Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DCD eyes fee updates, GIS cost recovery and steps to resolve building‑without‑permit backlog
Summary
DCD recommended fee ordinance updates, a GIS cost‑recovery charge tied to permit processing, and a revised approach to building‑without‑permit enforcement that would shift hearing costs to losing appellants.
The Department of Community Development (DCD) gave a succinct budget overview and outlined several operational changes the department recommends for 2026, including revising fee schedules, pursuing GIS cost recovery and tightening enforcement for building‑without‑permit cases.
DCD said most of the 2025 fiscal bump was grant‑driven and not a sustainable recurring revenue source; in 2026 revenue is therefore projected lower. Staff noted several housekeeping items in the permitting fee structure that require board action because fees are encoded in ordinance and cannot be altered administratively. DCD plans to propose ordinance amendments this fall to align fee tables with CPI and to correct known inequities in the building valuation/fee calculation methodology.
Staff also flagged several permit fees that appear low relative to workload — for example, mechanical permits and single‑inspection fees — and said modest increases could yield meaningful revenue without materially changing customer cost in most projects. The department and finance gave a CPI estimate that would add roughly $42,000 in revenue if implemented starting Jan. 1.
DCD is exploring a technical cost‑recovery charge for GIS work associated with land‑division and permit applications (map edits, parcel creation, and related data entry). IT and DCD will collaborate to design a monetization approach that aligns a per‑permit GIS charge with the work required.
Enforcement: DCD described a backlog of building‑without‑permit (BWOP) matters and proposed aligning hearing‑examiner fees so that, if occupants or owners lose an appeal, the violator bears hearing costs. DCD estimated about 39 completed BWOP cases could generate roughly $79,000 in otherwise uncollected building permit fees if resolved and assessed; the department suggested batching cases to lower per‑case hearing costs and asked the board to authorize an enforcement fee model that recovers hearing expenses from losing appellants.
Capital and equipment requests for DCD (vehicle needs, modest office equipment) were discussed; staff said they are exploring surplus sheriff vehicles to meet travel needs and that some capital asks were deferred while DCD pursues surplus alternatives.
What happens next: DCD will return with draft ordinance language to adjust fee tables, will work with IT on a GIS cost‑recovery model, and will draft enforcement language and hearing‑examiner fee changes for board consideration.
