The Ethics of Permit Expediting Fees in Local and County Governments

The Ethics of Permit Expediting Fees in Local and County Governments​

In recent years, the practice of charging additional fees to expedite permit processing has gained traction in various municipalities. While some argue that these fees are necessary to manage workloads and improve efficiency, this practice raises significant ethical concerns about fairness and equity in government services. A recent thread here in The Building Code Forum inspired this article.

The Issue at Hand​

Permit expediting fees allow applicants who can afford to pay an extra charge to have their permits processed faster than those who cannot. This creates a two-tier system where financial resources determine the speed at which services are rendered. Such a system inherently favors wealthier individuals and businesses, leaving those with fewer resources at a disadvantage.

Ethical Considerations​

1. Fairness and Equality:
   • Government services, especially those related to essential functions like building permits, should be accessible to all citizens on an equal basis. Charging extra fees for expedited services undermines this principle by creating an unequal playing field.
   • Those who cannot afford to pay the additional fees may face significant delays, which can impact project timelines, increase costs, and create frustration.
2. Public Trust and Perception:
   • The practice of charging for expedited services can erode public trust in government institutions. It fosters a perception that government services can be bought, which may lead to concerns about corruption and favoritism.
   • Maintaining the integrity and impartiality of public services is crucial for ensuring that all citizens feel they are treated equally under the law.
3. Impact on Small Businesses and Individuals:
   • Small businesses and individual property owners are often the most affected by these fees. Unlike larger corporations, they may not have the financial flexibility to pay for expedited services, which can put them at a competitive disadvantage.
   • This practice can stifle small business growth and development, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas.

Case Studies and Legal Context​

Though not expediting fees, similar court fees ended in a recent lawsuit involving St. Louis County municipalities, highlighting the contentious nature of additional municipal fees. These cases often argue that such fees are unfair and disproportionately impact marginalized communities. The lawsuits have called for the repeal of these fees and reimbursement for those who have been adversely affected (Riverfront Times).

Moreover, while specific legal precedents on permit expediting fees are limited, related court rulings on municipal fees emphasize the need for a clear and proportional relationship between fees and the services provided. This principle is crucial in ensuring that fees are not simply revenue-generating tools but are tied to actual costs and services.

A Call for Reflection​

As professionals involved in building inspections, plan reviews, and the issuance of permits, it is essential to reflect on the ethical implications of permit expediting fees. Should local and county governments allow financial resources to dictate the speed of service? Does this practice align with the principles of fairness and equity that underpin public service?

Join the Conversation​

We invite members of The Building Code Forum to share their thoughts and experiences on this issue. Have you encountered permit expediting fees at work? What impact have they had on your projects and clients? How do you believe municipalities should balance efficiency with fairness in their permitting processes?

Your insights and discussions are invaluable in shaping a more equitable approach to municipal services.

 

[tmurray]

I said this in the other thread, but I think the only way you can do this is afterhours.

This eliminates the risk that someone needs to pay for expediting to have their permit reviewed and those in the standard queue actually get their projects reviewed faster (assuming no un-expedited permits are reviewed after regular working hours).

I think people are right to be concerned about two tier systems. However, if you implement a rigorous policy statement that establishes a right to have the permit reviewed within a reasonable time without expediting, this concern is minimized.

I think it can be done fairly. I think it could be easily abused.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I said this in the other thread, but I think the only way you can do this is afterhours.

This eliminates the risk that someone needs to pay for expediting to have their permit reviewed and those in the standard queue actually get their projects reviewed faster (assuming no un-expedited permits are reviewed after regular working hours).

I think people are right to be concerned about two tier systems. However, if you implement a rigorous policy statement that establishes a right to have the permit reviewed within a reasonable time without expediting, this concern is minimized.

I think it can be done fairly. I think it could be easily abused.

Even if done after hours, it still establishes a two-tiered system. If a building department can pay someone overtime to review plans for Mega Corp's now headquarters, why can't they pay overtime to review John Doe's new deck or sunroom addition?

Oh! Because Mega Corp is paying for the overtime, so it doesn't impact the department's budget and it doesn't delay John Doe's plan review. So now we're into "You gotta pay to play" territory. What next? Maybe we have big projects pending for both Mega Corp and Gigundo Limited, and they both want expedited reviews but there's only one plan reviewer available who can or is willing to work overtime. Who goes first? Do we start a bidding war? How much is your expedited review worth?

And, ethically, does this create a potential for a conflict of interest? If I'm being paid extra to work overtime and review Mega Corp's plans, do I have to worry about what's going to happen if I find a bunch of problems and reject the permit?

 

[fatboy]

We never did it, I just think it it is wrong. A list is a list, and that's where they all go, in the queue!

 

[mtlogcabin]

EX'PEDITE, verb transitive [Latin expedio; Eng. speed. Expedio is compound. We see the same root in impedio, to hinder to send against, to move in opposition.]

1. To hasten; to quicken; to accelerate motion or progress.

Yes, charge them an expedited fee and use it to pay the overtime to move the plan review process for all permits along quicker. They don't get to jump to the front of the line. If it shortens the time frame from 30 days to 15 days then all plans are being "expedited" with no one jumping the line.
We have different que lines (and reviewers) based on if it is an IRC permit, IBC permit, or the requirements of IBC Chapter 9.

 

[tmurray]

Even if done after hours, it still establishes a two-tiered system. If a building department can pay someone overtime to review plans for Mega Corp's now headquarters, why can't they pay overtime to review John Doe's new deck or sunroom addition?

Oh! Because Mega Corp is paying for the overtime, so it doesn't impact the department's budget and it doesn't delay John Doe's plan review. So now we're into "You gotta pay to play" territory. What next? Maybe we have big projects pending for both Mega Corp and Gigundo Limited, and they both want expedited reviews but there's only one plan reviewer available who can or is willing to work overtime. Who goes first? Do we start a bidding war? How much is your expedited review worth?

And, ethically, does this create a potential for a conflict of interest? If I'm being paid extra to work overtime and review Mega Corp's plans, do I have to worry about what's going to happen if I find a bunch of problems and reject the permit?

The flaw I see with the two tier argument, is that we already have tiers in a lot of cases. Many jurisdictions have different turn around times for projects based on size. Some provinces here in Canada have acts that would have a maximum review time for Mega Crop's new multi-million development at 60 days, but John Doe's deck must be done in 2 weeks. If John Doe is standing behind Mega Corp in line to drop off their building permit, his application jumps over Mega Corp to ensure mandatory turn around times are met.

Is this system better because it disproportionally benefits the individual in comparison to the corporation? Do we just feel better helping the individual out in comparison to the big faceless corporation?

On the conflict of interest piece, There is also a concern for the reviewer purposefully dragging out the review with unnecessary re-submissions to maximize their overtime.