Larimer County approves $12,000 refund for Livermore fire station permit fees

The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners voted June 22 to refund $12,000 of the $28,724.85 in building-permit fees assessed for a new Livermore Fire Protection District fire station at 6382 Red Mountain Road.

County Building Official Mike Williams told the board that the county had received a request from the Livermore Fire Protection District to refund $28,724.85 charged on building permit 25-O37. Williams said staff recommended denying the request and urged the board to pursue a formal policy for fee waivers rather than one-off exceptions. “There is no clear legal provision allowing his division to charge lower or zero fees to some customers,” Williams said, and he warned that many fees are pass-throughs the county must forward to other agencies under intergovernmental agreements.

The applicant, Bruce Huey, president of the Livermore Fire Protection District board, told commissioners the district is operating on a tight budget and that the assessed fees represented a significant share of its finances. “The Livermore Fire Protection District is a poor district,” Huey said. He said the fee amount equals about 6.8% of the district’s $420,000 annual budget, the district will carry roughly a $1 million mortgage on the new station, and it currently owes about $92,000 on two apparatuses. Huey described the station as unmanned except for volunteer response to calls and said an occupancy permit was expected within two weeks.

Community Development Director Rebecca Everett confirmed limited county precedent for waivers: the county granted a waiver to Livermore in 2019 (about $4,300 in planning and building fees) and a separate $2,500 waiver to Pter Canyon Fire District in 2018 for planning-related fees.

County engineering staff explained that the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) portion of the total fee is calculated from a countywide fee study that assigns a per‑use trip-generation value by category; for the Livermore station staff applied the county’s "industrial" nonresidential category based on square footage. Tracy Shambo of County Engineering noted the TCEF is aimed at capacity improvements tied to new trip generation and is applied consistently across uses.

Deliberations focused on balancing the district’s financial hardship and the county’s legal and budgetary constraints. One commissioner said staff’s concerns were valid but proposed a compromise: refund the portion of fees identified by the applicant as the TCEF — roughly $12,680 — and commit to finding county budget dollars to backfill the county engineering division if necessary. The board ultimately moved to approve a $12,000 refund (a rounded partial refund of the assessed fees) rather than the full requested amount.

County Attorney Frank Hog confirmed the board could approve a straight refund motion. The motion carried with two commissioners voting in favor and one commissioner (Stevens) excused.

The action requires staff to process a refund for the paid amount and to reconcile the accounting impact on divisions that rely on permit revenue. Commissioners discussed but did not adopt a formal countywide policy on fee waivers at this hearing; staff had recommended creating such a policy to avoid ad-hoc decisions and legal exposure.

The hearing record shows the board approved the consent agenda earlier in the session (two routine land-use consent items) before the discussion and adjourned at about 4:17 p.m.

What happens next: staff will issue the $12,000 refund and the board may consider whether to place a formal fee-waiver policy on a future agenda for fuller discussion and possible adoption.