Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Development Department seeks consultant and fee study after midyear deficit; board asks for strategic review
Summary
Facing a roughly $500,000 midyear deficit driven by planning and building shortfalls and a building division loan, the Community Development Department proposed three options—no fee increases with staff cuts, moderate fee increases with reductions, or full cost‑recovery fees and maintained staffing—and the board gave consensus to issue an RFP for an external consultant to study fees, structure and incentives for economic development.
Community Development Director Miria Turner presented a detailed review of the department’s finances and a set of options to close a roughly $500,000 midyear shortfall. Building Division cash projections showed that a previously authorized loan improved near‑term cash flow but that making loan payments this fiscal year would leave the division at negative cash at the start of next fiscal year. For that reason, Turner recommended deferring a loan payment this fiscal year and spreading repayment across additional years.
The department presented three options for FY2026‑27: (1) no fee increases with significant staff reductions; (2) moderate fee increases combined with staff reductions; (3) adopt fully unsubsidized fees (full cost‑recovery) and preserve current staffing. Staff also described a fee‑analysis methodology—indirect cost allocation, overhead rate and billable hourly rates—and recommended moving to a single permit multiplier for building fees.
Supervisors and the public emphasized policy tradeoffs: raising fees risks reducing the already declining number of permits, while deep staffing cuts could undermine permitting throughput and the county’s ability to support housing and economic development. Several supervisors urged a strategic, countywide approach: hire an outside consultant quickly to examine fee structure, organizational design, permit throughput, and how the county can intentionally use subsidies to promote housing and commercial activity. The board gave consensus for staff to issue an RFP for a consultant, with a request that the RFP be returned quickly and that the consultant’s scope include fees, potential revenue options (including fines), and recommendations to maintain or grow permitting activity.
Why it matters: CDD handles planning, building, and code enforcement functions that affect development approvals, housing production and revenue generation for the county. Decisions about fees and staffing must balance fiscal sustainability with the county’s economic development and permitting goals.
What’s next: Staff will issue a consultant RFP and return to the board with proposals and a proposed timetable. CDD will also provide updated monthly financial reporting to supervisors and options for fee and staffing changes informed by the consultant’s work.
