Watertown reduces building permit fee for Codington County detention facility; county projects expected to break ground this summer

The City of Watertown Council voted to accept a staff recommendation to collect $10,000 at permit issuance for the Codington County detention facility project, rather than charging the full commercial building-permit amount from the city's fee schedule.

Community Development Manager Hinton told the council the project valuation is roughly $30 million and that, under the city’s commercial fee schedule (including plan-review fees), the permit fee would have been about $140,000. "So what staff is presenting to council… would be that we would collect $10,000 at the time that the building permit is ready to be issued because staff feels confident that that will cover administrative costs for the staff's time," Hinton said. The recommendation was presented with the intent of maintaining an intergovernmental partnership and recovering at least the city’s hard administrative costs for plan review, inspections and certificate of completion work.

Commissioner Gable, representing Codington County at the meeting, said the project is a county responsibility but benefits the community. "By law, counties are the ones stuck building jails, but it's also a community project. And so, all the residents of Watertown are residents of the county. It just makes sense for our two government entities to work together," Gable said. He told the council the project is in design development and said soil borings were scheduled; if the schedule holds the county hopes to break ground in July and anticipates about a two-year build.

Sheriff Brad Howell had previously presented to the city and county on the project; Hinton said staff and the county had discussed the recommendation and that the county commission was agreeable to the $10,000 approach, with the county formalizing its own internal approval when it pays project expenses.

Councilman Tupper and others supported the reduction, citing intergovernmental cooperation. The motion to grant the reduced fee was made by Councilman Bealer and seconded by Councilman Tupper; the motion carried by voice vote. City staff will collect the $10,000 at permit issuance and track inspection and plan-review hours for administrative accounting.

Why it matters: The reduced fee lowers upfront city revenue associated with permit issuance for the project but was framed by staff and the county as a cooperative approach to support construction of a facility that serves both county and city residents. Hinton explained the $10,000 figure is intended to cover the city’s administrative costs rather than the full fee derived from typical commercial valuations.

Next steps: Community Development will collect the $10,000 when the permit is issued and track staff time and inspection costs; the county intends to continue design development and expects to begin construction if the schedule holds.