CPHD proposes steep fee increases and several staffing cuts to close a $13 million development fund gap

Community Planning, Housing & Development (CPHD) Director (presenter identified as Ms. Byrd) told the County Board the department is proposing major fee increases and several personnel reductions to address a projected development fund deficit that staff estimate at roughly $13 million for FY25.

CPHD said the development fund — used to operate permitting, zoning and inspection services — was created to recover development‑related service costs from customers. The fund’s balance has been strained by several factors, CPHD staff said: large up‑front technology and permitting system implementation costs, post‑pandemic market shifts that reduced permit volume, compensation and contract cost increases, and the use of reserve funds to smooth earlier shortfalls.

To close the gap, CPHD proposed a three‑part approach: raise fees to full cost recovery (with some exceptions), reduce personnel and non‑personnel expenses, and realign certain non‑development work to the general fund. CPHD described a multiyear fee strategy already underway and asked the board to accelerate some fee adjustments in FY26. Examples staff provided: building permit and trade permit fee increases in some categories of roughly 70–79%, planning fees increased in some cases up to 200% relative to FY25 levels to reach 100% cost recovery (planning fees were originally planned to reach 75% cost recovery over time), and a continuing 10% technology surcharge earmarked for ongoing system costs.

Staff said the proposal would eliminate four filled positions (three in zoning and one in inspection services) and freeze three vacant positions. CPHD identified likely service impacts if the cuts are enacted: longer response times for zoning enforcement and certificate of occupancy inspections, slower turnaround on complex zoning determinations and ordinance text amendments, longer construction plan review times for trade permits (potentially doubling review times when the remaining plan reviewer is unavailable), and more reliance on overtime to cover time‑sensitive work.

CPHD emphasized that the fund’s deficits were made worse by one‑time technology spending that depleted reserves; staff noted that debt financing could have smoothed technology costs over longer periods and reduced pressure on operating reserves. The presentation also highlighted the broader “life cycle” of development review — public outreach, land‑use decisions, permitting, inspections and occupancy — and asked the board to consider operational priorities when deciding which services to preserve.

Why it matters: Developers, building owners and residents rely on timely permitting and inspection services; CPHD acknowledged that steeper fees and reduced staffing could increase per‑project costs and lengthen review times. Staff presented illustrative project impact figures showing fee increases as a modest share of total project cost (examples showed planning and permitting fee changes in the low single‑digit percent of total project cost for sample projects), but warned that slower response times would affect customer experience.

Board members asked staff for alternatives and requested additional engagement with development stakeholders. CPHD said it could return with alternative scenarios if the board seeks to spread fee increases over more years or explore other mitigations.

Ending: CPHD asked the board to weigh near‑term fiscal stability for the fund against service‑level impacts and to provide direction on whether to proceed with the proposed fee schedule and staffing changes.