Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chino council adopts comprehensive user fee study after industry protests, allows prepayment for in‑process projects
Summary
After months of review and meetings with the building industry, the Chino City Council adopted a comprehensive user fee schedule that raises many fees to full cost recovery, accepted phased implementation requests for in‑process permits and corrected the resolution's effective‑date language.
The Chino City Council on June 17 adopted a citywide user fee study that raises multiple operational fees to better reflect the full cost of services and directs annual CPI adjustments beginning July 1.
The study, prepared with consultant Willdan Financial, recommends raising fees across departments — planning, building, engineering, police, community services and more — to reduce General Fund subsidies. Willdan said the current schedule in many cases reflected decades‑old rates and omitted cross‑departmental costs. City staff and the consultant emphasized that some fees had not been updated formally since the 1980s.
The study drew objections from the Building Industry Association (BIA) San Bernardino County chapter, which said dozens of fees would more than double, with some increases described in staff‑provided charts as larger percentages. Anna Gromis of the BIA urged the council to cap increases, phase them in, update the valuation table for plan check to scale projects above $1 million, and allow in‑progress projects to be charged the old rates. Gromis asked for a 30‑day delay to continue discussions.
Council members and staff said there had been extensive outreach — online presentations, four follow‑up meetings with the BIA and detailed supporting calculations provided with the draft study. Kim Sow, director of finance, told the council the study used fiscal year 2024–25 midterm budget data and that next year’s costs would likely be higher, arguing for full implementation to avoid year‑end budget shortfalls.
The council agreed to a clarification in the resolution to make the CPI annual adjustment effective July 1 (using the February CPI), and accepted a staff‑level accommodation: applicants who have submitted applications and who prepaid by the effective date may be held to the old fee schedule so long as they have a qualifying, pending submission. The council also accepted a BIA request to direct staff to refine the plan‑check valuation table before the effective date for development‑related fees.
The adopted schedule makes non‑development operational fee changes effective July 1 and development‑related fees effective August 18 (the latter subject to a 60‑day statutory hold). Councilmembers said they expect a future five‑year cadence for comprehensive fee updates to avoid future large jumps.
The vote to adopt the user fee changes, with the noted clarifications, was unanimous.
What changed: the study recommends hundreds of individual fee adjustments by department, adds several new fees, reduces a few, and recommends an annual CPI adjustment procedure. Staff said suggested fees were generally comparable to neighboring cities once full cost is accounted for.
Council and staff said they will continue working with the building community on the valuation table and implementation logistics.
Votes at the meeting also covered other items including development impact fees, the 2025–26 budget and multiple contract awards.
