Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Siskiyou supervisors hear proposal to sharply raise building and planning fees to reduce general‑fund subsidy
Summary
Community Development staff told the Board of Supervisors that planning and building divisions are heavily subsidized by the general fund and presented modeling that could raise some fees 200–300%; staff offered phased approaches and a planned general‑plan update to reconfigure fees and offsets.
Community Development Director Greg Dean told the Board of Supervisors on Nov. 18 that the county’s planning and building divisions are increasingly dependent on general‑fund subsidies and staff is preparing significant fee increases to close the gap.
“This year … building is 59% subsidized, planning at 90%,” Dean said, summarizing a multi‑year trend that he said will require either revenue or steep fee increases. He told the board the department is preparing a general‑plan update that will allow a reconfiguration of fees and structure, and that staff are modeling increases that in some lines could range from 200% to 300%.
Dean gave a concrete example of how permit costs would change under one scenario: a 1,000‑square‑foot single‑family dwelling with garage now has an estimated total building permit cost of about $2,450; the modeled change would increase that permit to roughly $4,032, an increase of about 60 percent in the specific example he presented.
Board members pressed staff on how to avoid imposing undue burdens on entry‑level and workforce housing. One supervisor suggested phasing in increases over three to five years and providing waivers or lower rates for smaller “starter” homes; another asked staff to account for the revenue loss from prior fire‑related fee waivers when calculating the necessary increases.
Dean acknowledged the proposals will be contentious and said some fee changes would be implemented only after the general‑plan update and additional board direction. He also told the board the building‑code fee schedule includes some items that have not been updated since the late 1970s and that staff will present an ordinance and implementation timeline in coming months.
Board members requested more analysis of the distributional effects—how increases would affect low‑income and entry‑level housing versus higher‑end development—and asked staff to consider phased approaches and advance notice to applicants. Dean said the department will return with more detail in January, tied to the general‑plan work and the county’s new accounting system.
