Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Inspections Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kershaw County council debates reinspection fees after contractors report overcharges
Summary
Council members and county building staff discussed the county’s progressive reinspection fee schedule after contractors were billed above the ordinance limit; staff said refunds were issued and the item was referred to the finance committee for clarification.
Kershaw County Council members spent more than an hour on Sept. 9 discussing how the county charges reinspection fees for building permits after several contractors reported being billed above the ordinance limit.
The discussion began when Vice Chairman Russell Bridal moved to clarify an ordinance on building inspections and inspection fees, saying contractors had complained about high reinspections and unclear application of a progressive fee schedule. "We've had a few contractors call quite upset with the way they've had to pay for their reinspections," Bridal said.
Why it matters: Council members said the issue affects builders and homeowners and, if left unclear, could both discourage construction and shift costs to taxpayers. Council members and staff agreed the county must document how reinspections are tallied and when fees apply.
Chief building official Sam Goss described how inspections are scheduled and how the reinspection schedule is intended to work. "It depends on the type of house that you're building," Goss said, explaining inspections for footings, foundations, rough-in, electrical and final work. On the fee schedule, he said, "It's anytime you fail; it doubles in price up to $400." He added staff had processed refunds where fees exceeded the ordinance.
Council members raised multiple concerns: some argued the progressive fee structure was intended to deter contractors who repeatedly require county staff to re-inspect the same work, while others said a single subcontractor’s repeated mistakes could unduly penalize the general contractor or homeowner. Councilman Tucker, who chairs the finance committee, took responsibility for the budget language that created confusion: "The intent was to double the fees as we come back up to 800. But it didn't get written like that into the ordinance that we passed, and there lies the problem." Tucker said the committee would take responsibility for fixing the language.
Staff said nine incidents were identified in which contractors were charged above the intended amount; five of those involved a particular tracked builder. County staff said refunds totaling about $4,400 had been processed.
Council members asked staff to produce a clear reference document explaining how inspections and reinspections work (which inspections are grouped, when a reinspection fee is charged, and the schedule of increases). Councilman Derek Shoemake summarized the council’s intent: "All I'm trying to do is clarify, communicate with staff, administration, and the public. That's my job." Several council members requested that the finance committee review the clarified language before bringing any ordinance amendments or budget changes back to the full council.
Ending: No formal vote was taken on an ordinance amendment Sept. 9. Councilmembers referred the matter to the finance committee and asked staff to draft plain-language documentation on the inspection and reinspection process for council review at a future meeting.
