Building permit fees exist for one purpose: to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the Building Code.
They are not intended to generate surplus beyond what is reasonably required to stabilize operations.
When they are set appropriately, they ensure the department is properly funded, inspections are timely, and compliance is maintained. But when fee structures drift beyond actual cost recovery, they can become a barrier to development rather than a facilitator of it.
Norfolk’s 2024 building reserve balance sits at approximately $4.4 million. Based on annual gross expenditures of roughly $1.84 million, that places the stabilization reserve at about 239% of annual costs — above the 200% upper limit established in Council policy.
That matters.
When reserves exceed policy targets, it raises a fair question: are fees calibrated appropriately?
The Building Department operates within the financial structure Council sets but leadership requires periodic recalibration.
High building fees create friction:
- Small contractors hesitate
- Renovations are deferred
- Commercial expansions stall
- Industrial builds face higher entry costs
In a competitive environment, friction costs growth.
At the same time, Norfolk’s Industrial Land Reserve stood at approximately $2.05 million in 2023.
We speak often about the need for growth. Yet if entering the building system is unnecessarily expensive, we are quietly slowing the very expansion we say we want.
User fees should recover cost — not accumulate beyond policy intent.
If the stabilization reserve sits materially above its 200% ceiling, it is time for a review.
Not to weaken oversight.
Not to underfund inspections.
But to align fees with actual need.
Growth expands the base. A broader base stabilizes rates.
If we want more construction, more jobs, and more industrial investment, we must ensure our building fee structure supports action — not slows it.
That is not reactive governance. That is leadership.