GUILDERLAND — The town has updated its fee schedule for services ranging from fire inspections to subdivision applications.

“Most of these increases have not been touched in probably 15 or 20 years,” said Supervisor Peter Barber, noting that the cost of everything from postage to fuel has increased. “These are really just intended to cover the cost of the action,” he said.

For example, Barber said, the town has expanded the number of residents it informs about a public hearing and has upgraded from mailing a postcard to a first-class letter.

Town planner Kenneth Kovalchik said that fee schedules for other other municipalities — he named Bethlehem, Colonie, East Greenbush, and Malta — were consulted, and Barber said Guilderland set its fees in the middle of those.

Kovalchik also said that the fees should reflect the staff time involved in reviewing large projects.

Two people spoke at the public hearing, lodging different objections, before the law was unanimously passed.

Developer Angelo Serafini urged, “Look at the money the town and community is going to make forever and ever off these projects.” Development, he said, is “what’s going to keep our community vibrant.”

 According to Cost of Community Services Studies conducted by the American Farmland Trust, comparing the cost in services used by residential development, commercial and industrial development, and working on open land, “In every community studied, farmland has generated a fiscal surplus to help offset the shortfall created by residential demand for public services.”

This is because commercial and industrial development but especially residential development, with the need for schools, all cost far more in needed services than open land or farms.

“You’ve raised every fee that has to do with bringing growth to the town, drastically,” Serafini told the board.

Robyn Gray, who chairs the steering committee for the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth, had a different complaint.

She began by reading a letter from Guilderland resident Gordon McClelland, formerly a member of Guilderland’s Conservation Advisory Council, who said it is “perfectly understandable” that the town charges fees for applications for permits, licenses, and inspections.

“What is not understandable is the very existence of a fee to the residents for an interpretation of the town code,” McClelland wrote.

He noted, by way of example, that the town doesn’t charge residents a fee to report violations to the police department.

McClelland differentiated between a resident who has requested a permit and been turned down and so wants to appeal — who should be charged a fee —  and a resident who is “merely in search of a fair and honest enforcement of town code,” and should not be charged a fee.

Gray echoed McClelland’s views. She said she had called five or six local municipalities to ask the building or zoning departments, “Do you charge your residents who are not a party to an action for an interpretation of your zoning code?”

Of the towns she queried, Gray said, only Bethlehem charges. “One town specifically told me, ‘Why would we do that? That’s what our zoning board does … They interpret the code to make sure people know what it is.’”

Gray concluded by asking the town board, “Why is it that we have to pay as residents to ask somebody what the code means?”

Councilman Jacob Crawford, who recently served on the zoning board, responded. He said that, in his eight or nine years on the zoning board, “We probably had four requests for an interpretation of the code.”

Crawford went on, “Not every resident that doesn’t understand a part of the town zoning code would require an interpretation from the ZBA, right? You should be able to go to the town zoning administrator and ask a question as to what it means.”

Crawford said that only once in his time on the board had a resident, as opposed to a developer, asked for an interpretation on how the code was being enforced. He concluded, “We’re not saying every resident that doesn’t understand what the zoning code means, that they have to pay a fee to have an understanding of that.”

Barber said that a lot of municipalities don’t offer interpretations. “If you don’t like what the zoning administrator said, you go to court,” he said of the procedure for aggrieved residents in those municipalities.

Barber also told Gray, “I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying.” But, he said, it was more appropriate to “address the fees tonight” and then the town board would look “at making any amendments to appropriate provisions in the code.”

Councilwoman Christine Napierski said, “We’re going to be working on putting instructions on the website for enforcement.” This will include easy-to-follow instructions for residents who disagree with a determination by the zoning inspector, Napierski said.

Further, Napierski said that residents should have access to the zoning board. “It shouldn’t be overly expensive,” she said. “But there are costs associated with it,” such as mailing public notices.

Crawford added that, at every public hearing, “If there’s not clarity for a resident, they do have the ability to go to that microphone and ask a clarifying question of the board.”

The fees

Fire inspections for single-family homes are included as part of the building permit; the fire-inspection fees have stayed the same for multiple-family homes, at $50 plus $2.50 per unit.

However, fire-inspection fees have increased for commercial space — from $50 to $55 for up to 2,000 square feet, and from $500 to $550 for 250,001 square feet or more.

Public-school fire inspections have increased from $75 to $100, and private-school inspections from $24 to $100.

In October, the town board had already approved an increase of fees at the transfer station.

Demolition permits have increased from $500 to $600 for the first 1,000 square feet of new construction and from $300 to $325 for each additional 1,000 square feet.

The registration fee for property maintenance has gone from $250 to $300 for six months.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan review has gone from $200 to $300 for one acre or less of disturbance and from $500 to $750 for more than an acre. Issuance of a stop-work order has gone from $250 to $375.

A minor subdivision concept plan application now costs $250, up from $150 while a major subdivision concept plan application now has $100 per lot added to the original $500 fee.

Open space, parks, and parkland fees have increased from $1,800 to $2,200 for single-family and two-family townhouses.

Minor-home occupations formerly had no fee but now must pay $50.

Application fees for up to five small cell wireless facilities have gone from $600 to $700.

A residential area variance now costs $100 instead of $50.

Review for a residential special-use permit now costs $75 instead of $100 while review for a commercial special-use permit has gone from $300 to $500.

Residents can still enter Tawasentha Park for free with a sticker. The fee for adult residents to use the pool has gone from $3 to $5 while seniors and children under 5 can still swim for free; children 14 and under are now charged $3 instead of $1.

Pavilion rental fees have also gone up incrementally as have day camp fees.

Genealogical searches provided by the town clerk have increased from $600 to $1,000, following the New York State fee schedule, with an option to waive.

Councilwoman Rosemary Centi, who formerly served as town clerk, lamented “the interminable amount of time” used by staff to answer some records requests.

Regarding Freedom of Information Law requests, James Melita, the town attorney, said, according to state law, “You can’t charge for the amount of time it takes town staff to search for town records … You can only charge for the documents actually provided.”

Centi said that staff being taken away from day-to-day business has “become problematic.” She said, “It impedes function.”

Crawford said that, in the future, the town should consider a fee for solar farms, “which obviously are coming more and more frequently, which are, in my opinion, an industrial use of agricultural property.”

Barber said “minor changes” could be made later.

“Our budget was based in part on these fees,” he said. “I think we should get these in place.”

Councilwoman Napierski, acknowledging Serafini’s point about “feeling the crunch,” said, “We have not raised our fees in many, many years — and we have to keep up with inflation, too.”

Barber suggested, in the future, implementing yearly fee hikes rather than waiting 15 years.

Napierski agreed it would soften the blow to raise fees incrementally going forward.