County tables action on building inspection fee hikes after builders question level of proposed increase

After sailing quickly through the first of seven scheduled public hearings with no speakers, board questions, or discussion of the long-planned extension of the late-payment deadline on a variety of county taxes from June 5 to June 22 due to delays in approval of a final budget package, the Warren County Board of Supervisors hit a wall of questions about public hearing number two. The topic was planned increases to Building Inspection Fees to cover departmental costs

The bottom line is the board has seldom revisited its fees, first established over a quarter century ago in 1997, leaving the department, and likely county taxpayers, to absorb those uncovered departmental costs. However, the proposed increase would place Warren County at the highest level in the region on building permit fees, raising a number of issues with local builders.

As noted in the agenda packet summary: “The Building Inspections fee schedule was first established on July 1, 1997, (“after approval” perhaps missing here) by the Board of Supervisors on June 25, 1997. It has been revised only three times, with the last full revision in 2009 and the third and final small revision in 2013. The current request will provide funding to cover the actual expenses incurred, and pending permit activity provide funds to increase the services provided.”

Despite the absence of Building Official David Beahm, County Administrator Ed Daley recommended the board conduct the public hearing as planned, then if desired, delay final action until additional departmental information could be received. That additional information might be required prior to a final decision soon became apparent as the first of three construction professionals, including one county planning commission member, all raised similar points in questioning the amount of the proposed increase.

First up was George Cline (at the 5:00-minute mark of the linked County video), representing himself as a builder, as well as the Warren County Builders Association, which he currently chairs. “On the fee increase, we absolutely agree there is one needed — it cannot sit where it’s at. But when I sat and ran the numbers today, we’re at a 200% increase. To me, that just seems a little excessive. One, it makes us the highest county in the surrounding area fee-wise. I’m not sure why this county would want to be the highest,” Cline said of potential impacts on building professionals and property owners.

Builder and current WC Builders Assn. Chairman George Cline begins the public hearing criticism of a proposed 200% hike in building permitting fees brought to the board of supervisors for approval. Royal Examiner Photos Roger Bianchini

Cline continued to ask exactly what would be received in return for such high fees. “Are we getting more employees and plan reviewers? Are we doing this to reduce our plan review time?” he asked what he asserted he has had calls about recently regarding delays in achieving plan reviews contracted for. “We need to get someone in there as soon as possible,” Cline added of funding additional building department personnel to reduce turnaround times on services.

Cline pointed to one fee increase on what we heard as “ENS plans” he said was proposed to move from $5 currently to $200. That is “slightly” more than the cited 200% average across-the-board increase. He concluded that, on average, a 100% overall increase was acceptable, but not the proposed 200% one on the table.

Following Cline to the podium was Ryan Oakes of Oakes Construction. Oakes concurred with Cline’s comments regarding the need for an increase, but not at the proposed level. And he added to Cline’s acknowledgment of the one fee proposed to rise from $5 to $200. “My biggest gripe at this point is probably the agreement in lieu of, which is a $5-dollar permit going to $200 dollars, a $195-dollar increase on a $5-dollar permit. There’s no one in their right mind who could justify that, in my opinion,” Oakes offered.

As to current turnaround times on some permitting services, Oakes elaborated that currently, he was aware of several builders who had seen 37 to 40 days for a plan review to take place. — “Is that going to improve?” he asked the board about the consequences of the proposed 200% fee hike.

Noting he was a Warren County resident, Oakes added from a residential perspective, “I feel like I’m getting punished if I want to improve my property because, not only will I have to pay a higher building permit fee than the all the other counties, I will also get taxed as my assessed value goes up, which will make me pay more taxes at the end of the day, every year.”

Local builder Ryan Oakes continues the ‘Yes, an increase is needed but not this much’ critique of the higher of two building permitting fee increase options staff presented to the supervisors, a 100% increase was the other option. Below, third up at the pubic hearing, was Hugh Henry. Henry, a county planning commission member, told the supervisors the proposed 200% increase was bad planning in a competitive regional building marketplace.

A “third strike” on the proposed 200% building permitting fees on the table was thrown by Hugh Henry. Henry said he was speaking as a citizen and building contractor, who noted he also serves on the county planning commission. “I think everybody understands, with the inflation and things, we’re due an increase because it’s been a while. But as a county, we also have to compete with our surrounding counties. And if we’re grossly higher … the $200 would be fine if everybody around us was charging $200, but they’re not. I think it’s very important to look at those rates a little closer so that we can stay competitive as far as growth … in our own community,” Henry told the supervisors.

He also observed that some other surrounding counties offered cost-saving options, such as one standard design approved for certain structures not requiring an engineer’s review, that Warren does not offer.

“Our county is notoriously known as a hard place to get permits,” Henry added, referencing past board discussion during which he observed, “Dr. Daley was concerned at the amount of work that was being done unpermitted because of basically being known as (having) an unfriendly policy to get permits. So, we’ve already got that stigma about that, whether it’s true or not, people feel like that. Then if you’ve got an excessively high rate in comparison to the other counties, I think it’s a bad way to go,” Henry told the county’s elected officials.

“Bottom line is we need an increase, but maybe not this much to stay competitive with our other counties. And we really need to look at our service per price compared to the other counties and compare apples to apples,” Henry concluded of how the county analyzes its approved permitting rate increase in conjunction with the functioning level of the building permitting department.

With the public hearing closed (at 13:25 video mark), as the board discussed what it had just heard, County Administrator Daley noted that the rate increase before them was the higher of two options presented by staff, the other option being a 100% general increase over the existing permitting fees. Supervisors and staff pondered the potential impacts on staffing and operational costs of the 100% versus 200% fee increase. Daley noted there were two current vacancies in the building permitting department, a deputy and the public hearing-referenced plans reviewer.

County Administrator Ed Daley, left, reminded the supervisors the higher of two fee increase options was before them in the absence of County Building Official David Beahm. The board agreed to table action pending further information from the department.

A consensus was reached to table action until more detail on impacts on the building permitting department operations from enacting the 100% increase versus the 200% increase could be established from further conversation with County Building Official Beahm. And on Ms. Oates’s motion, seconded by Ms. Cullers, the board unanimously tabled action.

Other Public Hearings

In other post-public hearing actions, in the order they were addressed, the board approved authorization of “the Planning, Zoning and GIS Fee schedules modification request.” It was noted in the staff summary that: “The fee schedule was last approved on April 15, 2003, and amended April 6, 2004. No changes have been made to the fee schedule since that time, and costs in labor, technology, software, and training have increased in cost across the spectrum.” The motion to approve was by Ms. Cullers.

On a motion by Ms. Oates, the board also unanimously approved “Option 2” adjustments to the County’s tax relief for the elderly package to become effective Jan. 1, 2024. As the staff summary noted of Option 2: “The ordinances described in option 2 be amended as presented effective 1/1/24: Option 2: $300,000 maximum net worth, excluding home and 5 acres $ 0 – $30,000 – 100%;  $30,001 – $40,000 – 75%; $40,001 – $50,000- 50%; $50,001-$60,000 – 25%.

On a motion by Ms. Cullers, unanimously approved a Resolution to Set a Percentage of Tax Relief for the 2023 Tax Year “at a Level of 25% that is Anticipated to Exhaust Personal Property Tax Relief Funds Provided to Warren County by the Commonwealth of Virginia as Authorized by Warren County Code Section 160-109.”

Again on a motion by Ms. Cullers, adopted the proposed Tax Rates for 2023, including a Real Estate Rate of 49 cents per $100 of assessed value, which is the equalized post-reassessment rate, actually resulting in a small annual revenue loss to the County.

On a motion by Mr. Butler,  unanimously approved submitted Sanitary District tax rates for the coming year.

As to the delay in imposing late payment fees on taxes from June 5 to June 22, if not paid by June 22, a penalty of 10 percent or $10, whichever is greater, of the amount of such taxes which have not yet been paid shall be imposed, provided that in no case may the penalty exceed the amount of tax payable.

Click here to watch the meeting on the County video.