Woodside's out-of-date construction fees may rise significantly


Although it is town policy in Woodside to recover most of the cost of town staff's involvement in construction and remodeling projects, a recent report indicates that has not been happening. The Town Council is now looking at fee adjustments to conform with the recovery policy -- changes that could lead fees to rise as much as 300 percent.

The council is expected to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 13, and may have a new fee structure in place by the start of the 2010-11 budget year on July 1.

Financial management policy No. 4, on Page ii of the town budget, states that development services -- planning and building services performed by Town Hall staff -- "should be self-supporting, including appropriate overhead costs."

But Woodside has been subsidizing development-services costs. In the 2008-09 budget year, for example, the town paid out $447,600 for planning services and $239,200 for building services, according to an analysis presented to the council on March 23 by San Jose-based Management Partners Corp.

Woodside's fee structure is out of date, said Management Partners analyst Lynn Dantzker, whose report says the fees were last changed 14 years ago and are now much lower than in neighboring towns. For example, a Woodside resident pays about $2,200 for a building permit for a new two-story home, versus $8,300 in Portola Valley, $9,000 in Hillsborough, and $12,400 in Los Altos Hills.

"Most municipalities are not too interested in subsidizing services," Ms. Dantzker told the council.

As for the residents, she said, they tend to want answers to three questions: What do I owe, when will I get the go-ahead, and what is my path to success?

In determining individual project fees, Ms. Dantzker recommended that the town adopt an across-the-board use of a project's total value rather than its square footage. The current system uses valuation for alterations and remodels, but square footage for new construction and additions.

Under the proposed fee schedule, that $2,200 building permit would rise to around $8,900, an increase of about 300 percent.

Not all projects would see that kind of bump. The estimated cost of a permit for a new four-car garage, for example, would go to $1,880 from the current $1,540.

The cost for checking the plans of a residential project should be 85 percent of the cost of the building permit, up from the current 75 percent, while a commercial project should increase to 100 percent from the current 75 percent, Ms. Dantzker said.

The analysis includes a building-permit-valuation table with proposed fees as well as automatic minimums that would kick in if the valuation, as reported, is lower than a set cost per square foot. The town's building official could reset a valuation for a new home to a minimum of $250 per square foot, for example, if the reported valuation worked out to be less than that.

"I don't think we have a good track record of knowing what a project really costs, (but) new construction is definitely more than $250 per square foot," said Councilman Peter Mason, an architect.

Councilman Dave Tanner, a builder, mentioned situations in which a client may claim it's a $3 million project, "and I know they spent $25 million."

Go to this link and turn to Page 54 for more on the valuation table.

For the next round of discussions, the council's requests of staff include sample projects under current and new fee structures; more on Woodside's rates as compared with other communities; and an estimate of how many residents per year might feel the impact of higher fees.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by R.GORDON
a resident of another community
on Apr 10, 2010 at 8:24 am

R.GORDON is a registered user.

The amount of money saved by illegal building with or sans building permits in Woodside and from Woodside residents with properties they have built within the SAN MATEO COUNTY borders, could have paid for the tunnelling of the HSR.
To blame? The building department who have made deals without permits or phony permits like a swimming pool, spa, or roof. THEN, a complete house is built from scratch without any question.
What is the motive for permitting this? You tell me and everyone else.
Money and contributions for ambitious county workers is a start.
I do predict there are going to be major I.R.S."busts" that will make national headlines.REASON: most of the parties culpable are miullionaires, building contractors and unhappy workers who have reported loss of wages for the hiring of illegals along with blatant proof of some of the building, equipment and length of time that construction has gone on, with usually nosey citizens, looking the other way, just like the building and coastal commissions.
Now, who is looking to move up in politics?

Like this comment
Posted by EyeWitness
a resident of another community
on Aug 21, 2010 at 9:13 am

Former supevisor served for a long time and is leaving to run for Assemblyman.
Before he runs, is there a way to check his record and that of all Supervisors to see the amount of construction they okayed?
I looked at public records, and saw a TON of missing building permits which never were filed but definite construction, additions and new structures were somehow ignored.
Lots of photos and proof of misdeeds by the very rich done by neighbors who were not as rich. Corruption on a monied plain.

Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on May 28, 2017 at 7:05 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Peek inside the fine-dining Selby's, opening in Redwood City this summer
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 4,571 views

If you do nothing else, do These Three Things
By Sherry Listgarten | 16 comments | 1,588 views

Homestead Faire at Hidden Villa 4/27
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 1,302 views

Premarital and Couples: "You're Not Listening to Me!" may mean "I don't feel heard."
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,198 views

Finding Balance
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 140 views


The Almanac Readers' Choice ballot is here

It's time to decide what local business is worthy of the title "The Almanac Readers' Choice" — and you get to decide! Cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 27th. Stay tuned for the results in the July 17th issue of The Almanac.