Yesterday morning I attended a special Finance Committee meeting. “Special” meaning, off-schedule, called for some sort of immediate action. What was this special emergency? They wanted to raise builder fees.
The meeting only lasted about 20 minutes, including the Finance Director’s report. There was very little discussion, no questions from the committee, and only one comment from the public. The committee voted unanimously to accept staff’s (Mark Sorensen’s) suggestion to raise fees across the board, even though, as Sean Morgan observed (check this with notes) “these are some pretty significant changes... “
No kidding – a $9,000 increase in the fee for getting your subdivision past environmental review – about double the old fee. And, the fire department is adding NEW fees – almost $1,000 in permit fees for a fire hydrant – what is this, Gangs of New York?
The lone public comment came from Chico Chamber of Commerce CEO Katy Thoma, who said she was representing the Builder’s Exchange. She correctly pointed out to the committee the relationship between builder fees and home prices. She asked that the committee recommend delaying the increase until a new NEXUS (impact fees) study could been performed.
According to The Turner Center for Housing, “ Impact fee nexus studies should clearly identify the level of service currently provided by a city, and estimate the cost needed to keep that service at the same level after new housing is added.“
Improving Impact Fees in California: Rethinking the Nexus Studies Requirements
Let me have a little laugh here – the Builder’s Exchange fairly well ran the Measure H campaign, and I’m guessing they thought they were going to get a break when it came to the fees, if they helped shoe-horn that measure up our collective patoot. Ha Ha Brandon, I guess you should be more careful who you get in bed with.
City staff do the NEXUS study in their own best interest, despite their hollow claims of providing more “affordable housing”. They look at development as their major cash cow, include all their salaries and benefits, including their pension deficit, as “costs”.
Looking at the finance report provided at the meeting, you see, through March 31, the city “Streets” fund, for example, has received $3,136,848.56 from state gas tax revenues, $2,235,970.49 already spent on salaries and benefits. Only $223,656.96 has gone to “Materials & Supplies” – over $6,000 of which went for “postage/mailing, books/periodicals/software, clothing/uniforms…” Leaving less than $220,000 for materials like aggregate, asphalt, and road crack filler, and other stuff they actually need to fix and maintain our roads. So you see, “impact fees” are largely paying for administrators, including Sorensen – not street maintenance.
Here’s that link: https://chico.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/4.19.23_finance_committee_agenda_packet_-_special.pdf?1681494097
In this way they add their incredibly generous salaries, benefits, and pension costs (+ interest) to the cost of the average home.
After Thoma sat down, City manager Sorensen responded that these fee increases are based on the “current” study, but didn’t say when that study had been done. The most recent study I could find was from 2018 – http://www.chicobuilders.org/news/nexus-program/
Then the committee quickly dismissed Thoma’s concerns without discussion and unanimously agreed to forward the fee increases to council.
I’ll add here that on the previous night, amid a lot of shouting and bullying and bally-hooing over Valley’s Edge, council quickly and quietly approved an new management salary of $185,000 (a $40,000 increase from management salaries of two years ago) and agreed that this new employee would only pay 9% of his pension cost.