California Licensing Fees Increased to $1,030 Every Two Years

[RCA]

I don't think the fee increase will be a deal breaker for the full-timers. It might be the last straw for some of the people who are just holding a license or are just dabbling in the business as a side gig.

Based on the methodology I've been using - which is apparently returning ~140 more licensees than what the state is saying - the number of all licensees has declined by 363 heads in the last 12 months. About 3.5% of the total.

Ah yes, that is true. But, there are a lot of old timers, baby boomers, who are going to retire or semi-retire in the coming years. They don't have to renew in California. Idaho has reciprocal licensing and that will cost $310/year for a Certified General Appraiser: https://secure.ibol.idaho.gov/eIBOLPublic/BoardFees.aspx?Bureau=REA&BureauLinkID=120.

Washington's fee for reciprocal licensing is the same, but must be for two years or $620.

This year I paid $640 for renewal in California and it will jump up to $1,030/2 years or $515/year in 2021. So, I could save about $400 on renewal by switching to Washington or Idaho. And, that may very well be the case. I would venture to guess that the California BREA risks loosing a considerable chunk of income over the coming several years. If your 3.5% is correct, then maybe they need to plan for a decrease in revenue of $160,000-$180,000/year +/- over the coming 5-10 years from license terminations. Of course, that is no likely more than compensated by the increased fee on existing and new licensees.

So, end result:

1. Yes they will increase revenue. Probably something on the order of 40-50%.
2. Appraisers will have to increase fees; but, there is more than enough leeway to do that.

So, it's mostly a good thing. It's a bad thing for semi-retired appraisers, who don't plan on doing more than $30,000/year of revenue (per the AI definition of semi-retired), although if they are really not doing appraisals and just want to keep their license - they can switch to Washington or Idaho and in the worst case get a temporary for California. Heck, why not retire in Idaho anyway?

 

[George Hatch]

Sooner or later a decrease in the appraiser/assignment ratio will probably result in fee increases.

But probably not for the CGs. Our number is only down by 45 heads when compared to last year. A decrease of less than 2%.

It's the residential appraiser licensing that's in more rapid decline. Counting the "active" status SLs and CRs the number is 6307 today vs 6650 in 10/2018, a 5+% drop. That's still a little higher than the 5995 I counted in 04/2001.

 

[ucbruin]

"2. Appraisers will have to increase fees; but, there is more than enough leeway to do that."

If raising fees were so easy....
Why are so many folks saying today's fees are the same as they were 20-30 years....

 

[RCA]

"2. Appraisers will have to increase fees; but, there is more than enough leeway to do that."

If raising fees were so easy....
Why are so many folks saying today's fees are the same as they were 20-30 years....

It's easy to raise your fees. - As long as you have backup work, like a second or third occupation.

You just need to set a minimum fee and stick with it, come hell or high water.

If you really want work though, you shouldn't set it too high; but, in that case, follow the practice of raising it whenever the market picks up.

 

[gregb]

What could be negative about reducing the number of CA appraisers, so long as I am exempted?

 

[CCAAMO]

If a $200 a year increase is enough for an appraiser to no renew, then they were going out of business anyway. I would gladly pay $5,000 a year if it cut the number of appraisers in my in half.

 

[ucbruin]

"It's easy to raise your fees. - As long as you have backup work, like a second or third occupation."

If this is the case....
Then make appraising #3....

 

[RCA]

If a $200 a year increase is enough for an appraiser to no renew, then they were going out of business anyway. I would gladly pay $5,000 a year if it cut the number of appraisers in my in half.

IF the fee were increased to $5000/year, with respect to residential appraisers:

1. The highly efficient, skim daddle doo the least amount acceptable, would remain standing after all others leave. The better appraisers, those doing higher quality appraisals that take more time and are less profitable, would likely disappear.

2. Otherwise, it would depend on what BREA does with all that extra money. Like, increase salaries for the management and office staff, or hire more qualified appraisers to do reviews. More stringent reviewing could be good or bad, depending. The board tends to obsess with items of tertiary importance, like following GSE guidelines to the letter, using ultra exact zoning codes even where it is kind of immaterial, while overlooking more important issues and so on an so forth. They get caught in the tunnel of regulations, losing sight of the purpose of it all, IMO.

If the BREA has laid off staff in the past several years, reduced costs overall, and are now increasing their revenue by 35%+, it does make one wonder if something different is in the works. One possibility is increasing their ability to handle new technology both on the commercial and residential side. - However, I doubt it. Inertial rules in appraisal.

 

[gregb]

No reason to speculate if one can read (between the lines too).

http://brea.ca.gov/pdf/BREALicFeeIncArticle111319.pdf

 

[CCAAMO]

There are plenty of good appraisers on this site who have been in business for decades, the feat and famine, while may part timers, trainees, etc have come and gone so Bert i think your wrong. Over the decades the cycle have increased and when it slows down, the ones work for 1/2 of 1/2 of a fee can not stay in business. I think at this point, in So Cal, the number of appraiser's is about twice as high as it should be