Elbert County commissioners review options to lower and simplify building permit fees

Byron McDaniel, District 3 commissioner and chair of the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners, convened a work session on April 1, 2025, to review staff recommendations for changes to the county's building permit fees aimed at lowering costs for homeowners and simplifying fee calculations.

Mark Denreiter, Elbert County director of community and economic development, told commissioners the department compared Elbert County's fee calculations with seven other jurisdictions (five counties and two towns) and found Elbert County's fees were among the higher county rates for two example projects (a pole barn and a single-family residence). Denreiter recommended several options for the board to consider, including updating valuation tables, applying a modifier for accessory structures, and adjusting fixed rates for specific permit types.

The most significant options discussed were: - Update the International Code Council (ICC) building valuation table on a fixed schedule rather than remain three years in arrears. Denreiter described the ICC table as being updated twice yearly and said four of the seven jurisdictions the county reviewed use a 2024 table. Commissioners discussed adopting the previous year's table (for example, adopt the 2024 table throughout 2025) to avoid midyear changes. - Apply a 0.25 modifier (a 25% reduction) to Group U (accessory structures) on the ICC/ICC-derived valuation calculations so that the current Group U price-per-square-foot example of $66.48 would be reduced to $49.86 under the modifier. - Update the International Residential Code (IRC) permit-fee table to a current (2024) version and, if adopted, consider the same 0.25 modifier for accessory structures. Denreiter contrasted the county's current valuation formula ($993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 per additional $1,000) with a 2024 IRC example (about $1,027 for the first $100,000 and $7 per additional $1,000) and showed how a 25% modifier would lower those figures (for example, to approximately $770.25 for the first $100,000 and $5.25 per additional $1,000). - Reduce fixed per-square-foot rates for certain "other permits" such as basement finishes, interior residential remodels and conversions, where staff's packet showed opportunities to lower the existing fixed rates. - Clarify the definition of "shell-only" structures. Staff proposed revising the definition to specify no interior work, no lighting/electrical/gas/plumbing, no flat work, and to include wood or metal frame construction under 750 square feet (current language referenced wood frame construction and no interior, lighting, electrical, gas or plumbing and 'equal to or less than 4 walls and a roof'). Denreiter said the revised definition is intended to reduce confusion and properly classify small, simple structures for lower fees. - Revisit contractor licensing fees that were affected by an implementation/resolution last year; staff noted contractor-license revenue and the administrative mechanics are "staggered" following a 2023 resolution and recommended standardizing the license cycle (for example, annual renewals) to reduce administrative complexity. - Investigate consumer use-tax handling. Denreiter said he had consulted the Colorado Department of Revenue and county finance staff and reported that Elbert County currently levies a 1% sales tax and a corresponding 1% use tax that were approved on the ballot in February 2007 and detailed in a county resolution later that year. Commissioners raised a specific citizen complaint alleging double taxation and asked staff to review whether the county's practice correctly follows state guidance.

Denreiter presented budget impact estimates using fourth-quarter 2024 permit activity projected for a full year. For Group U accessory-structure fees, staff reported about $86,000 collected in Q4 2024 (annualized to roughly $350,000). Applying the 0.25 modifier to Group U would reduce Q4 receipts to about $51,000 and annualized revenue for that category from about $346,000 to about $205,000; staff estimated roughly $140,000 less revenue in 2025 from Group U alone under the example assumptions. For the "other permits" category (basement finishes, remodels), staff projected roughly $125,000 less revenue annually under the proposed adjustments, and staff summarized a combined estimated reduction of about $265,000 against a department revenue/expense projection that showed about $1.1 million in net coverage available for the general fund under current projections.

Commissioners asked several clarifying and policy questions. Mike Buck, vice chair, favored using the previous year's valuation table so homeowners and contractors would not face midyear changes: "I would think we should do the previous year...Rather than trying to do 2025 in the middle of the year, they're changing it." Commissioner Doss Schroeder urged caution about making midyear adjustments and emphasized the need to prioritize changes against broader county budget assumptions: "Making a change mid year into mid budget year gives me a little bit of concern...we need to sit down with management, and kind of prioritize."

Staff noted two offsetting items that could reduce department costs: a new permitting/inspections software implemented late in 2024 and increased internal staffing that may reduce reliance on contracted services. Denreiter said those efficiencies, combined with the proposed fee changes, could make the reductions manageable within the county's 2025 budget assumptions.

No formal motion or vote occurred at the work session. Commissioners directed staff to further research specific items (ICC/IRC timing and implementation, the proposed 0.25 modifier for Group U, changes to fixed per-square-foot rates, contractor-license timing, shell-structure language, plan-review percent calculations, and the consumer use-tax complaint) and to return with proposals and additional financial detail at a subsequent meeting.

The discussion builds on a February 5, 2025 work session in which staff presented comparison data; commissioners asked staff to prepare the current, more detailed options. The board ended the session without taking legislative action and scheduled follow-up work with staff to refine proposals and any required resolutions or ordinance language.

No formal votes were recorded during the April 1 work session.