• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Building plan review fee charge?

SCBO1

SCBO1

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
4,620
Location
MID WEST
Curious how other municipalities charge for plan review?

Percentage of the project cost valuation?
Flat fee?
By the hour?
Other?
 
65% of the building permit for commercial and fire sprinklers and alarms
$50.00 flat fee for IRC buildings
$0.00 for mechanical, plumbing and electrical, commercial or residential projects
 
Slidinb scale for permit based on cost of the job

Than 65 % of that amount for permit fee
 
used to be 50 % Building Permit Fee of the projected cost of project ( evaluation data or contractor cost, whichever is higher) . This also started the clock for 180 days before project was cancelled - no more sliding in permits before code changes occur, and then project sitting in the shadows for a year to a year and a half.
 
Ne fees for anything residential. Commercial: $100 for the 1st review, $200 for the 2nd, $1,125 for the 3rd and $1,500 for a 4th review. A 4th review is very rare.
 
conarb said:
If you are in California (and some other states), nothing more than the actual cost of delivering the service.
Click to expand...
That’s the way it’s supposed to work. The truth is that there is no correlation between the fee and the actual cost.
 
L A Times said:
A judge has ruled that Corona's method of charging for building permits and other construction services is illegal, and ordered city officials to cut fees a total of $332,129 for two years.

Next week, Corona's mayor and City Council are slated to discuss whether to appeal the decision, according an attorney for the city, Jeffrey Dunn.

The ruling is the latest involving lawsuits that homebuilder Barratt American Inc. and Dick McCarthy, a retired developer from Palm Springs, have brought against several California cities and counties, charging that municipal building departments unfairly fatten their budgets with excessive permit fees.

As in many cities, Corona's permit fees were based on the total cost of running its Building Department. But Riverside County Superior Court Judge E. Michael Kaiser ruled that state law requires permit fees to be based on the actual cost of providing a service.

pixel.gif

Kaiser this month ordered Corona to "cease and desist using the current methodology" in determining Building Department fees and gave the city 90 days to come up with a new method for setting them. He also said those fees should be reduced over the next two years to make up for the $332,129 in excess revenue the city collected during a certain period.

"This is not to hurt the city; this is just to get them to obey the law," said McCarthy, who started filing lawsuits over local building fees in the late 1990s and now is a consultant for Barratt American, a major Southland homebuilder. "I believe governments should set the example of honesty."

The latest lawsuit was the third brought against Corona since 1997. The plaintiffs lost the previous two, then sued under a different section of state law this time, seeking up to $4 million for three years' worth of back fees from the city, McCarthy said.

Corona officials referred questions about the ruling to Dunn, an Irvine-based attorney who represented Corona in all three lawsuits. Dunn insisted that the ruling was not a victory for the plaintiffs and stemmed from the city's admission on the eve of trial that it had "temporarily overcharged" customers $332,129.

McCarthy said that though he was disappointed the judge had not agreed to return the full $4 million, he and Barratt American would not appeal the decision unless the city did.

"The principle of the win is more important to us than the money," McCarthy said. "The big thing is ... the city of Corona is going to have to adopt a fee system that comports with cost of services."¹
Click to expand...

This is a 2004 article, cities keep losing and go right back overcharging, we need criminal penalties.

¹ http://articles.latimes.com/2004/apr/30/local/me-fees30
 
Actually it is a little more nuanced in California. The total charged in building permit fees for all projects cannot exceed the total expenses of the department. I am told that some years may be out of balance as long as over a ten year period they average out. This is to prevent the building permit fees from being a source of income for the general fund.
 
Mark K said:
Actually it is a little more nuanced in California. The total charged in building permit fees for all projects cannot exceed the total expenses of the department. I am told that some years may be out of balance as long as over a ten year period they average out. This is to prevent the building permit fees from being a source of income for the general fund.
Click to expand...

Mark:

Do you know where that came from, a court decision or a law? What I'm seeing them doing is combining other departments within the Building Department, notably the Housing Department, that way the rich man pays for the poor man.
 
Conarb

The need to balance is in the statutes. The 10 year average was from a Building Official who implied that there was a court ruling to back it up.
Given the variations in the dollar of construction it is likely impossible to balance out each year, thus implying that it can be spread over several years.

Yes by combining several related departments there is potential for abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top