Mr. Clemons, the county’s building inspections presenter, told the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors that the department performs about 110,000 inspections a year and processed nearly $974,000,000 in commercial construction value in 2024.

The update outlined how the division has moved permitting and plan review online, staffed inspections with real‑time reporting tools, maintained a largely self‑funding fee structure, and used a blight‑abatement process to acquire and rehabilitate a small number of deeply distressed properties into affordable housing.

Clemons said, “We do about a 110,000 inspections a year.” He described a largely digitized workflow: customers can apply and upload plans electronically; staff review using Digiplan and an Accela permitting platform; and inspectors in the field use mobile devices to enter results immediately so customers can see inspection outcomes in their portal.

Staffing and workload metrics were a central focus. Clemons reported a staff size of 69 in the building inspections office (16 permit technicians, nine plan reviewers, 35 inspectors, three automation and six administrative staff), with additional technical assistance from approximately seven fire‑department staff and several community enhancement staff—bringing the broader inspection team to roughly 80 people. He said the department’s inspection‑to‑inspector workload ran at about 2.96 last year against a goal near 2.3.

On housing and construction totals, Clemons presented permit counts and trends: 1,357 single‑family permits, 594 townhouse units, and 458 apartment units recorded in the 2024 permit year; the department issued 1,755 certificates of occupancy (COs). He told supervisors apartment unit counts fell in 2024 compared with earlier years and staff plan to analyze whether the change reflects fewer units per building or an underlying slowdown.

Clemons laid out the department’s fee approach and an example permit: commercial fees are charged by estimated cost (approximately $7.40 per $1,000 for building and $6.60 per $1,000 for trades, as presented); for a recent project at Courthouse Landing with an estimated total construction cost of $1,700,000, total permit fees were $15,004.16 (about 0.9% of estimated cost), with more than 60 inspections tied to that permit. He said the county’s permit revenues roughly offset program expenses—about $6.5–$7 million annually—and that no immediate fee increase was anticipated.

For residential permits, Clemons summarized the fixed fees that comprise a typical single‑family permit package and said a combined total—including planning and environmental charges and a required 2% state levy—amounts to about $1,427 per house in the example shown to the board.

The presentation described property maintenance and the county’s blight program. Clemons said most complaints are resolved through standard property maintenance work, but in rare, longstanding cases the county can declare properties blighted, acquire them and partner with organizations such as Habitat for Humanity to rehabilitate them as affordable housing. He identified four properties acquired through the blight process so far and named three specific addresses in active stages: 8763 Shell Dev (under renovation), 8801 Rand Circle (in design), and 4731 Black Oak (final stages of acquisition).

Clemons also outlined legal and regulatory context: Virginia enforces a uniform statewide building code (promulgated through the Virginia Administrative Code and the Board of Housing and Community Development) that the county implements; model codes are produced by the International Code Council and Virginia adopts and amends those models every three years. He reminded the board that building‑code violations are criminal violations under state law but said prosecution is rare and code enforcement focuses on achieving compliance.

Board members and other supervisors praised the office’s customer service and enforcement approach, noted the county’s requirement for soil reports and third‑party footing inspection on new houses (a practice intended to reduce foundation problems), and asked staff to follow up on trends in apartment unit counts. One board speaker summarized the fee authority point: the board sets local fees through ordinance, but state rules limit permit revenues so they generally offset—but do not exceed—program costs.

The presentation closed with staff reiterating that the department’s purpose is public safety and facilitating compliant construction rather than blocking development, and with a request from supervisors that staff return with any additional analysis on trending permit types or fee comparisons with other localities.