Clark County Board of Health asks staff to draft three 2027 fee ordinance options after debate over public-health permits

Jeff Harbison, administrative services director for Clark County Public Health, told the Board of Health that staff is seeking guidance to draft an ordinance updating the environmental public health fee schedule for 2027 and return it for a September public hearing.

Harbison said the fees are set to align with projected program expenses minus program income and that environmental public health funds core activities — field and support staff, operational supplies, travel and a programmatic share of county and department indirect costs. "There is no profit built into these fees," he said, noting that environmental public health accounts for roughly 37% of the department's full-time equivalents and a similar share of indirects.

Jerry Preston, director of the Environmental Public Health Division, urged caution about small annual increases but emphasized the need for cost recovery and benchmarking. "We heard from the food advisory committee that 85% of members are small business owners and on average are only turning a 1.5% profit margin," Preston said, noting even modest fee hikes can affect business viability. Preston described plans with other local jurisdictions to conduct a fall fee-comparison assessment that will normalize differences in subsidies, inspection frequency and collection periods to identify efficiencies.

Staff presented two formal scenarios. Scenario 1 continues the Board's 2026 policy of 100% net cost recovery while using department fund balance to limit any individual fee increase to 5%; staff estimated that scenario would raise division revenue by about 1.82% (roughly $106,000) and use about $1,256,000 of fund balance. Scenario 2 would hold many fees at 2026 levels (using fund balance to cover the deficiency), producing an overall 1.49% reduction in division fee revenue and relying on approximately $1,450,000 of fund balance. Harbison said a straight full-net-cost calculation without smoothing would increase division fee revenue by about 23.24%.

Staff identified the main cost drivers for 2027: average field-staff salaries up about 6.0%, employer medical insurance premiums up 10.3% after a 14.69% increase last year, employer dental costs up 9.9%, and a 3.63% decline in fee volume. Harbison noted indirect costs rose only 0.3% from 2026 to 2027.

Board members pressed staff for greater detail and options. One board member calculated that cumulative fee increases since 2019 amount to roughly a 73% rise over six years and asked whether the board could pause or slow increases to reduce burden on businesses and residents. Preston and Harbison responded that the 2019 jump reflected a policy shift back toward full cost recovery after years of subsidy, and they said the planned county comparisons could reveal operational efficiencies that lower some fees without reducing service effectiveness.

Several board members proposed a middle option capping individual fee increases at 2% for 2027 to moderate the short-term impact while giving staff time to complete efficiency reviews. Harbison said staff can model a 2% cap and that using fund balance could smooth the differences; he estimated the 2% cap would sit roughly between the two presented scenarios in terms of fund-balance need. The board directed staff to return to the September public hearing with draft ordinances for Scenario 1 (5% cap with fund-balance smoothing), Scenario 2 (hold 2026 fee levels with fund-balance support) and a third ordinance implementing a 2% cap, and to provide projections of longer-term structural deficit risk under each option.

The Board did not take a vote on a final ordinance at the work session; staff will bring the three ordinance drafts and financial projections to the September Board of Health public hearing for formal consideration.