Holding a press conference on May 14, 2024 in front of Sacramento City Hall urging residents take action to stop two inequitable and dramatic fee hikes proposed by the city, on top of existing unusual regulations, all targeting the smallest of small businesses.

Please, if you live in the City of Sacramento, immediately call and/or email your councilmember (using this look-up tool if needed) and ideally the mayor as well, preferably by close of business tomorrow, Friday, May 17, urging them to:

• Reject the two proposed dramatic and inequitable fee hikes on the smallest of small businesses (in this case home businesses or “home occupations”) (fee hikes #175 and #176); and
• Instead fast-track the promised and sorely needed home occupation regulation reforms.

I am urging all city residents to again stand with the smallest of small businesses, as so many did by voting against Measure C (which I opposed and helped defeat because it too was unfair to the smallest businesses), by calling or emailing your councilmembers (and ideally the mayor as well), preferably by tomorrow, Friday, May 17—although outreach on Monday, May 20 would also be useful, as would speaking at or even e-commenting before or during this Tuesday’s 5 PM City Council meeting, where a critical, related vote will be taken (especially since I will not be able to speak at this one).

For more information, see the press release that went out this morning (version with corrected handout link below), covering this week’s press conference (to dig in even deeper, click on the handout link below, and then the letter links within that handout).

In any event, thank you for standing for equity and fairness alongside the smallest of small businesses!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  * Video Links Below *
May 15, 2024
Contact: Tiffany Clark 916-692-5393; tiffany@tiffanyclarklaw.com

FOLO: Attorney Who Helped Defeat the City of Sacramento’s Measure C Urges Residents to Again Stand with ‘The Smallest of Small Businesses’ Against New ‘Unfair’ City Proposals

SACRAMENTO, CA – At a press conference at Sacramento City Hall Tuesday, Sacramento attorney Tiffany Clark, who helped defeat the city’s Measure C, said she was “sounding the alarm again,” this time about two “dramatic and inequitable” proposed fee hikes (one to $5,265) that would again be “unfair to the smallest businesses,” urging residents to again take action.

Clark, an independent advocate for policies that support families and small businesses, was flanked by three others who would be affected by the city’s proposed home business or “home occupation” fee hikes. All four spoke at both the press conference and later that day at the 2PM City Council meeting (three spoke there, starting at 13:50) and the 5PM City Council meeting (where all spoke, but were not recorded).

At the press conference the attorney also provided a handout (this version has all internal links working), and has now made available videos of her press conference presentation, a conference soundbite and the entire conference—all about fee hikes #175/#176, part of the FY 24/25 budget, hopefully to be amended at the May 21 council meeting, before the budget is put to a final vote on June 11.

Clark focused at the conference on the inequity of one fee hike in particular, that would increase “to over $5,200, when over 43% of US home businesses make $10,000 or less in annual gross receipts” and when “home businesses are more likely than other small businesses to be owned by women, racial and ethnic minorities, and members of otherwise historically disadvantaged groups, which in turn makes them less likely to succeed at obtaining outside business financing.”

“On top of that,” Clark noted, “home businesses in this city are grappling with unusually and inexplicably burdensome home occupation regulations,” and, she continued, “while reform is promised by the 2040 General Plan, the commitment is to merely ‘evaluate’ potential reform options by as late as 2029, and in the meanwhile, with these two fee increases, ask folks to pay over $5,200 to request exceptions to the rules that the city already acknowledges are broken.”

“For all of these reasons,” the attorney explained, “We urge residents to call on their councilmembers to reject the two fee increases, and instead frontload the needed reforms” that the city has promised, at LUP-A.11 of the 2040 General Plan.

Clark followed up her call to action by elaborating on those “needed reforms,” noting that “most cities regulate home businesses that [could] cause nuisances—we’re talking about traditional, brick-and-mortar businesses that are essentially run from home.”

“So, there are limits set on how many visitors come to and from’ the businesses—commercial vehicles, things like that, things that would cause a disruption,” in order take make sure that all of a dwelling’s home businesses of this type, combined, “are ‘indiscernible,’ as they say, ‘from normal and usual residential activity—which is great,” she said, adding, “We all want that—and the City of Sacramento has those regulations.’

“Unfortunately, on top of that,” the attorney explained, the “City of Sacramento takes it to a whole other level and regulates businesses that are very, very common now, since the Covid-19 pandemic especially, that have, by definition, no discernible impacts, in fact they reduce impacts on the neighborhood, because they generate often less traffic than a single commuting adult would.”

“So, there’s not even a need to apply those limits, of number of visitors and commercial vehicles and such,” she continued, “There’s really not even a need to regulate them—and in most cities they are not regulated—but in Sacramento we regulate them.”

That means, she explained, they are required to pay a home occupation permit fee, which would be increased “over 50%” to $254 with the other fee hike. In addition, Clark said, even “indiscernible” home businesses would be subject to “a series of extremely unusual, completely unnecessary regulations,” which may mean they cannot even operate at all.

Referring to City Code § 17.228.200 et seq, Clark said those “unusual” regulations include a limit of two home businesses per dwelling—however “indiscernible” each might be—involving at most three residents, sharing only one of the household’s “otherwise permitted, ordinary household vehicles,” and 10% of the home’s square footage—”regardless of the size of the dwelling.”

The attorney then went on to illustrate the negative impacts of those regulations and the proposed fee hikes, citing examples from her own family, who also spoke directly about their plight.

Because she and their eldest adult son, Keegan Clark, already have “indiscernible” home occupations, she explained, others in their family cannot operate their own, referring to her husband, Patrick Clark—who she said has spent nearly $15,000 paying for a “virtual office” for his consulting practice, based on earlier city advice—and their youngest son, Elliot Clark.

As Elliot Clark explained, “I’ve been wanting to have my own game development business since I was 13 years old,” which would have “no impact whatsoever,” but he cannot, he said, even though it would just involve “working on my own on the computer, collaborating with other people online.”

Patrick Clark said, “My business is a consulting practice, where I basically do everything at my computer, and/or at the client’s place of work. I don’t have any traffic, no visitors, in 14 years, to the home.” At the 5 PM council meeting, given his experience consulting with client cities, he also highlighted the importance of home businesses for economic development,

Keegan Clark, spoke as well, noting at the conference that he works “entirely on [his] computer,” in a way that “doesn’t impact the neighborhood at all,” and concluding, as they all did, by urging residents to call on their councilmembers to reject the two fee increases, and frontload reforms.

After attending and speaking at the council meetings that followed, Clark stated, speaking directly to residents, “The time to call your councilmembers is now, before they finalize amendments at this coming Tuesday, May 21 council meeting.”

“Although we did receive some encouraging signs from council after speaking at the 2 PM council meeting,” she explained, “We can’t afford to take any chances. So, we implore fellow residents to stand up again for equity and fairness with the smallest of businesses, just as they did by voting against Measure C, by calling on them to reject the fee hikes and fast-track reforms.”

Note: July 14, 2024 edited to add link to fee hikes in first bullet text.