Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tulare County approves modest increases to agricultural inspection and certificate fees
Summary
After a public hearing, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors approved increases to several Agricultural Commissioner fees, including phytosanitary certificates and hourly inspection rates; staff estimated roughly $230,000–$230,000+ in additional revenue across affected fees.
Tulare County supervisors voted 5-0 on April 21 to raise several fees charged by the Agricultural Commissioner’s office, saying the adjustments reflect rising operating costs and keep the county's charges broadly in line with neighboring counties.
Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Christopher Greer told the board the changes are calculated from salary, benefits and overhead and are intended to cover increased costs while remaining competitive with counties such as Fresno, Kern and Kings. "As the cost of goods and services and inflation has risen, so is the need to evaluate and increase our fees accordingly," Greer said during the hearing.
The board approved a $10 increase to the regular phytosanitary certificate (from $75 to $85), a $10 increase to the department’s high‑intensity phytosanitary certificate (from $125 to $135), and a $1 increase to quarantine compliance certificates (from $25 to $26). The county also approved raising the weighted average hourly inspection rate from $65 to $70 and certain registration fees (for example, some contractor and pest control registrations from $44 to $47).
Greer estimated the changes would yield roughly $155,000 from regular phytosanitary certificates, about $69,000 from high‑intensity certificates and about $6,000 from the CQC adjustments; he described those as order‑of‑magnitude budget impacts tied to current application volumes. He also said the department sent public notice to growers and regulated businesses (257 postcards and roughly 361 emails, per the presentation), held stakeholder meetings with the farm bureau and industry groups, and received about 15 informational inquiries.
No members of the public spoke in opposition at the hearing. Supervisor Mccari moved to adopt the fee schedule as presented; Supervisor Valero seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Board members and staff did not specify an exact implementation date during the hearing; the clerk closed the hearing and recorded the 5-0 vote. Any effective date or administrative roll‑out will be reflected in the county’s adopted fee schedule and posted public notices.
