02-11-2004 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Report of the LMC / AMM Building Permit Fees Working Group Page 2 November 2003 Unlike previous versions of the state building code, the code adopted in 2003 did not contain a sample fee schedule. Therefore, the above fee schedule was developed cooperatively by members of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, with information provided by the State Building Codes and Standards Division. Additional Recommendations 1. When considering the sample fee schedule, individual cities need to evaluate the cost of administering the state building code in their community. Minnesota Statute 16B.685 requires all cities that collect more than $5,000 in construction and development - related fees a year to annually report all fees collected from developers, builders, and subcontractors and the corresponding expenses for which fees were collected. 2. Cities should also consider the impact of valuation increases when setting fees. Before adjusting fee schedules, cities should consider how much additional revenue will be generated as a result of their existing fee schedule being applied to projects of increasing valuation. 3. Cities not currently using the 1997 UBC schedule should consider phasing in the sample 2003 fee schedule. 4. Cities should plan on adjusting the fee schedule every three years in conjunction with the state's 3 -year building code adoption cycle. Therefore, the fee schedule should be adjusted again with the adoption of the new State Building Code in 2006. Minor Label Program The state of Minnesota should work with cities to establish a "Minor Label Program," modeled after the one currently operated in Oregon, which allows licensed contractors to purchase "labels" from the state and apply them to certain minor installations such as water heaters or water softeners. The contractor then submits a record of where the labels have been used, the state notifies local governments of the installation locations, and the local government conducts spot checks on randomly selected installations performed by that contractor. The program has numerous potential benefits. The contractor pays a lower fee for the labels than he or she would for a conventional permit, and stakes his or her continued participation in the program on the quality of work performed. The local building official spends less time inspecting minor installations, therefore leaving more time for new construction and major remodels. Finally, Oregon has found that the number of labels sold and recorded annually has greatly exceeded the number of permits taken out for similar installations prior to implementation of the minor label program. 6