TimNY
Platinum Member
We touched on this in another thread, but I didn't want to drag that thread off-topic.
I saw reference to a chart that some municipalities were using to establish cost of construction and permit fees.
We moved away from basing permit cost on cost of construction. First, cost of construction varied widely. Whether it was due to applicants "fudging" numbers or just using a high-end contractor vs a low-end contractor.
I recall somebody had posted a thread (not sure if it was here or on the old board) wherein cities in California had to return monies due to charging excess permit fees.
The permit fees have been referred to as a "money maker". As I understand it, the cost of the fees cannot exceed the cost of the services rendered in return for the fees. We are not in business to make money.
About 6 years ago we moved to a fee schedule based on square footage. It's not perfect, but I would say it works very well. I took exception to the fact that the permit cost for my home with marble floors, granite countertops and R&R cedar shingles would be substantially more than a home with laminate floors, laminate countertops and vinyl siding. The inspections were exactly the same.
We have flat rate fees for 500sf, 1000sf and 2000sf. Over 2000sf the cost is flat rate+1.25/sf over 2000. The thinking is that whether you build 100sf or 500sf, there is a certain minimum of administrative work, travel time etc.
Over 2000 typically the homes get more complicated, more braced walls, more dormers etc. Is it 100%, no, but I feel it is a better way to go.
Curious as to what other municipalities are doing. Would also like to hear if the cost of permits based on construction cost has had to be defended by any other jurisdictions.
I saw reference to a chart that some municipalities were using to establish cost of construction and permit fees.
We moved away from basing permit cost on cost of construction. First, cost of construction varied widely. Whether it was due to applicants "fudging" numbers or just using a high-end contractor vs a low-end contractor.
I recall somebody had posted a thread (not sure if it was here or on the old board) wherein cities in California had to return monies due to charging excess permit fees.
The permit fees have been referred to as a "money maker". As I understand it, the cost of the fees cannot exceed the cost of the services rendered in return for the fees. We are not in business to make money.
About 6 years ago we moved to a fee schedule based on square footage. It's not perfect, but I would say it works very well. I took exception to the fact that the permit cost for my home with marble floors, granite countertops and R&R cedar shingles would be substantially more than a home with laminate floors, laminate countertops and vinyl siding. The inspections were exactly the same.
We have flat rate fees for 500sf, 1000sf and 2000sf. Over 2000sf the cost is flat rate+1.25/sf over 2000. The thinking is that whether you build 100sf or 500sf, there is a certain minimum of administrative work, travel time etc.
Over 2000 typically the homes get more complicated, more braced walls, more dormers etc. Is it 100%, no, but I feel it is a better way to go.
Curious as to what other municipalities are doing. Would also like to hear if the cost of permits based on construction cost has had to be defended by any other jurisdictions.
