2002-2012: Home permit fees jumped

By Dawn Hodson
From page A1 | 13 Comments

Building in El Dorado County is not for sissies, especially given the time and expense involved.

And a sizeable portion of that cost is due to permit fees, regardless if the builder is planning a commercial center, residential development, or is just constructing one’s own home.

Comparing permit fees today with what they were 10 years ago gives some indication of the difference with the greatest dollar increase attributable to Traffic Impact Mitigation (TIM) fees.

Those fees were raised with passage of Measure Y, the 1998 ballot measure that required developers to pick up the full cost of mitigating the traffic impact of a development.

However, traffic mitigation fees are not the only ones that have gone up. Almost all permit fees have risen in the past 10 years while new ones have been added on. In combination, these fees make it increasingly difficult for the average person to afford a home.

Since the permit fees for commercial and planned developments can vary substantially, the example of the fees paid to build a single-family home is used to illustrate how much permit fees have risen in the past 10 years. In this particular case, the house is located in Rescue since school, fire, and TIM fees can vary by area.

According to the El Dorado County Building Services Department, in 2002 the total cost of building permits for a single-family home in Rescue would have been $14,725.

This total would include $1,261 in building fees; $14 for the SMIP fee (which pays for California’s earthquake monitoring program); $313 for the septic fee; $885 for the rare plant reserve fee; a $6,679 TIM fee; $1,100 in fees towards the fire district; $4,200 in school fees; and an encroachment fee of $273.

2012 costs

The current cost of permit fees to build a single-family home is 255 percent higher. Again using Rescue as the example, the building fee would be $3,727; SMIP fee of $35; septic fee of $899; grading fee of $435; rare plant reserve fee of $885; surveyor fee of $25; encroachment fee of $273; site plan review fee of $300; and a state imposed $15 Green Fee to “encourage greenness.”

Traffic impact mitigation (TIM), fire, and school fees in the county vary. TIM fees range from $13,330 to $35,740, depending upon where the dwelling is located given that there are eight different traffic zones in the county not including the Highway 50 corridor. In the case of Rescue, the TIM fees would be $35,740.

School fees also vary based on school district and the square footage of the dwelling. In most areas of the county, the rate is $2.97 a square foot. For an average 2,500-square-foot home the school fees would be $7,425. The fire fee is based on different factors including size of the home. For Rescue, it would be $2,525.

Adding the school, fire, and TIM fees to the other fees, the total cost in permits to build an average 2,500-square-foot home in Rescue would now come to $52,284.

So in 10 years, permit fees to build a single family home have increased by around 255 percent.

In addition to these fees, some areas of the county have other fees. For example, residents of El Dorado pay a safety zone fee of $215, communities with service districts pay a special assessment, and home builders in the Tahoe basin pay an additional fee depending upon what portion of their parcel is covered by structures. The cities of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe have their own fee structures.

Not included in the accompanying pie charts are water hookup charges. A 3/4 standard residential hookup costs between $16,539 to $17,093, depending on location.This does not include the actual time and material cost of the meter and its installation. If a road crossing is required to access a water main the cost of a bore is $3,000, according to the El Dorado Irrigation District.

The good news in all this is that some relief may be on the way.

According to El Dorado County Supervisor Ron Briggs, a reduction in TIM fees is in the works. This would be in addition to the 24 percent reduction in fees earlier this year and the 1 percent reduction last year. He said in the coming months, depending upon what is recommended, they expect to reduce TIM fees by another 25 to 30 percent.

“Measure Y drove the TIM fee increase,” he said. “The interpretation by the county created fees that were higher than they should have been.”

According to Briggs, many of the road capital improvement plans that the TIM fees were based on included a number of large interchanges and bridges, improvements which Briggs said would probably never be built.

Briggs said the county is currently conducting a traffic study that models traffic flow and road use. That along with the General Plan Update and population projections will help the county forecast uses, and hence TIM fees, more accurately.

“We’re ranking roads and doing traffic modeling to come up with more realistic plans for road improvements. These would then determine TIM fees,” said Briggs.

Reports should come out in October or November, said the supervisor, and will address many of these things. Building fees will also be revisited. ”They are sixth on our list.”

Briggs added that while builders and residents often focus too exclusively on county fees when they should also take their concerns to their school, fire, and community service districts regarding the fees they are charging for their capital improvement projects.

“Community groups complain about the same things. People need to pressure the schools and fire districts as well,” he said.

Contact Dawn Hodson at 530-344-5071 or dhodson@mtdemocrat.net. Follow @DHodsonMtDemo on Twitter.

Dawn Hodson

Dawn Hodson covers news and features.

View all my stories Email Me DHodsonMtDemo

Discussion | 13 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

NancySeptember 14, 2012 - 6:19 am
Personally, I have no problem with the fees. The higher the fees the less housing development we will see in this county. If the county becomes over populated as a result of development, wildlife, rural lands, and environment are impacted and the country will start looking like Sacramento. How is that "green"? So, in my opinion, go ahead and raise the fees some more.
Report abusive comment
Sean OSeptember 14, 2012 - 11:06 am
Pure and simple excess taxation. The taxes don't mirror the services provided. Nice thought process Nancy, overpopulate? Zoning ordinances determine housing density, not fees/taxes. You sound as green as "Oscar the Grouch".
Report abusive comment
paulsavageSeptember 14, 2012 - 2:52 pm
Should pretty well take care of any young families building their dream home in El Dorado County.
Report abusive comment
robertdnollSeptember 14, 2012 - 3:31 pm
we need lower fees to accommodate more people moving here because?
Report abusive comment
Bill C.September 14, 2012 - 7:27 pm
These fees are anything but green, they only encourage builders and families to construct the largest homes possible to recoup costs. ( Most fees are fixed regardless of home size ) The word that come to mind is greed, greed run amok. And selfishness of those who already own a home here and support this government overreach. More of " I got mine, forget you ". I guess you don't have children. How ARE our children going to afford to stay here when they will have to pay twice for one home? Growth could be easily controlled through zoning and preference for originating families. But nobody can get rich off of that. Too bad, this is a beautiful county with great people, but I will vote with my feet before I will build. My children too, I suspect. Greed run amok, and we vote them in, so we deserve it.
Report abusive comment
Nathan FoltzSeptember 14, 2012 - 8:21 pm
NANCY, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN EL DORADO COUNTY? DID YOU BUILD YOUR OWN HOME?
Report abusive comment
NancySeptember 15, 2012 - 2:05 am
Nathan, please turn off your caps. I lived in EDC a little over 10 years. No, I did not build my home nor would I. I moved here from San Jose and the last thing I want is EDC to look like the Bay Area. I believe it is important to keep the land rural, preserve our agriculture, farming and ranch land. Preserve and protect our wildlife and native landscaping. It is about containing crowding, noise pollution, traffic congestion, and keeping the small town community environment. I do agree with Bill C. though. I will vote with my feet if EDC begins to look like Sacramento and/or San Jose. I do believe it is greedy developers that will sell our rural lifestyle down the river to make EDC look like Sacramento if allowed to do so. For a big fat profit, of course. However, I do understand the points made about folks whom have lived here many years and would like to build their dream home. Perhaps some kind of fee exemption should be granted them, etc.
Report abusive comment
Chuck HollandSeptember 15, 2012 - 7:33 am
Nancy, your the poster child for "I got mine, the hell with the rest". One word describes you. Hypocrite. Just exactly where do have any room to complain about those that wish to build here? There are generations of kids here in EDC that cant afford to build their own home, even on family land. And people that have had to move away for work, or some that want to come here and be closer to their family etc. Then we get to hear from some of the transplants who move here and want to shut down development. Building fee's TIM fee's School and fire fee's need to be rolled back to a reasonable, affordable plateau so people can once again afford to exercise their property rights and build their own homes. Thank you Ron Briggs for recognizing this need. Nancy, whenever you decide to "vote with your feet" feel free to jump in your Prius, and pick up Robert Noll on your way out of EDC.
Report abusive comment
robertdnollSeptember 15, 2012 - 11:21 am
measure y passed,if people don't want to pay their share for services
Report abusive comment
NancySeptember 15, 2012 - 4:52 pm
Dear Chuck Holland, calm down. I am voicing my opinion. You can agree with or not. Name calling is rude, don't you think? And I would't drive a Prius if it was given to me. Nor would I ever put those ugly dang solar panels on my roof. ;)
Report abusive comment
Chuck HollandSeptember 15, 2012 - 8:55 pm
Nancy, I'm not so sure referring to you as a hypocrite is name calling? From your comments above, the term fits your actions. Your solar panel comment came out of left field, Is there a problem with capturing free solar energy from the sun? Sun light is one of the only things left we can capitalize on tax free. News flash, solar panels etc. are not an exclusive product of urban areas. Rural folks use them too. You may not drive a Prius, but would you mind picking up Robert Noll on your way back to San Jose?
Report abusive comment
robertdnollSeptember 16, 2012 - 3:32 am
measure y passed,if you won't pay for infrastructure
Report abusive comment
One size fits allSeptember 16, 2012 - 8:36 am
It appears that the BoS is trying to remedy a series of one size fits all fee problem. One single family home is not the same as a hundred single family homes. Even the instigators of Measure Y recognize that they went to far with their no growth agenda and fee structures. Of course, it took them a few years until they themselves wanted to do a project for them "to see the light"......
Report abusive comment