Elbert County staff review building-permit fee formulas; no changes adopted

ELBERT COUNTY — County staff on Tuesday walked commissioners through the formulas and data behind building-permit fees, showing Elbert County’s current schedules place the county near the high end of neighboring counties and presenting several options for changes, including automatic updates to valuation tables, a regional cost modifier, and adjustments to plan-review percentages. No formal changes or votes were taken.

The presentation was led by Mark Denreuder, director of Community and Economic Development. "For this work study session, we're gonna be talking about building permit fees," Denreuder said as he opened the materials and walked the Board of County Commissioners through examples and comparative charts.

Denreuder told commissioners that the county’s total permit fee is made up of three components: the permit fee itself (based on a valuation table), a plan-review fee, and a use-tax calculation. Using an accessory-structure example — a 2,800-square-foot pole barn — staff showed the permit fee component for that valuation at roughly $1,480.95, the plan-review component at about $962, and a county use-tax calculation at about $935, producing a combined example total of $3,378.57 for that hypothetical project.

Why this matters: Permits fund the building department’s work (inspections, staff and contract services) and contribute most of the department’s revenue. Denreuder said about 99% of the building department’s revenue derives from permit fees and presented a recent budget snapshot showing the department’s expenses at roughly $1.5 million and revenue at about $2.6 million for the year as presented in the packet.

Comparisons and options

Staff compared Elbert County’s example fees with seven neighboring jurisdictions (Lincoln, Arapahoe, Jefferson, El Paso and Douglas counties, plus the towns of Elizabeth and Castle Rock). For the pole-barn accessory example, the five counties ranged roughly from $500 to $3,500 and Elbert County appeared near the upper end at around $3,700; the two towns in the comparison ranged about $5,800 to $13,000. For a simplified single-family residence example (no garage or basement), county totals ranged about $1,700 to $8,300; Elbert County again was second-highest among the counties, while the two towns showed permit totals of roughly $18,000 to $32,000.

Denreuder highlighted several options the board could consider, including: - Adopting the most current ICC (International Code Council) valuation table automatically when it is published (the ICC updates twice a year). Denreuder noted Elbert County is using an August 2022 valuation table and that other jurisdictions use different years of ICC tables, producing varying results. - Applying a regional modifier to the valuation figures. Denreuder said El Paso County uses a 0.91 regional modifier in its calculations as part of a multi-jurisdictional approach through Pikes Peak Regional Services. - Adjusting the plan-review percentage. Elbert County currently charges plan review at 65% of the permit fee; staff noted El Paso County applies a much lower plan-review ratio in its model and that some jurisdictions tailor the plan-review percentage to project type (for example, commercial vs. simple accessory structures). - Changing the base formula that determines the permit-fee valuation buckets (for example, the dollar amount charged for the first $100,000 of valuation and the per-thousand amount for additional valuation).

Plan review and enforcement

Matt Denny, regional manager for Safe Built (the county’s contracted building services provider), described plan review as "the initial assessment of the plans in accordance with the codes that are adopted and amendments that are adopted by the county." Denny said plan review covers code compliance, multiple rounds of comments, and record-retention obligations; he told commissioners that a plans examiner’s work and required certifications are reflected in the portion of fees allocated to plan review.

Use tax and contractor licensing

Staff explained the county’s use-tax component is currently calculated at 1% of half the valuation. In the packet, staff also noted a January 2024 Board resolution about contractor-license fees: contractor licensing began countywide in 2023 and the packet stated new licenses issued in 2024 were being accepted while many 2023 licenses were not required to renew in 2024. Denreuder reported there were 579 contractor licenses issued in 2023 and 2,508 in 2024, as summarized in the materials.

Questions raised by commissioners

Commissioners asked several clarifying questions that staff said they would research further: whether and how permit valuations link to the assessor’s valuation process; how to make the fee schedule easier for the public and contractors to understand; and how the county should treat "sweat equity" or homeowner labor when applicants build portions of their own projects.

On homeowner labor, Denny and other staff described the valuation table as a broad guideline that assumes paid labor and materials. Staff discussed a practical approach used elsewhere — documenting material invoices and, in some cases, using an adjusted calculation (for example, applying a multiplier to documented material costs rather than the full generic table valuation) — to better reflect projects where owner labor is not paid. Denreuder said staff would explore options for handling those cases and for simplifying public-facing explanations (for example, an online estimator that a contractor or homeowner could use).

No formal action taken

Commissioners and staff agreed the subject is complex and that more work is needed. Commissioners asked staff to return with clearer options and materials so the fee methodology can be simplified and better explained to the public; staff said they would continue analysis and follow up. No motion or vote was recorded during the work session.

Next steps

Denreuder and staff said they will research the assessor interaction, draft options for valuation-table updates, regional modifiers, and plan-review percentage changes, and provide clearer public materials. The county planned to schedule follow-up meetings to refine recommendations for possible future action.