Sonoma County supervisors cut largest proposed construction fee increases in half
By Jeff Quackenbush, Business Journal Staff Reporter
SANTA ROSA — The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a number of fee increases for planning, engineering and building permits but compromised on the largest increases to lessen the impact on the already economically hammered local construction industry at the possible cost of laying off four more Permit & Resource Management Department staff next fiscal year.
Four of the five supervisors voted for halving the biggest proposed increases, a dozen of which were to be 100 percent and nearly as many of more than 50 percent. Supervisor Paul Kelley, who was not at the May 4 meeting when the department 2010-11 budget was first discussed, joined Supervisors Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane in voting for that lower level of increases, with each saying they had “angst” for supporting increases of that much.
“I realize this will cause pain and suffering for the department and it will cause pain and suffering for the General Fund,” Supervisor Kelley said. “It’s a decision in which no one will be happy.”
Supervisor Mike Kerns also said he would reluctantly support the compromise.” He said his constituents have indicated that they want faster action on their project applications more than cheaper fees.
“I’m worried that department revenues would be reduced to the level that service would be reduced and would become even worse,” he said. “Some things they do with the Housing Element needing to be updated regularly and the Development Code also are mandated by the state.”
PRMD Director Pete Parkinson presented the board with projections that cutting the largest increases in half would increase the already projected 12.5 positions reduced from next fiscal year’s budget to 16.5 positions cut. The reduction of two more entry-level planners, one additional engineering technician and a clerical position could result in planning permits requiring 15 percent longer to process, moving from two weeks to a month or more, and the time needed for stormwater and other engineering-related plans could increase by 10 percent, according to Mr. Parkinson. [See the staff report for details.]
Other options presented included no increases, projected to result in 20.5 positions cut next year total.
Board Chairwoman Valerie Brown didn’t support the compromise fee reductions, saying cutting four more department staff members was more “troubling” than raising department fees amid a deep recession for the local construction industry. She said her experience in helping constituents who have claimed the department is taking too long with their projects that the delay has largely come from the applicants.
“I’m not making it up,” she said, looking at construction industry representatives seated in the front row of the audience. “I want to make it work for you.”
The supervisors passed other department-related items on unanimous votes. Those included deferral of impact fees to the end of projects, sewer fee increases, on-site wastewater fees, amnesty for fixing code violations and changes in the appeals fees.
Three items Mr. Parkinson recommended and approved today were:
- Starting an ongoing customer satisfaction survey program June 1.
- Work with the construction industry and others on looking for improvements in department processes and regulations. The board is set to review a report on that Aug. 24.
- Accelerate work on a review of the affordable-housing impact fee charged on nonresidential projects. Supervisor Kelley today said that fee is “very high.” A report on that is set to be completed in July.
Pinnacle Homes President Craig Lawson, also part of a locally based Construction Coalition, said the biggest help for the industry came with the approved deferral of project impact fees, but reducing the largest increases for project processing fees by 50 percent was better than the full increases.
“No one wants to lose staff,” he said about the possible department layoffs.
The coalition has asked local governments to revisit their construction-related fee structures.
Meanwhile, County Administrator Veronica Ferguson said her staff will look into any possibilities of finding about $500,000 from the General Fund to prevent the four additional layoffs.
Copyright © 1988–2012 North Bay Business Journal
View the policy for linking to website content.
4 POSITIONS AT $500,000 SIGN ME UP FOR THIS GRAVY TRAIN. IF COUNTY EMPLOYEES HAD TO GET A REAL JOB THEY WOULD BE SURPRISED.THE GRAVY TRAIN IS OVER.
by BOBKUR
MR. KEARNS AND MRS. BROWN,
I RUN A LOCAL AUTO REPAIR SHOP AND HAVE SEEN 20-30% LOSS IN FLEET REPAIRS DURING THE PAST 18 MO. THIS IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE LACK OF WORK FOR LOCAL CONTRACTORS AND CARRPENTERS. I FEEL 4 OR 5 LOST JOBS IN A COUNY OFFICES IS MINIMAL COMPARED TO THE IMPACT OF ANY RAISE IN FEES OR TAXES WILL HAVE ON LOCAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WICH IS ALREADY AT A BREAKING POINT. I CANT IMAGINE ANY ONE THINKING ITS BETTER TO SAVE GOVERNMENT JOBS VERSUS SAVING PRIVATE JOBS.
I WISH SONOMA COUNTY VOTERS WOULD WAKE UP, I WISH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD WAKE UP. IF YOU WANT TO SPEED UP PROCESSING TIMES FOR PERMITS WHY DONT YOU REMOVE INTERNET ACCESS FROM YOU COMPUTER SYSTEMS. MAYBE LESS FACEBOOK AND MORE WORK WOULD SPEED UP THE PROCESS…… JUST A THOUGHT…
by NATE
NO “entry level” employees at PRMD make $100K+ a year, including any benefits, including incredibly overpriced health insurance Up 70% this year alone. You’re going to be luckiy to have any County employees.
As usual, numbers are being distorted and the CAO’s office is being stupid or misquoted. They’re already eliminating 27% of all positions. This would mean more. Thanks, PD for youir dimwit reporting.
I’m sure YOU don’t need code enforcement or development review or adequate supervision of building permits or well and septic permits. You can all just wait, and if anything bad happens next door, they’ll get to it as time permits.
And naturally, if you have the qualifications and experience to do one of these overpaid jobs, and deal with developers and the public, youi’re perfectly welcome to apply.
by bear
I dont like to see anyone lose their job but the reality is they have nothing to do anyway. The permit process has slowed even with less projects. The present system is just protecting their golden egg.
A good example is Windsor. They had minimal projects so they reassigned half their planners to, get this, the task of reducing greenhouse gasses in Windsor. You cant tell me that these planners are anyuway qualified to perfom their new task. Whats real is cities protecting jobs at taxpayers expence while the private sector scrapes and deals with reality. We have had to lay off staff and production jobs to stay in business. Gov, city, state and county jobs have been protected and are now overpaid in an economy that saw the private sector reset it’s wages. Try to renegotiate with them and listen to the biggest whiners you’ll ever hear.
Wake up, smell the coffee. The private sector cannot continue to carry a huge Gov, state, city or county. Theres not enough of us still working and contributeing.
Fee increases are a false solution.
by Keith