The Lago Vista Building Standards Commission on Monday voted unanimously to create a subcommittee to review the city’s Chapter 3 permit-expiration rules after local builders urged changes to how permit renewals and extension fees are handled.

The commission’s action came after builders described long timelines for flood‑plain homes and said they were being asked to pay the full original permit fee when seeking six‑month extensions. “I had no idea that we only had 12 month hard cap on our building,” Paul Smalling, a builder who identified himself as with Largo Homes, told the commission during the public‑comment period.

The commission convened the discussion under agenda item 5(b), “possible amendments to chapter 3 concerning permit expiration.” Builders said homes in Lago Vista’s topography and flood plain commonly take more than a year to finish. Kim Sharp, who said she is with Lago Homes, described receiving a six‑month extension for a large, two‑story flood‑plain house but expecting the extension to cover the remainder of the year; she said the family was now preparing to ask the city council for a short additional extension.

City staff responded with a reading of the ordinance and a clarification of administrative practice. “The building official is authorized to extend the permit 6 month in 6 month increments up to 36 months,” the building official told the commission, noting that the ordinance excludes the portion of the original fee identified as review and road/infrastructure impact when calculating renewal charges. City staff explained the original permanent fee is assessed at $0.75 per square foot; about $0.50 of that is allocated as an impact/street portion and the remaining $0.25 per square foot covers the permit portion (inspections, administration). Staff said the renewal fee should be the permit portion only (about $0.25 per square foot), and that some applicants had been charged incorrectly in the past.

Builders pressed staff on process and fees. A resident who described his house as “currently red tagged” said he had been charged the larger, combined fees when seeking renewal and asked for transparency on what services are charged on extension. Builders also cited a recent state law they said limits local extension fees; one commenter referred to “House Bill 852, Local Government Code section 214.908,” as the state provision they had consulted.

After discussion, Commissioner Marty West moved, and the commission amended and approved, a motion “to create a subcommittee to review section 3.11.” Commissioners Craig Sadler, Laura Sautner and Cliff McCullough volunteered to serve; the motion passed unanimously. The subcommittee will work with staff and consultants and arrange meeting times; staff said they will provide clarifications and corrected fee administration as part of the follow‑up.

The meeting concluded with builders asked to leave contact information for staff outreach so they can be kept informed while the subcommittee and staff finalize proposed clarifications.

Ending

The subcommittee will return proposed language to the full commission for review; staff said administrative corrections to how renewal fees are calculated are already being implemented. Builders at the meeting said they want the city to adopt a clearer, permit‑duration‑based approach so larger, flood‑elevated houses do not face repeated full‑fee assessments when they request extensions.