Multiple changes to Archuleta County’s fee schedule were approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) during its regular meeting held on July 16, as the board unanimously approved Resolution 2025-39, amending fees for county services and information.
The BoCC was initially briefed on the proposed fee changes by the county’s former development director, Pamela Flowers, during a July 1 work session.
During that work session, Flowers began by explaining that the model for establishing a fee structure for construction shall be based on the most recent building evaluation data issued from the International Code Council, according to the county’s amended building code adopted in 2019.
“Thats something that we had not been doing,” she said.
Flowers explained she was proposing attaching a table for calculating fees that is based on the type of construction and occupancy, including residential.
“So, really, the per-square-foot price used to determine the fee, should be based on those two things — what type of construction and what’s the occupancy, and that includes residential,” Flowers said.
She noted that, according to the 2025 table, the county should be charging $169.09 per square foot, explaining that number is then used to determine the valuation of the project and using another table to determine the actual permit fee.
“That’s how we’re doing it now,” she said, noting the 2010 table from the International Code Council, which shows $97.95 per square foot. “So, we’re way off of what we are supposed to be doing according to our own amended code.”
Flowers went on to provide the commissioners with an example, noting its importance “because there’s another thing that we’re changing that will actually lean in the benefit of the applicant.”
Flowers then explained that, for a 1,500-square-foot house with an 800-square-foot unfinished basement, a 600-square-foot attached garage and 200-square-foot uncovered deck, the way fees are calculated includes everything under the roofline at $97.95 per square foot.
“That is not correct,” she said, explaining that an unfinished basement, attached garage and covered deck would all be calculated at a different rate.
She noted that an unfinished basement should be charged at $31.50.
“So, it’s well below what we have been charging for an unfinished basement,” Flowers said.
She explained that attached garages and covered decks are considered “utility spaces” and that rate is listed at $66 per square foot.
“We would drop those fees to match the type of space it is so that we’re properly calculating the fees,” she said.
The effect of all of those changes going into calculating spaces the right way in this example would result in a $168 dollar increase in the permit fee, Flowers explained, indicating the proposal is to use the 2025 table, “which is what our amended code says we should do.”
Flowers noted that the table is updated every February and August, recommending that when the August table is released, the county does a fee schedule change the following January, “and over the years that has been about a 3 percent annual increase.”
She explained that this would prevent the county from doing a “big jump” every five years and stay with steady growth every year instead.
Commissioner Veronica Medina asked how this was missed when the last fee schedule was approved.
“I have no idea,” Flowers said, explaining this was done before she really got going in her position as development director.
“I see a lot more changes, and not just to that,” Medina said in regard to the proposed fee changes. “So, I’m concerned about that.”
Medina noted that fee schedules are typically adopted at the beginning of year.
“I just don’t understand why we’re changing everything now,” she added.
Flowers responded that it is because the county has a new building official, Tony Medved, who is trying to align things “more appropriately,” noting that Medved began his position with the county in March.
Flowers noted the county could wait until January for some of the “bigger stuff,” but “many of these are eliminating some things that we don’t really think are appropriate,” indicating some violation fees would be eliminated.
Medina then asked what violations are listed in the fee schedule.
Flowers noted that the “stop work order” violation would still be kept in the fee schedule, which is a $150 fee per day, with another $150 fee to get an “after-the-fact” permit.
She also noted that the fee for occupancy prior to receiving a final permit would be kept in the fee schedule as well, increasing from $100 per day to $150 per day.
“Everything else we don’t see a need to keep,” Flowers said.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked if the violations could be excluded from the proposed cost increase if the BoCC were to consider the changes at its July 1 meeting, noting his concern was that “essentially increasing the fees would be seen as getting hit twice in the same year with fee adjustments.”
Brown noted it would make sense to him to wait until next January to approve fee adjustments.
County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini indicated she would look into it.
Flowers noted an inspection fee was proposed to be eliminated as well, and that adding a code book fee was also being proposed.
She explained that if builders want a copy of the code, the county will purchase it at a discounted rate and it can then be purchased directly from the county.
“I want to be able to offer that as well,” Flowers said.
Medved then explained some of the changes he proposed, specifically noting solar fees, and that the county was previously asking for the valuation of the project and basing the permit cost off of that.
“And I was proposing that we just have a flat fee” for ground- or roof-mounted solar, Medved explained.
He also spoke about mechanical fees, noting that “permits have not been issued for just a mechanical permit,” and that he was looking to get that going for stuff like installing a new fireplace, furnace or a stand-alone heater, “they would be able to come in and pay one base fee for that permit,” and the county would then perform an inspection.
Medina also asked how the proposed flat fee for solar of $200 was calculated, with Medved explaining the county was using a valuation process that was coming in closer to $600 to $700.
Medved explained it was based off of work hours.
Commissioner John Ranson asked if it was customary for the county to increase its fees based on building costs, and the reasoning for that.
Flowers explained that is how the International Code Council recommends fee schedule setting, “and our adopted code says we should use this table to set the fees … which is what most jurisdictions do.”
Ranson commented that he didn’t understand and that Archuleta County is not like “most jurisdictions.”
“That just doesn’t make sense to me,” Ranson added, explaining he would not be ready to vote on the matter later that day during the regular meeting.
He noted that the commissioners needed to receive the proposed changes “a lot earlier than yesterday” to give them time to talk with builders and constituents.
Flowers indicated the proposed changes were sent out the week prior.
Medina also commented that, on “things like this,” she would like to review the matter in one meeting and take action on the matter the following meeting.
“I think just kind of running it through is not necessarily the path I would like to go,” Medina said, noting she was concerned “a tad bit” with the changes, while understanding why, noting, “We just missed it before.”
Medina then asked about the “thought process” for STRs, with Flowers explaining that before the proposed changes, “if you are late on your renewal, we double your fee.”
Flowers went on to explain that if someone is 30 days late, they shouldn’t be treated the same as someone who is six months late.
“And so the idea here is that we can prorate that amount to be more reasonable for the people that are only a little bit instead of a lot late, and that’s why we’ve added that breakdown,” Flowers said.
Medina also mentioned that she has received feedback from STR owners claiming they do not receive notice for renewals anymore.
Flowers explained that is because of the county switching to a different system.
“They will get them this year,” she said.
Flowers then reviewed changes to the water quality fee section, explaining that the first step is to do a site and soil evaluation.
“And depending on what you find from your site and soil evaluation, you may or may not even need an engineer,” she said, explaining that it is not appropriate to make people pay the full $1,000 fee upfront, if they determine not to go forward.
She added, “Those are both things that we think are in the best interest of the applicants.”
Brown commented that he appreciated Flowers’ and Medved’s mindset.
During the July 1 BoCC meeting, the commissioners unanimously approved the meeting’s agenda, removing the new business item to consider a resolution amending county fees.
Flowers and Medved both submitted resignation letters to the county on July 14. See the related article, “County development director, building code official resign,” in this edition of The SUN for more information on those resignations.
During a regular work session held on July 16, the BoCC heard from Sheriff Mike Le Roux about updating a few of the fees under the Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO).
“They’re not that significant in terms of increase. We haven’t increased our fees in a number of years,” he said, explaining the ACSO was looking at upgrading its fees by $5 per fee and adding one extra service — certified VIN inspections.
Le Roux also noted that all of the ACSO’s fees, with the exception of the concealed weapon permit fee, are statutory.
Planning Manager Owen O’Dell presented the fee changes relating to the Building Department, Planning Department and Water Quality Department to the BoCC again during the July 16 work session, highlighting changes to the fees.
O’Dell explained that 12 fees were being proposed to be taken out completely under the Building Department, with that including removing the permit extension fee, removing the temporary certificate of occupancy (CO) permit fee, removing the first inspection fee, removing the fee for inspection outside of normal hours, removing the fee for building without a permit, removing the expired temporary CO fee and removing the corrective building permit fee after citation.
“Thanks for the temporary CO,” Ranson commented.
O’Dell explained removing these fees would allow more flexibility for contractors and people who are building their own home.
He noted the only fee being added is the code book fee, which is $160, noting the county has received multiple requests from constituents wanting a copy of the International Residential Code.
In response to a question from Medina about the thought behind removing the fees, O’Dell explained he was sort of thrown into the situation, but in his understanding it was “just to remove a lot of the unnecessary fees.”
He then explained changes in the Planning Department fees, noting that the department used to have a double fee as its late fee, explaining there was no difference in being 30 days late or multiple months late.
O’Dell explained that the change being proposed would charge an additional 25 percent of the initial permit fee for being up to 30 days late on a permit renewal, and would tier up from there to 180 days late being a double fee.
O’Dell also highlighted changes to the Water Quality Department fees, noting the new construction, after-the-fact and major alteration permit fees are being reduced.
He explained that the only addition in the Water Quality Department fees is the site and soil preconstruction fee, which staff had started doing last year for a few months and “felt that it was unnecessary to sit there and watch the installers dig soil pits.”
He explained that engineers were typically on-site as well, so the county began letting installers perform this on their own “without any oversight from the county.”
He noted that the county then began receiving complaints from installers that engineers quit showing up and they were concerned about soils not being verified properly.
No other comments from the commissioners were given on the matter prior to voting unanimously to approve the proposed changes discussed by O’Dell and Le Roux at the board’s meeting the afternoon of July 16.
The approved resolution and amended fee schedule can be viewed online under the July 16 meeting agenda at https://www.archuletacounty.gov/archuleta-county-co-official-website/agendas-and-minutes/.
Fire code rejected
During the July 16 meeting, the BoCC also unanimously rejected approving a separate resolution for the county to adopt the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC).
The BoCC was initially briefed by Flowers and Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD) Chief Robert Bertram in regard to the county adopting the 2015 IFC during the July 1 work session.
During that work session, Flowers explained that she and Bertram discovered that, in 2019, the county adopted building codes from 2015 that included residential codes, existing building codes and a mechanical code.
“All those codes were adopted in 2019. They did not include in that list of codes the fire code,” Flowers said, explaining her presumption was that the BoCC at the time “felt that the fire code was not a building code,” and therefore felt it did not need to include it.
She then explained that thanks to Bertram’s research, under Title 32, “his department is required to enforce within each jurisdiction the codes adopted by that jurisdiction, not by his department.”
She noted that the PFPD adopted the 2015 fire code, but that doesn’t help, with the most recent fire code adopted by the county being the 2009, “because he has to enforce whatever code we’ve adopted.”
“Many and most of the things addressed in the fire code are also mirrored in the building code,” Flowers added. “So, it wouldn’t really change how we do building.”
She also noted the fire code only applies to commercial construction.
“The fire code only applies to commercial construction; doesn’t have anything to do with residential construction,” she said.
Medina asked how adopting the 2015 IFC would affect commercial construction, with Flowers explaining “it provides performance criteria for vehicle barriers instead of prescriptive design.”
She explained that performance standards are already in the 2015 International Building Code adopted by the county.
“Even if you adopt the fire code, it doesn’t change commercial construction,” she added.
Bertram explained that if the county adopted the IFC, “it’s not gonna affect any current projects we have going.”
He explained the biggest thing for the PFPD would be that new construction sites would have to install radio repeaters in the building.
“This is more of a cleanup item in my mind,” he said.
Bertram noted that for a “large project,” having to add a radio repeater might cost a developer an additional $1,000.
Bertram also noted the code has been in effect within the Town of Pagosa Springs.
“It’s something they’ve been enforcing,” he added.
While reviewing the IFC, Medina stated, “It’s easy for us to sit here and say it’s not gonna be a huge impact to the community overall, but I really want to understand what’s involved.”
She then questioned matters in the code dealing with staircases and fire escapes, along with sprinkler suppression systems.
“Most of the new construction, though, is going to be subject to sprinklers,” Bertram said.
Medina then asked Bertram why the county should adopt the 2015 IFC.
“It was an oversight,” Bertram replied, indicating it would be better for everyone in the community to be working off the same code going forward.
Medina responded that she had talked with the former commissioners as to why the code wasn’t adopted, stating, “it wasn’t an oversight,” and that the former BoCC chose not to adopt the code because they felt like it “was burdensome on the commercial businesses.”
Medina then asked Bertram again why the county should adopt the code, with Bertram responding it would bring the county up to date with the rest of its codes, avoiding any potential conflict.
Prior to voting on the matter during the July 16 meeting, County Manager Jack Harper explained that it was “intentional” that the BoCC did not adopt the IFC previously.
Medina explained that she confirmed with two former commissioners that the BoCC was approached by a group of constituents wanting the BoCC to not adopt the IFC at that time.
“It wasn’t an error … it was intentional,” she said.
Brown explained that Medina’s account of the BoCC not adopting the IFC before was correct and that it was intentional by the BoCC at the time.
“Per Title 32, the Pagosa Fire Protection District must use the fire code adopted by the County for all commercial plan review and fire inspections within the County. It has been discovered that back in 2019, when the Board of County Commissioners adopted the 2019 International Building Code, Residential Code, Fire Gas Code, Mechanical Code, Swimming Pools & Spas Code, Existing Building Code, and Energy Conservation Code, they did not also adopt the 2015 International Fire Code, leaving us on the 2009 IFC. This appears to have been an error of omission due to an assumption that the Fire District’s adoption of the 2015 IFC would suffice. There are no changes between the 2009 and 2015 IFC that will effect [sic] construction requirements which are not already in effect through the 2015 IBC Adoption,” the July 16 agenda states.
Ranson then motioned to adopt the 2015 IFC, which died for the lack of a second.
Following Ranson’s failed motion, Brown moved not to adopt the 2015 IFC, with that motion unanimously approved by the BoCC.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>