Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the User Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts consolidated user fee schedule with one item pulled for further review; traffic mitigation fees held flat
Summary
County staff presented a consolidated user fee schedule that applies CPI adjustments and staged catch‑up increases for Community Development Agency permit fees; the board adopted the schedule but asked staff to return with further review of a single Title 25 residential fee.
Senior management analyst Barry Anderson and Community Development Agency fiscal officer Alicia Chacharvedula presented a consolidated user fee schedule for FY 2025–26 that would reauthorize incremental CPI adjustments for many fees and apply a staged catch‑up for several CDA permit fees identified in a 2024 fee study.
Why it matters: user fees recover the cost of county regulatory and fee‑based services. The consolidated schedule balances cost recovery against accessibility; the board approved the schedule with a single exception and separately approved not increasing local and regional traffic mitigation fees for the coming year.
What staff proposed - UFREG process: county staff reasserted the role of the User Fee Review Group (UFREG) to vet fee studies and recommend fees that do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing services. The UFREG process includes time studies, direct and indirect cost allocation, and legal review. - CPI approach: the resolution would permit CPI‑based adjustments for qualified fees using the California Urban Wage Earners & Clerical Workers index (proposed CPI 2.87%), with UFREG able to waive or soften the CPI where appropriate. - CDA phased catch‑up: CDA permit fees were set to receive a preapproved catch‑up in 2025–26 that had been staged after a 2024 fee study. Building, planning and environmental health fees are the largest revenue impacts among CDA departments. For example, the presentation showed a non‑residential building permit example and compared Nevada County permit cost to neighboring counties.
Title 25 residential fee and board direction Board members discussed one new fee — an owner‑built, limited‑density rural dwelling (Title 25) permit fee — and expressed concern about potential unintended impacts on residents who might use Title 25 to legalize or permit marginal rural dwellings. During debate the board instructed staff to remove that single item from today’s adoption and return with alternatives and an estimate of fiscal impact. Counsel and staff said removing that one fee now would require returning with a public hearing and a short follow up, and estimated the fiscal impact of lowering or subsidizing that item would likely be under $10,000 given current application volumes.
Traffic mitigation fees Staff recommended and the Board approved no inflationary adjustment for local and regional traffic mitigation fees after a regional committee recommended holding the flat rate; staff said the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (used for those fees) was negative for the reporting period (–0.66%). The no‑adjustment action was recorded as a separate resolution.
Formal action taken - The Board adopted the consolidated user fee schedule resolution with the single exception of excluding the Title 25 base residential fee from today’s action and directing staff to return with options and fiscal analysis; roll‑call recorded affirmative votes from the supervisors present. - The Board separately adopted a resolution to make no inflationary adjustment to the local and regional traffic mitigation fees for FY 2025–26.
Ending Staff said they will return with the requested Title 25 analysis (including potential subsidy or alternate fee levels and the fiscal implications) and will continue UFREG oversight of fee updates as prescribed by the resolution.
