuter services.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Board may choose not to approve any of the new fees or proposed fee changes; however, this alternative is not recommended as it may result in the loss of revenues in some departments and may result in increased costs to the General Fund to fund the provision of services.
2. The Board may choose to approve fee schedules and resolutions by individual departments and direct or specify modifications to the proposed adjustments to fees. If the Board chooses not to approve any/all of the proposed fee additions and/or revisions, there may be an impact to revenue for any affected department included in budget projections for FY2025/26.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The County Administrator’s Office, in developing the proposed revisions and new fees as detailed in each of the respective fee exhibits, worked with the following departments: Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures; Assessor/Recorder; Resource Management; Tax Collector/Treasurer/County Clerk; Auditor/Controller; Registrar of Voters; Clerk of the Board; County Counsel; County Administrator; Health and Human Services (including the Public Guardian); Sheriff/Coroner (including Animal Care and Control Services); Library; and General Services - Nut Tree Airport. The Auditor-Controller’s Office verified the productive hourly rate of each department and County Counsel verified the fee authority.
In accordance with Government Code 6062(a), notice of the public hearing on the proposed fee schedules was given through publication in the Benicia Herald, the Fairfield Daily Republic, the Vacaville Reporter, and the Vallejo Times-Herald newspapers on two successive weeks with at least five days between publications, on April 9, and April 16, 2025. The proposed fee schedules have also been available on the County’s website.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION