Understanding Clarence-Rockland’s New Building Permit Fees
What the new fees mean, why they are increasing, and some questions worth asking
What changed?
The City of Clarence-Rockland recently changed its building permit fees.
The consulting firm Hemson was asked by City Council to study the City’s building permit fees and determine what would be required to recover the full cost of providing building-code services.
The study was presented to Council in June 2026. On August 12, 2026, Council adopted By-law 2026-74, establishing a new schedule of building permit fees.
One of the things that stood out to me in the study was the statement that Clarence-Rockland had not reviewed its building permit fees for some time and had not been adjusting them annually for inflation.
That raises an important question:
Why were the fees not reviewed earlier, and why make this change now, just before the municipal election?
Why are the fees increasing?
The reason given for the increase is that the current fees do not cover the full cost of providing the building-code service.
According to the study, the City is expected to collect approximately $640,000 per year in building permit fees, on average, between 2027 and 2031.
At the same time, the estimated annual cost of administering and enforcing the Building Code is approximately $967,200.
That leaves an estimated annual shortfall of approximately $327,200.
The study therefore recommends increasing building permit fees by 51.1%.
In simple terms, the City is saying that the current fees aren’t bringing in enough money to cover the cost of providing the service.
I understand that concern.
But I believe there are other questions that should also be considered.
How much will residents actually pay?
A 51.1% increase is significant.
For example, the recommended fixed fee for a building permit for a single-family home with a floor area under 1,500 square feet would increase from $1,479 to $2,235. For homes over 1,500 square feet, the proposed structure would apply a fee of $1.21 per square foot.
These are costs that can have a real impact on someone who is building or purchasing a home, adding to their home or starting a construction project.
How does Clarence-Rockland compare with other municipalities?
The Hemson study compares Clarence-Rockland’s current and proposed fees with several other municipalities, including Cornwall, Russell, Carleton Place, Alfred and Plantagenet, Ottawa, East Hawkesbury and Arnprior.
Under the current fees, Clarence-Rockland is at the low end of the municipalities reviewed. Under the proposed fees, it would move closer to the middle of the group.
But comparisons between municipalities aren’t always straightforward.
Each municipality is different. They have different populations, geographic areas, amounts and types of construction, and different ways of organizing their building departments.
For that reason, I think comparisons can provide useful information, but they shouldn’t be the only factor when deciding what is appropriate for Clarence-Rockland.
What does the study recommend?
The study makes several recommendations.
Two of them make sense to me:
eliminating performance deposits that do not generate revenue for the City but require administrative work from municipal staff; and
establishing fixed fees for certain types of projects, such as accessory structures and silos.
My concern is with the recommendation to increase building permit fees by 51.1%.
Could the increase have been phased in?
The City’s building-code reserve fund had more than $1.1 million at the end of 2025.
Given that reserve, I believe there was an opportunity to look at whether the increase could have been phased in over several years rather than applied at once.
The goal would still be to move toward fees that reflect the actual cost of providing the service, while giving residents and the construction industry more time to adjust.
There is also a broader consideration.
Higher building permit costs add to the overall cost of construction, and by ricochet, the cost of a rent. At a time when governments are trying to encourage the creation of more housing, I believe it is worth asking what impact significant increases in development-related costs could have on that goal.
Can the process itself be simpler?
There is another part of the proposed fee structure that I think deserves attention.
Under the proposed system, staff may need to calculate the applicable fee based on the size of a building.
For example, a single-family home under 1,500 square feet would have a fixed fee, while a home over 1,500 square feet would be charged according to the square footage.
This raises a practical question:
Could more of the fees simply be fixed amounts?
A simpler fee structure could reduce the amount of time inspectors and other staff spend calculating fees. That would allow them to focus more of their time on the work that residents ultimately need from the Building Department — reviewing plans and inspecting construction sites.
The study itself recognizes that the proposed structure requires staff involvement to determine the appropriate fee.
A simpler process could potentially make it easier for residents to know what their permit will cost when they submit their application, while also allowing municipal staff to focus on their core responsibilities.
Marc’s Perspective
I believe the City needs to make sure that building permit fees are reasonable, transparent and connected to the actual cost of providing the service.
I understand why the City reviewed its fees. The study identifies a significant gap between the revenue generated by current fees and the cost of administering and enforcing the Building Code.
At the same time, I believe a 51.1% increase deserves careful consideration, particularly when the City’s building-code reserve fund already contained more than $1.1 million at the end of 2025.
I also believe there is an opportunity to look at whether the fee structure itself can be made simpler and more efficient.
The objective should be to recover the appropriate costs of providing the service without creating unnecessary administrative work or adding more cost and complexity to construction than necessary.
These are questions I believe are worth discussing as Clarence-Rockland continues to grow.