I have spoken with many colleagues in the development community, and a recurring theme is that the biggest cost driver is not usually the permit fees but the time spent in long review processes. This is a genuine question about whether cities might consider charging higher permit fees or offering an expedited option, with the extra revenue going toward hiring more staff to speed up approvals and allow more direct communication with planners. That could help reduce the slow back-and-forth when clarifying comments.
I understand there may be restrictions that make this challenging, such as legal or regulatory limits on how fees can be used, concerns about creating an unfair system, or difficulties in hiring and retaining qualified staff (which I feel could be offset by providing higher salaries and charging more for permits). However, from my perspective, many developers would be willing to pay significantly higher fees if it reliably cut down review times and improved consistency in feedback.
Has anyone seen or experienced a successful approach to this?
I understand there may be restrictions that make this challenging, such as legal or regulatory limits on how fees can be used, concerns about creating an unfair system, or difficulties in hiring and retaining qualified staff (which I feel could be offset by providing higher salaries and charging more for permits). However, from my perspective, many developers would be willing to pay significantly higher fees if it reliably cut down review times and improved consistency in feedback.
Has anyone seen or experienced a successful approach to this?
- Location
- Los Angeles, California, United States