Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
We Do Creek GSA sets May 21 hearing on proposed fee structure after hours of questions from residents
Summary
The We Do Creek Groundwater Sustainability Agency set a May 21 public hearing on a draft two-part fee designed to fund SGMA compliance and agency administration; residents and board members raised concerns that small domestic parcels would shoulder administrative costs while agricultural users pay acreage-based fees.
The We Do Creek Groundwater Sustainability Agency voted to set a public hearing on May 21 for a proposed new fee structure intended to fund the agency’s state-required reporting and monitoring under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
At the board’s March 19 special meeting, consultant Katherine (presenting the draft fee study) told the board the proposal splits costs into two parts: a uniform part-one fee to keep the agency functioning and a part-two fee tied to water use (cropped acres, managed wetlands and developed parcels). She said the draft revenue target for fiscal year 2027 is about $470,000, with part one covering roughly $244,000 and part two about $225,000. “The part one fee is $20.50 for the year for each parcel,” Katherine said.
The presentation explained that part-one revenue would pay for governance, administration, legal and audit costs and a portion of program-manager time necessary to maintain local control and comply with SGMA. Part-two funds would support monitoring, annual reports, periodic evaluations and targeted studies required by the groundwater sustainability plan.
Board members and members of the public pressed staff on equity. William Binham, identified earlier as a board member and the domestic representative, questioned why domestic users would pay a large share of total fee revenue despite accounting for an estimated 4–5% of groundwater pumping. Katherine responded that the part-one parcel fee reflects an equal administrative benefit to all parcels, while part-two charges align with groundwater use and cropped acreage.
The draft includes credits and lower part-two rates for parcels served by South Feather Water and Power Agency or other documented surface-water diversions; the consultant said updated South Feather data could slightly change fee estimates.
Members of the public expressed frustration about being required to pay for SGMA compliance. Long-time resident George Snodgrass asked for clearer information about how fees would be calculated and whether existing tax charges relate to the GSA. Staff said a corrections process will be available and that some non-taxable entities would be invoiced directly by the GSA.
The board voted to set the May 21 public hearing date and instructed staff to continue outreach, publish the draft online, and hold a webinar March 24. Legal staff will prepare a fee resolution for the board’s consideration at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will finalize the draft for the board’s April 16 meeting, hold the May 21 public hearing, and—if the board proceeds—deliver a fee resolution and refine parcel data and South Feather inputs before placing fees on the tax roll.
