Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the User Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County study finds scope to raise user fees; staff will return with phased options
Summary
A countywide user‑fee study by NBS found current cost recovery at about 58% (~$7.6M revenue) with a maximum cost‑based collection potential of approximately $13.2M; staff recommended targeted, department‑by‑department approaches and will return with adoption hearings and optional CPI or phased approaches.
County staff and consultant NBS presented a comprehensive countywide user‑fee study to the board on Nov. 18 that analyzed recoverable costs for services across multiple departments including animal services, planning, environmental health, public works, building/fire safety and a proposed general plan maintenance fee.
Method and findings: Lauren Guido of NBS explained the two‑step methodology: calculate fully burdened costs (direct, indirect and support costs) and then translate those into hourly rates and per‑activity fees. The study estimated current cost recovery at about 58% — roughly $7.6 million in fees collected annually — and found a legislatively justifiable maximum revenue collection of about $13.2 million if all fees were set at full cost recovery. The analysis included fee‑by‑fee appendices and benchmarking against neighboring counties (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Mariposa, Merced).
Board reaction and next steps: Supervisors asked about CPI‑based adjustments, staging increases (phasing in), and differential treatment across departments — for example, keeping animal‑services fees intentionally low to encourage adoption. Staff suggested bringing smaller, lower‑impact changes (e.g., assessor or animal services fees) forward first and offering workshops for complex development‑services fees. Any adopted development‑related fees would follow statutory notice timelines and take effect 60 days after adoption.
Why it matters: The study gives the board a roadmap for recovering a larger share of service delivery costs from users rather than general‑fund subsidies; the board signaled support for a phased, department‑sensitive approach and asked staff to return with specific proposals, CPI language, and public‑engagement steps.
