A major item under discussion at the Board of Supervisors meeting this past Tuesday was a full-scale hearing on proposed fee increases wished-for by 16 different County departments.
Historically, the County typically holds these fee adjustment hearings twice a year. By any other standard these so-called fees are just thinly disguised taxes. The fee increases were set out in a 23-page, single-spaced spreadsheet.
At the very top of the very first page, I found under the heading of “Countywide Internal Fees” an entrythat read: “Retrieval of Document/Report over 5 years old — $5.00.” That entry was not an auspicious start for the fee-setting hearing, as it constitutes, unless I’m missing something, a violation of the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Said Act, as well as numerous court rulings on the Act, prohibit such “retrieval” costs.
The CPRA specifies that, “Copies of records may be obtained for the direct cost of duplication, unless the Legislature has established a statutory fee. The courts have ruled that, “The direct cost of duplication is the cost of running the copy machine, and conceivably also the expense of the person operating it. ‘Direct cost’ does not include the ancillary tasks necessarily associated with the retrieval, inspection and handling of the file from which the copy is extracted.”
As most of you know, last Spring I was successful in getting the County to repeal its Public Records Ordinance, that included a provision allowing for the collection of retrieval fees. That issue is settled. So I’m sure this proposed fee is just an oversight that will be rectified shortly. I’ve already given Supervisor Haschak a heads-up on it, so between the two of us, I’m certain we’ll get it resolved.
Back to Tuesday’s meeting.
In prepared remarks, CEO Darcie Antle told the Board, “The proposed fee changes reflect the ongoing efforts of all departments and offices to meet full cost recovery, per Board direction. The proposed changes are projected to bring an additional $3.2 million ($1.7 million in General Fund Revenue and $1.5 million in Non-General Fund) in revenues to the County.”
Antle stated that the proposed increases are needed to close a deficit which, of course, at this time is an unknown but very fluid number that changes from meeting to meeting because the County has not completed the mandated audits of its books for the past two years. At different times the deficit has been estimated to range anywhere from $7 million to $15 million.
For County bureaucrats to even remotely consider raising fees at this time when people, all across Mendocino County, are being hammered economically on a daily basis, is unconscionable and demonstrates a disconnected reality breathtaking in its magnitude.
Keep in mind, the County has yet to complete final audits on both the 2021-22 and 2022-23 fiscal years. Acting Auditor-Controller/Treasurer-Tax Collector Sarah Pierce said the 2021-22 should be completed by early January. Once that audit is done, they will have an official ending balance for that fiscal year and the beginning balance for FY 2022-23, which would allow the audit for that fiscal year to commence. She estimated it would take several months to complete that audit.
Pierce also stated that the special audit underway by the California State Auditor’s Office, is expected to have a tentative report completed by sometime in January. Several months ago, state Controller Malia M. Cohen authorized an audit of Mendocino County. According to Cohen’s office, the audit was scheduled “after conversations with county officials who expressed concerns as to whether the annual financial reports required to be prepared and delivered to the state are correct and complete. Controller Cohen then acted on a request for an audit from the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, who voted unanimously to request the State Controller’s Office’s assistance to resolve what some officials have referred to as a ‘fiscal crisis’ within the county.”
Looking at just one area of the proposed fee increases, Scott Ward, a long-time planning and building professional, submitted these comments on the proposed fee increases:
“The proposed increases in Planning and Building fees will negatively impact the cost and feasibility of development, including the affordability of much needed housing in Mendocino County. The proposed fee increases are not based on the actual time spent on processing, issuing, and conducting inspections of the permitted work.
“Government Code Section 65583(a) requires ‘An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels…including…fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures…’ Based on the Planning and Building memo supporting this agenda item, the required analysis and nexus study have not been done as is required by state law.
“High planning and building permit fees can impact property owners’ ability to make improvements or repairs, especially for lower-income households. Government Code Section 66020 requires that planning and building permit processing fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or impact, unless approved by the voters; agencies collecting fees must provide project applicants with a statement of amounts and purposes of all fees at the time of fee imposition or project approval.
“During my nearly 30-year professional career working for Planning and Building Departments, I have gained an in-depth knowledge and understanding of how much staff time it takes to intake, process, review and issue planning and building permits. As a former building official, plans examiner and building inspector, I know how long it takes to conduct inspections on work authorized by building permits. For the last 9 years I have owned and operated a small consulting business whose primary focus is planning and building permit acquisition. Most of my clients are in Mendocino County. I have submitted well over 1200 planning and building permits to the Mendocino County Planning and Building Department over the last 9 years. Based on my professional experience and my current experience as a consultant, it is my professional opinion that the current fees and the proposed Planning and Building Department fee increases exceed the reasonable cost of providing service.”
So while none of these proposed fee increases should have been approved, Supes John Haschak and Dan Gjerde took the lead fashioning a compromise motion that reduced the proposed increases by 75 percent, but the issue could return for another hearing in April of next year. Supervisor Ted Williams, to his credit, opposed any fee increases, categorizing them as anti-business, actions that would retard if not eliminate desperately needed affordable housing, and that most people would just ignore the licensing and permitting processes due to the sky-rocketing fee increases.
Haschak was joined by his colleagues in keeping license fees for Farmers’ Markets at no cost instead of the proposed $625, and maintaining Cottage Food licenses at the current $94 instead of $380.
I wasn’t aware until Williams brought it up that permits are required for replacing faulty electrical switches and outlets. Yikes, I’ve been a permit outlaw for decades. What a load of crap. So proposed electrical permit fees would have increased from $188 to $328, plus an additional $132 for the first 22 switches/outlets installed, plus $104 for additional switches, etc.
On the plumbing side, the proposed fee increase for a permit also went from $188 to $328, and again unbeknownst to me a permit is mandated for repairing/replacing water heaters. That’s two strikes.
Williams also said permits are required “if you replace a rotten board on a deck.” That’s definitely the third strike, I’m prison bound.
(Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, observer@pacific.net, the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at 12 noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org)
Be First to Comment