Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fines And Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County staff review fees and fines across departments; residents press for clarity on time-and-materials model
Summary
Planning, code enforcement, environmental health and public-works staff presented fee schedules and explained the shift from fixed fees to deposit (time-and-materials) models; callers and supervisors questioned average costs, appeals, accountability and enforcement consistency across departments.
Alameda County staff on May 6 briefed the Transportation and Planning Committee on the county’s schedules of fines, penalties and application fees across multiple departments and answered questions about the county’s shift from fixed-fee charges to deposit-based, time-and-materials billing.
Rodrigo Orduna of the Community Development Agency (Planning) said most development-review applications now use deposit models that require an initial applicant deposit that covers staff time; planning staff use published deposit amounts as estimates and said most projects come in near the deposit. Orduna said the county’s published fee schedule was last comprehensively compared against peer jurisdictions in 2008 and that staff plans incremental updates.
Ed Labayog, manager of the Code Enforcement Division, described the fines and reinspection-fee structure used to obtain compliance. He said initial investigations do not incur a charge, but failed reinspections are billed at an hour of staff time (currently $193), the Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing fee is $50, and an appeal to the Board of Supervisors is $25. For unpermitted uses, Labayog outlined step-fines ($250 first failed reinspection, $500 second, $1,000 third, $1,500 fourth), with an additional $5,000 penalty every six months for violations continuing beyond six months; he also described a $500 “dangerous condition” fine for severe violations (for example, illegal cannabis operations that alter electrical systems).
Ronald Browder, Director of Environmental Health, reviewed the department’s fees codified in Alameda County Municipal Code Chapter 6.92, explained exemptions for charitable organizations, and described penalty and delinquency procedures for permit fees; Browder noted fee studies in 2014–15 and adjustments in 2021 and said the department uses an effective hourly rate to determine charges.
Public Works and other departments also use deposit and hourly-rate approaches for specific program elements (e.g., solid- waste permits, land-and-water plan check), and staff said some program fees remain fixed while others moved to time-and-materials to reflect actual cost recovery.
Public commenters raised concerns about the deposit model. One caller said the deposit model removes staff incentive to be efficient and recounted multiple rounds of plan-check comments by the fire department on a single project; another asked whether deposit amounts can expire after long delays and how applicants are informed when consultants or outside costs will be charged. Planning staff said online tracking (Mainstar) now allows applicants and the public to monitor application status and processing times and that staff will notify applicants when outside consultant costs are anticipated.
What to watch: supervisors asked staff to consider harmonizing processes across departments so appeals, abatement tools and deposit rules are consistent; staff agreed to return with additional information about monitoring, average hours, and options such as deposits with caps or revised tracking to increase transparency.
Representative quote: Ed Labayog on fines and escalation: “…the owner trying to make enough effort to abate violations, then we charge, 1 hour staff time…currently it’s a $193…and for unpermitted uses…$250, $500, $1,000, $1,500…"
