Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Clair Shores approves broad permit-fee increases, moves "work without permit" to penalty clause
Summary
The St. Clair Shores City Council approved a citywide revision of permit and application fees to take effect Jan. 1, 2026, with a 6-1 vote after amending the motion to treat "work without permit" as a penalty rather than a routine permit fee. Council debate focused on calculation methods and impacts on residents and applicants.
St. Clair Shores City Council on Dec. 1 approved a sweeping revision of the city's permit and application fee schedule to take effect Jan. 1, 2026, and amended the action to move charges for "work without a permit" into the ordinance's penalty clause.
Denise Pike, director of Community Development and Inspections, told the council the packet compiles board and permit fees that had not been reviewed for many years and that the department aimed to recover costs of service rather than create revenue. "We're not making a profit," Pike said, explaining that rising publication, mailing and inspection costs drove some increases.
The approved package includes several notable changes: Water Resources Advisory Board applications would rise from $100 to $300; many site-plan reviews and multiple-family residential reviews would be simplified to a $1,000 flat fee; special land use and rezoning applications were proposed at $1,500 because they require public notices and hearings; and the zoning board of appeals application fee would increase from $300 to $500 for residential cases and up to $1,000 for commercial or multifamily matters. The packet also included detailed fire- and life-safety fees (for master panels, initiating and notification devices, vendor delays and reinspections), driveway and fence permit increases, revised sign-permit processing fees and a larger refundable bond for sign removal.
Some councilmembers pushed back on how the administration calculated per-application costs. Councilmember Rusey questioned whether the worksheets double-counted administrative attendance by charging full meeting-time costs to each application. "I don't like it being called a fee. When it remains, it's operating as a penalty," Rusey said during debate, pressing staff to refine how attorney, planner and clerical time are apportioned.
Councilmember Vitale, who moved the approval, said the increases were intended to reduce strain on the general fund by recovering a larger share of inspection, review and notice costs. Several members asked that the city perform annual fee reviews to avoid large omnibus changes in the future.
During the motion the council accepted an amendment to classify the "work without a permit" charge as a penalty and place it in the city's penalty clause rather than the regular fee schedule. After the amendment the council voted 6-1 to approve the package; the record shows the motion passed and the fees will take effect Jan. 1, 2026.
Pike said the next step will be further separate reviews of building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing permit fees, and she encouraged council members to suggest refinements to calculation sheets before those subsequent proposals return for formal action.
