A Money Grab?

[Melvin]

A friend of mine said something interesting the other day and it got me thinking. He said permits nowadays are more about making money for the city/town than they are about safety.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Eric]

There could be some truth to that but I think it really depends on the specific permit office that we're talking about. They all seem to vary in terms of how they balance their salaries/budgets against the permit fees they charge. For example, Dallas' building department was in the news recently because it had to abruptly hike permit fees 2,700% after a decade without any fee increases. Prior to the increase, Dallas had been losing $20 million per year and that shortfall had to be offset by taxpayer funds. You really can't accuse building departments operating like Dallas' was of any kind of "money grab," right?

On the other hand, there also permit offices that fund more than just permitting functions with the fees they collect. For example, I know some sheriff's offices fund general departmental operations with their concealed carry permit revenue. When permit fees are funding more than just labor for permit application reviews/inspections, I agree that the term "money grab" becomes a little more applicable.

 

[Nomad]

They don't get your money and hand over you the permit. It is not something like buying grocery. Before they give you permit they inspect your project, they analyze your project and they have people to work on it, so they are actually spending more money for your permit approval than you are actually giving them for permit application.

 

[Jake]

I think in some regards you may be right. Especially if they end up overcharging for permits. I can see some permitting offices requiring more than they should for certain permits.

I get that permits cost money depending on what is being done, but it should be at least affordable. I think some permit offices rely on the money they make from permit submissions, but I also think some don't need it.

Plus, wouldn't permitting offices fall under the government? SO they could take care of their offices and employees and pay them well so that the permitting costs don't come back on us too much.

 

[Winny]

I think when it starts to be too costly for permits, then it's a cash grab. I understand some permits will cost more than others, and that's totally fine. But it's when a permit costs more than it should, when I start to question where the money could be going.

 

[Fenix]

Sometimes it feels that way. However, I'm sure there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we simply don't think about. Laws are usually created to prevent harm, so I'm sure most of our permitting rules follow that. Staffing costs money. Enforcement costs money. Permitting fees help pay for it all.

 

[Jyoti]

Whether you pay for the expense of operating the building dept. in permit fees or tax payer funded or a combination of both, the expenses are for a public service.

 

[chasnr]

Some truth as others have said. Overall, I do truly believe it is for safety reasons and zoning potential issues, but, there are some scopes of work that really shouldn't require a permit. On the other hand, there are some jurisdictions that sub out their inspections and that becomes quite costly. I.E. Charles County MD. Permit cost-$200. Inspections costs-$450.00. All due to them using a 3rd party for the required inspections. Uggghhhh.

 

[Director Doug]

I believe that if you analyze most B&Z department budgets, you'll find that the general revenue budget of the community subsidizes the B&Z departmental budget, not the other way around. Customers of B&ZDs would get severe sticker shock if they paid for everything that goes into running that department - if fees were required to fund 100% of the department. That would make sense, right? Have the users/permittees pay 100% of the cost? (Inspections staff, support staff, benefits, office space, utilities, phones, updated training, code books, paper, toner, computers, printers, permitting software, vehicle, gas, vehicle insurance, vehicle repairs, 3rd party inspectors, etc.)

 

[Bobby McClanahan]

I believe that if you analyze most B&Z department budgets, you'll find that the general revenue budget of the community subsidizes the B&Z departmental budget, not the other way around. Customers of B&ZDs would get severe sticker shock if they paid for everything that goes into running that department - if fees were required to fund 100% of the department. That would make sense, right? Have the users/permittees pay 100% of the cost? (Inspections staff, support staff, benefits, office space, utilities, phones, updated training, code books, paper, toner, computers, printers, permitting software, vehicle, gas, vehicle insurance, vehicle repairs, 3rd party inspectors, etc.)

That is what I was thinking too. If you consider everything from intake to final there's not much money to grab.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

It may feel that way, but I can assure you, 99% of the building departments out there actualy lose money. The cost of the permits are to offset the costs of review and inspection which are required because of the adopted building codes. The adopted building codes are necessary because of insurance. If a community has no adopted building codes and no enforcement, your proeprty inurance goes through the roof. I have seen some communities where just not having a fire district jumped insurance rates from 1K per year to over 5K per year with no warning. The insurance rating also has a large part to do with how a community can borrow money and their bond rating. Building codes not current? Higher risk, and lower bond rating and everyone's taxes AND insurance goes up.

It is a complicated web, and I can honesly say most of us in the industry also think it is over regulation, but everything has become so interlaced, there is no way to extricate one part without the entire basis collapsing.