County staff propose 8.5% automated fee increase for building services; board asks staff to pursue permit‑fee options for planning and code enforcement

Washington County Planning and Development Services told the Board of Commissioners on Jan. 14 that the department needs an annual fee adjustment to cover rising personnel and technology costs and to rebuild fund reserves, and presented optional valuation‑based permit fees to cover general‑fund reductions for community planning and land‑use code compliance.

Why it matters: The division runs lean relative to cities and has previously used significant fee increases and service adjustments to stabilize operations. Commissioners gave staff direction to proceed with the proposed 8.5% annual adjustment for building and development review fees and to return with more detailed scenarios, stakeholder feedback and a possible option for full cost recovery for the code‑compliance function.

Steven Roberts, the county's land use and transportation director, said Planning and Development Services operates four sections — building services, development review/current planning, community planning and transportation planning — and that building services and development review currently run on a near full cost‑recovery model. Roberts told the board the division “has about 90 FTE” while several comparable cities have similar staff but serve smaller geographic areas; he said the county’s unincorporated area is “about 2 and a half times the size of the cities” cited in the survey.

Roberts and staff recommended an 8.5% fee increase for fiscal year 2025 on building permits and development review fees, the same annual adjustment implemented in 2024–25. The presentation identified higher personnel costs, indirects and a notable rise in permitting‑software costs after the vendor moved to a cloud licensing model. The presentation named Accela as the current permitting software and said the vendor’s license change produced a significant multi‑year cost increase; staff said they plan an RFP this year to evaluate alternatives.

Staff also outlined three scenarios to replace potential general‑fund cuts to community planning (10%, 13%, 17%), showing how a small valuation‑based surcharge applied to building permits could cover some or all of the subsidy. Using the Deschutes County model as a reference (0.44% of valuation), staff said an equivalent fee would replace roughly 75% of the county’s current general‑fund subsidy for community planning. For land‑use code compliance — a smaller program largely funded by video lottery funds — staff showed that a modest per‑permit fee ($5–$25 range for typical projects) could cover the shortfall that would result from projected general‑fund reductions.

Commissioners pressed staff to consult with the Home Builders Association and other development stakeholders before finalizing any new fee, and several commissioners said they supported the 8.5% annual adjustment as a baseline. Commissioner Fye asked staff to provide a scenario showing full cost recovery for the code‑compliance program; staff said they would return with that analysis and follow up with stakeholder briefings prior to the proposed budget deadline. No formal vote was taken; staff reported they had enough guidance to prepare fee tables for the budget process and return with more detailed impact and stakeholder analysis.

Ending: Staff will proceed with work to implement the annual 8.5% fee adjustment in the FY‑2025 proposed budget, will conduct outreach to developers and the Home Builders Association on new valuation‑based fees, and will prepare additional scenarios including an option for full cost recovery of code compliance for board consideration.