Hold a public hearing, adopt the 2025-26 Master Fee Resolution, and approve changes to the Yolo County Master Fee Schedule for the Assessor/Clerk Recorder/Elections (ACE), Agriculture, Community Services, General Services, and Sheriff departments. (General fund revenue impact: $101,910) (Haynes/Thao) (Est. Staff Presentation: 10 min)

This item presents the proposed update to the Master Fee Resolution for FY 2025-26, incorporating fee changes for the Assessor/Clerk Recorder/Elections (ACE), Agriculture, Community Services, General Services, and Sheriff departments.  The Master Fee Resolution, first adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1991, includes an estimated 1,350 fees and charges for services provided by County departments.  The use of a single resolution and integrated fee schedule provides for a systematic review of County fees and allows for necessary adjustments to reflect changing service delivery costs.  The Master Fee Schedule was last updated on June 24, 2025.  The sections below describe in further detail the proposed fee changes in the 2025-26 Master Fee Resolution. 

Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Elections (ACE)
The Clerk-Recorder branch of ACE is proposing 15 fee increases for the December 2025 Master Fee update. Four (4) of these fees are set by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and are updated annually in compliance with Fish and Game Code section 711.4. The other 11 fee changes are a result of California Assembly Bill 64 which was signed into law in October 2025. This bill increases the fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code 103625(f) by $2. The proposed fee increases result in additional revenues of approximately $32,000.  These revenues will not result in a potential reduction of General Fund support to the department, as they are all deposited into restricted accounts.

The proposed changes are documented below:

In addition to the fee updates, staff from ACE have worked with DFS and IT to update the order in which the ACE fees are displayed on the Master Fee Schedule. Previously, ACE fees were split between two different sections on the Master Fee document and not all ACE fees were displayed in the “Assessor, Clerk-Recorder & Elections” department category. After the update, all ACE fees show up together under the “Assessor, Clerk-Recorder & Elections” department category, with a label for each branch. This update will improve the readability of the Master Fee document for the public and decrease complications for the department when processing future fee updates.

Agriculture
In response to rising operational costs affecting the General Fund, and to align with Business and Professions Code 12240 (f), the Agriculture Department is proposing an increase to the commercial device registration “location” fee which currently makes up one-third of the total registration costs for local businesses.  Each year owners of commercial weighing and measuring devices must register those devices with the department for a fee which helps the department recover the cost of inspecting and testing the devices to assure consumers are being charged accurately for goods purchased and to help ensure an equitable marketplace for everyone.  Business and Professions Code 12240 (f) allows for the local Sealer to collect those fees and, under subparts of the statute, set a maximum fee limit for commercial devices including the location fee.  The statue allows a business location fee not to exceed $120.00/location, however, the current fee is set at $85.00/location.  It should be noted that while this represents a 41% increase, these fees are set by statute and will likely never allow the department to fully recover its costs, therefore requiring continued General Fund support. The increase in revenue to the department is expected to be approximately $19,040 annually and the fees won’t take effect until January of 2026.  These revenues were not included in the department’s Adopted Budget.

In addition, with approval from the Board of Supervisors to eliminate the Organic Certification program, the department is proposing to eliminate all 45 fees associated with the program in the current Master Fee Schedule.

Community Services
Planning & Public Works
In 2021, the Department of Community Services engaged Wohlford Consulting, a fee consultant, to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred in support of the Planning and Engineering services for which the County charges user fees. To ensure accuracy and establish a clear nexus between the cost of services and the fees, the study required a detailed analysis of time required for staff to provide each component of service delivery. The fee revisions submitted for the December 2025 Master Fee update is the Year 5 implementation, which is the final implementation for this fee study.

Most of the Planning fee increases are for deposit-based fees. While these increases raise the initial deposit required from customers, applicants will continue to pay the full cost of the application or permit regardless of the deposit amount. A total of 26 fee increases are proposed, as detailed in the table below:
 

Additionally, Planning is proposing increases to three flat fees: Planning Commission Appeals (PD/ZA/PC), Administrative Site Plan Review, and Major Building Permit Review. Although these fees do not fully recover costs based on the 2021 Fee Study, the proposed 5%-10% increases are intended to account for capturing staff time while affording the public a reasonable opportunity to appeal decisions and obtain ministerial permits that may otherwise be too costly.

Finally, the Planning and Code Enforcement late fees have been revised for clarity. Previously labeled “31–60 days overdue” at 10%, the fee is now labeled “Late Fee” and assessed at 10% of open balances 60 days past due.

Public Works had only two fees remaining that had not yet achieved full cost recovery. The Project Pre-Application Review Fee and the Project Review, Major Fee have been increased to move closer to full cost recovery. Both fees are structured as deposits, and customers will continue to pay the full cost of services regardless of the initial deposit amount.

Additionally, Public Works is proposing a change to the Lot Line Adjustment Fee, converting it from a flat fee to a deposit-based fee. This adjustment reflects the additional time the division has been spending on these applications beyond original expectations. The initial deposit for the Lot Line Adjustment Fee will remain $217.

Building
The Building Division has updated one fee and added a new fee related to seismic hazard mapping to align with the State schedule based on project valuation. Previously, the State fee, as reflected on the Yolo County Master Fee Schedule, was calculated “per $100,000 of valuation.” The revised approach sets the fee as a fixed rate multiplied by the project valuation, with rates differentiated for residential projects (1–3 stories) and commercial projects (over 3 stories).

Animal Services
Animal Services updated their fees in June 2025 following a comprehensive review as part of the County’s fee study. For the December 2025 update, no fee amounts are changing. However, several administrative updates have been made, including corrections to fee titles—for example, “Large Animal (Livestock), each impound” has been updated to “Livestock” under the Animal Redemption Fees sub-label—and adjustments to sub-labels to improve organization and clarity for the public.

Environmental Health Services Division
The Environmental Health Division (EHD) engaged Wohlford Consulting, a fee consultant, to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred by the County in support of the Consumer Protection, Hazardous Materials and Land Use services for which the County charges user fees. In order to ensure accuracy and establish a clear nexus between the cost of services and the fees, the study required a detailed analysis of time required for staff to provide each component of service delivery. The detailed unit cost analysis revealed a need to increase almost all EHD fees to achieve full cost recovery.

Since last year, EHD’s budget expenses have risen approximately 10%. This increase is due to an increase in costs such as employee costs due to the recent salary increases to 100% of market average, Cost of Living Allowances (COLA), “Other Post-Employment Benefits” (OPEB) and insurance costs. 

EHD estimates $300,000 in additional fee revenue per fiscal year  should the proposed fee increases be approved. The revenue generated will be used to sustain minimal mandated services and reduce reliance on the County’s general fund and special non-fee funds.  The department has budgeted an anticipated revenue increase of $100,000 in the current fiscal year in anticipation of approval of these adjustments.

Reasonable efforts have been made to reduce or retain costs within the Division, including using special non-fee funds from fines and penalties as applicable.  Also, additional revenues have been secured with contract services and grants.

Because Yolo County is committed to creating an environment where businesses can succeed, small incremental increases in fees are favored over large increases when it is determined the fees are below the full cost of service. Therefore, for those fees increasing in accordance with a multi-year fee increase plan, where full cost was determined to be greater than 10% as compared to the current fee, the proposed fee was capped at 10% or $50.00 (if the fee increase is less than $50) which represents a reasonable incremental increase.  Although the current year’s budget will be balanced if the fees being requested are approved, it is important to note that in order to reach a point of full cost recovery proposed fees that are still less than the full cost of service will require fee increases in the future.  For the current fiscal year, a combination of salary savings, available grant funds, a small amount of general fund and, where appropriate, use of fines and penalty funds are being used to offset the anticipated shortfall of revenue associated with not being able to cover the full cost recovery of fees.

The division is also requesting to apply the Technology Cost Recovery Fee to all 19 of the Land-Use Review fees since the fee is collected through Building division’s system. The Land-Use program is not fully supported by fee revenue and relies heavily on General Fund contributions. With the proposed Technology fee applied, it will offset the costs of using the Building division’s system where Environmental Health staff submits their reviews.  

Public Drinking Water Fees
The Public Drinking Water Program inspects and monitors public drinking water systems that have fewer than 200 connections. These systems typically serve small communities or businesses in the unincorporated area of the county. The drinking water standards require that the quality of the water provided to customers meets minimum chemical, radiological and bacteriological standards, assuring the water is safe to drink. In 2014 EHD changed the fee structure for this program. The 2014 fee revisions represented a cap of no more than 10% fee increase for any one system.  However, it is important to note that many of these fees were significantly lower than full cost. Continued incremental increases will be required for many years in order to reach full cost recovery for this program. To help offset this revenue shortfall, the division utilizes cost savings and general fund support. Attachment C provides a listing of proposed Environmental Health fees that are currently below full cost and the increase that would be required to achieve full cost recovery. 

Hazardous Materials Fees
Most of the Hazardous Materials fees in the program do not currently cover the full cost of the program. To balance the budget for this program EHD has utilized funds from a restricted account which is funded by fines and penalties.  This account is restricted in that per State regulations it can only be used for Hazardous Materials Unit related costs. Due to concerns that this restricted fund will not be able to support this for much longer, those fees that are lower than full cost are proposed to be increased.  As discussed above the increases are incremental to minimize the impact to businesses.  As with the Public Drinking Water Fees, some of these fees will require many years to reach full cost recovery for this program. 

Food Program Permit Categories
Environmental Health will be implementing a new approach to permitting retail food establishments. This approach is based on several factors, including the number of seats (or, in some cases, the square footage of the establishment) and a risk categorization determined by the type of food processing occurring at the facility.

To continue advancing the regulatory retail food inspection program and reduce the risk of foodborne illness in Yolo County, Environmental Health is adopting a risk-based inspection approach. This model—used by many environmental health jurisdictions across California and the U.S.—focuses inspection frequency on facilities with higher potential for risk factor violations, such as improper cooking temperatures or food handling practices. Facilities with less complex food operations and lower associated risks would be inspected less frequently. The goal is to better identify and mitigate the factors that can contribute to foodborne illness or injury.

As a result, most of the previously used permit categories will be deleted from Master Fee and Environmental Health is proposing to add 52 new food program permit categories that better meet the needs of the operators.  Some operators will see a reduction in their annual permit fee where others may see an increase. For example, a small restaurant that was previously categorized as a restaurant less than 650 sq ft with a permit fee of $801.00 would now be permitted as a restaurant 0-25 seats with a risk category 1 ($500), 2 ($807), or 3 ($921) depending on their food service. 

Environmental Health staff have hosted a meeting for the food program operators regarding this new permit structure, sent out an email notifying all the food facilities, and posted information on the division’s website. 

County Service Area (CSA)
The department is proposing to remove the CSA hourly rate, as all CSA costs are now billed directly and no longer require an hourly rate.
 

General Services
In the Parks division, the department is proposing to formally add 13 fees that are currently being charged at Tuli Mem Pool to the Master Fee Schedule under Aquatic Fees category to ensure consistency and transparency. No additional revenues anticipated.

One of the rental fees, “Both Pools Rental Fee,” has been adjusted to 2 hours instead of 1 to align with the current practice at Tuli Mem Pool, which charges for a 2-hour rental of both pools at a price of $300. Similarly, “Ball Field Permit-No Preparation” has been updated to 2 hours to reflect the existing rate for reserving a baseball filed with no preparation for a 2-hour period.

In addition, the “Ball Field Lights & Maintenance” fee is proposed to be deleted as the department has determined that there are no designated field lights specific to the baseball field. 

Sheriff
The Sheriff’s Office is requesting to increase the Failure to Pay Parking Fees from $40.00 to $50.00 per occurrence as an incentive for individuals to pay for a parking permit where required.  The $50.00 per occurrence has been discussed with DFS staff and is in line with similar fees from surrounding agencies. A revenue increase of $2,500 is anticipated.  These revenues were not included in the Sheriff’s FY2025-26 Adopted Budget.

The Sheriff’s Office is also requesting to update 10 fee titles under Public Administrator fees. These changes are being made to clarify and correct the probate process language. Due to the changes affecting only the verbiage, no increase in revenue is anticipated.

Proposed fee changes were developed and submitted by the requesting departments. Fees were reviewed by the Department of Financial Services and County Counsel's Office.