Tuolumne County supervisors on Oct. 7 directed staff to return with a set of options to reduce recently raised environmental health consumer protection fees after business owners and supervisors said the increases were sudden and steep.

Interim County Administrative Officer Roger Root told the board the county had adopted a 100% cost‑recovery goal that drove some fees up as much as 300 percent and that the dramatic increases have hurt small, low‑margin businesses. "My end goal is to actually reduce the fees," Root said, adding that staff were prepared to work on both fee adjustments and operational process changes.

The board’s direction came after roughly 45 minutes of public comment and supervisor remarks. Several business owners, including a small bed‑and‑breakfast operator and tattoo shop owners, described how the new charges made operations financially difficult. Supervisors said they generally supported the principle that programs should be funded, but several said the sudden, across‑the‑board increases deserved a measured rollback or staged approach.

Supervisor Mike Holland said the increases hit small operations hardest and suggested a more modest, phased increase rather than a single large jump. "These are a lot of little businesses that are not super profitable," Holland said. "For a mom and pop this makes a big difference in the day." Supervisor Kirk and Supervisor Ryan Campbell urged returning the county to a multi‑year path toward full cost recovery while protecting small operators.

Staff said the county would not discard the existing MGT fee study; rather, it would use the study as a baseline and prepare a matrix showing the impact of alternative cost‑recovery levels (for example, 80%, 85%, 100%) using 2023 fees as a starting point. Staff also told the board they will pursue operational process changes that do not require board approval — for example, revising how multi‑pool inspections are charged and expanding self‑certification or alternating year inspections to reduce inspection time and cost for businesses.

At the meeting’s end, Root summarized the board direction: staff will bring back a detailed matrix in December that (1) re‑bases fees to 2023 numbers and then models stepped increases, (2) quantifies the general‑fund impact of each option, and (3) lists operational process changes that could lower costs without additional board action. The board did not adopt a specific percentage at the meeting; several supervisors said they favored modest reductions (one mentioning 10% and others 25% as examples) but wanted the numbers returned for a formal vote.

The issue arose as part of the board’s ongoing effort to reduce general‑fund subsidies. Staff said some fee revenue increases were intended to move departments toward full cost recovery after prior shortfalls, but several supervisors emphasized that equity and the local economic impact must be considered before implementing large increases.

Next steps: staff will present the fee matrix at a December meeting with projected fees by line item, estimated general‑fund shortfalls under each scenario, and a list of recommended operational reforms intended to reduce inspection time and costs for small operators.