Jump in building fees? Council seeks more data


This is an expanded version of a story previously posted.

By Dave Boyce

Almanac Staff Writer

If the length of a discussion indicates its seriousness, the question of how many thousands of dollars in fees Woodside property owners should pay to reimburse the town for staff time spent on building and remodeling projects is a serious matter.

The Town Council discussed the topic at length at its March 23 meeting, requested more data from staff, and talked about it again on April 13. After raising more questions than answers, the council formed a three-person committee to continue looking into it before bringing it back for more discussion and, eventually, a public hearing.

A recent report indicates that, contrary to the town's policy, the town is not recovering specified staff costs, a situation that could lead to some fees rising dramatically, perhaps as much as 300 percent.

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Woodside's fee structure is out of date, said Management Partners analyst Lynn Dantzker, whose report says the fees were last changed 14 years ago and are now much lower than in neighboring towns.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.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by R.Gordon
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2010 at 12:56 pm

In my opinion, this is very late in coming.
I would like to know who it is who is or has managed Woodside and all related areas in the building departments which include the staff of the departments in which the Supervisor has alocated permits for the past ten years and compare figures to the proposed new hikes.
It is obvious how much higher the income level is for this (zone) which includes a large portion of San Mateo County as well.
To me, it should be mandatory that those elected to local posts, such as Supervisors be investigated to find why such low costs for the same work came out of the same offices.
I have seen such an incredible amount of illegal building without permits and sent proof to many sources including Sacramento and even news services who, for the most part, have taken their time while giant banking frauds dominated their interests.
Money rules the banking industry who are finally having to explain illegal profiteering tied to local levels of cities and those elected into offices which control pricing. At this time, there is not much construction expected to fluorish, but, this issue of how Woodside, home of some of the richest inhabitants of San Mateo County, have gotten the best and cheapest construction rates than their neighbors.
I do believe the process of uncovering any corruption in our building departments should be revealed and those responsible for "favors" or "looking the other way", should be held accountable for the vast amounts of monies which never had to be paid to the County and could paid huge debts.Follow the money trail of those who paid to get these people elected.

Like this comment
Posted by code blue
a resident of Atherton: other
on Apr 26, 2010 at 1:55 pm

Mr. Gordon--Atherton can help you with this as we have are a nice tight, and well documented ( but hidden) example of this corruption model. Our previous finance director and and many ex planning commissioners have plenty to offer your cause. There are many of your neighbors that would like to see this pursued and exposed--Thankyou.

Like this comment
Posted by Susan Smith
a resident of Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda
on Apr 28, 2010 at 5:57 am

It would be nice if the County could examine other cities and see if they are doing appropriate service to the unincorporated sections of San mateo county: Particularly in COMPLIANCE....which is dramatically lacking.

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.

Verve Coffee to start brewing in Palo Alto this Friday
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 2,152 views

Premarital and Couples: Musings on Life
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,442 views

Why we are Warming
By Sherry Listgarten | 25 comments | 1,246 views

Cap On? Cap Off? The Cities Respond
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,096 views

The summer bucket list
By Cheryl Bac | 3 comments | 841 views