Washington County staff propose $75 fire-inspection fee, board asks for stricter enforcement language

Washington County staff presented a draft procedure to begin charging businesses for required fire inspections and described a stepped notice-and-enforcement process, starting with an initial $75 fee and escalating notices for nonresponse.

The proposal covers outreach before scheduled inspections, repeated mailings if businesses do not schedule, surprise on-site inspections on the scheduled date if there is no appointment, and a path to civil enforcement and court if businesses refuse access. “So last month, we provided with the token and discussed starting to charge for fire inspections. So I did some homework over the last month here to try and come up with procedures for doing that,” said a staff member presenting the plan. The staff member said notices would go out three months before a scheduled inspection, be re-sent by regular mail and then by certified mail, and that a failure to respond would lead to a final notice and an unannounced inspection on the scheduled date.

Board members pressed staff on details they said would affect compliance and fairness. “Is $75 enough?” asked a board member, noting the time staff would spend sending notices, certified mail costs and follow-up. The presenter replied that the $75 would include a reinspection when a business requires corrections, but the board discussed adding incremental surcharges for repeated follow-ups or for a no-show on an appointed inspection.

The draft enforcement sequence described in the discussion: (1) initial mailed notice three months before a scheduled inspection, (2) second regular-mail notice if there is no response, (3) certified-mail final notice, (4) on-site visit on the scheduled date (a “surprise” inspection) and, if entry is refused or violations remain, (5) issuance of a violation with 30 days to remedy and, if compliance still does not occur, referral to the civil court process. “Local code and state code both have requirements in there for how often we're supposed to do the fire inspections,” the presenter said. A staff member advising on enforcement added that the county could ask a court to impose a judgment for costs, saying courts can make businesses liable for the expenses leading to a civil judgment.

Board members and staff also discussed reinspection and no-show charges. Staff said the county’s current building-permit practice allows one free reinspection for correction, and the group favored one free opportunity for businesses that are cooperating; repeated revisits or missed appointments would incur additional fees. Ideas raised included starting with a $75 base charge, charging a higher fee for a failed appointment or no-show, and keeping revisit fees aligned with the county’s current inspection-revisit schedule (one participant noted $50 is used in other permit programs). One board member suggested clear escalation language in the mailed notice so businesses understand that repeated failures to arrange or pass inspections will increase costs.

Several board members raised jurisdictional and notification questions for villages inside the county. Staff said letters would be sent to village contacts and that villages with their own code-enforcement departments may continue to handle their own inspections; the county is responsible for fire inspections where the county has been assigned that role. The presenter proposed delaying the start of charges until 2026 to allow time for education and outreach to affected businesses and village officials.

The board did not adopt a final fee schedule at the meeting. Instead, staff were asked to return with revised wording and fee recommendations. “Next month, you'll bring us back to clean without your new row,” a board member said, directing staff to refine the verbiage and present a formal proposal.

The discussion also covered operational details: proof of third-party inspections (for things like sprinkler or alarm contractors) would be required at the inspection; waivers would not be broadly authorized without supervisor approval; and if the matter reaches court, the county could request the judge consider closure orders or cost recovery as appropriate.