Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates high retaining‑wall permit fees; staff recommends review during budget process
Summary
Staff reviewed Doraville’s linear‑foot retaining‑wall permit fees and compared neighboring cities; council members asked staff to consider simpler residential fees, metrics on staff time, and a phased approach during the upcoming budget process.
Doraville — City staff on July 8 walked council through the city’s retaining‑wall permit fee structure and a comparison of neighboring jurisdictions, prompting council members to request a review focused on homeowners and a possible separate residential fee schedule.
Staff explained that under the existing fee schedule Doraville charges per linear foot (roughly $20 per linear foot for walls under 48 inches, $30 per linear foot for taller walls) and provided examples in which permit costs for retaining walls produced substantial fees for applicants. In one example discussed by staff, a wall tied to a larger multi‑unit project produced sizable permit fee receipts; staff noted that in some instances fees were lower when contractors had been caught working without permits (double fees were not consistently applied in every case).
To help contextually compare, staff surveyed neighboring jurisdictions: Brookhaven charges a flat $200 for walls over 4 feet; Duluth listed a flat $250; Dunwoody uses a per‑linear‑foot approach similar to Doraville; other communities rely on building valuation methods or plan‑review fees. Staff also noted that Doraville’s permit fee generally includes plan review and the first couple of inspections, while some neighbors charge additional separate plan‑review fees.
Council members expressed concern that linear‑foot fees can quickly become a large proportion of household budgets for residential owners and recommended exploring alternatives: a flat residential fee, an hourly/time‑based fee tied to inspections and staff time, or lower residential rates. Council asked staff to return as part of the budget process with metrics on staff review time, inspection counts, and a proposed residential fee structure that ensures homeowners are not unduly burdened while covering municipal costs.
No vote was taken; staff were asked to include a residential/commercial split option and return during budget preparation.
