Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plan Review Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building department proposes charging for third and subsequent plan reviews; council weighs equity and navigator role
Summary
Building & Neighborhood Services proposed activating a 50% fee for plan submissions that require more than two review cycles and examining new fees (residential and fire-protection plan reviews) as part of a cost-of-service analysis; staff estimated potential plan-review revenue is substantial compared with current fee intake.
Tom Marsh, director of the Building & Neighborhood Services Department, told the Budget & Finance Committee that his department is proposing several changes to plan-review fees aimed at improving plan quality and better matching revenue to staff costs.
Marsh said one proposal is to begin charging a supplemental fee equal to 50% of the original plan-review fee for any plan requiring a third review cycle; he noted that language for that fee has existed in the municipal code for several years but has not yet been implemented. He described additional options under study: increasing the base nonresidential plan-review fee, instituting a first-time residential plan-review fee (residential plan review work has been performed without a fee since 2017), and charging for new fire-protection plan reviews that the fire department now performs.
Marsh told the committee that the department’s plan-review staff cost is over $1 million in total salaries while plan-review fees collected in 2025 were about $124,000. Staff estimated that pursuing fee changes could uncover roughly $335,000 in potential additional revenue; Marsh emphasized the intent is to improve compliance and reduce repeat reviews rather than to penalize applicants.
Committee members raised concerns about equity and the impact on first-time or low-capacity applicants. One member encouraged the department to consider a development-services navigator position to assist applicants and reduce repeat cycles; Marsh said the navigator is not funded in FY27 but remains under consideration. Marsh and others also cited survey evidence and internal metrics (average reviews per plan: nonresidential 4.6; residential 3.4; overall 3.8) to explain the rationale for the third-review fee and potential efficiency gains.
No formal decision was made; staff said a cost-of-service analysis and follow-up discussion with the Development Services Advisory Commission in May would precede any change.
