The Fee Gap · 20-city study
One Storefront Sign, 20 Cities: Why a Posted Permit Fee May Not Be the Whole Permit Cost
For the same hypothetical storefront sign, the reviewed records in seven cities did not establish a complete permit amount. The 20-city study shows why a posted fee needs an explanation of what it covers.
In this study, “the fee gap” means the uncertainty that remains when a posted fee does not establish the complete government permit charges for the specified sign.
A number in a fee table may leave part of the question unanswered
A business planning a storefront sign needs to know which government charges apply to its project. One posted fee can describe only a minimum, one component, or a permit route that may not cover the proposed installation. In this study, “permit cost” means mandatory government charges for the initial authorization; private design, engineering and installation costs are outside the comparison.
Signage.com Research reviewed official records for one hypothetical sign across the 20 largest U.S. cities in the study's population frame. Seven cities had documented conditions in which the reviewed record did not establish one all-in amount. Four other cities produced a fixed scenario calculation, a dated published fee stack, a minimum or a no-permit outcome. Nine cities were excluded from substantive findings because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold.
Chicago illustrates the distinction. Its code and captured permit records support a $250 sign-plus-zoning standard, while an enacted footnote points to an additional factor-based permit calculation. The study preserves both parts of that record and does not treat $250 as a guaranteed all-in amount.
Philadelphia provides a different kind of answer: a $525.50 calculation for the specified project and filing assumptions. San Diego's $1,543.11 is a dated published stack with an additional-hourly-fee caveat. Keeping those labels beside the figures is essential to understanding what the study found.
Read each amount by the kind of answer it provides
The observations below are grouped by meaning. They do not form a fee ranking, national range or comparison ratio.
Calculations for a specified permit path
Philadelphia
$525.50
$253 zoning + $253 building + $3 City surcharge + $4.50 State surcharge + $12 record retention.
The record-retention charge assumes three 24×36 building-plan sheets. The result describes that scenario and filing assumption.
San Diego
$1,543.11
$793.95 plan check + $737 General Plan Maintenance + $12.16 mapping.
Additional hourly fees may apply for work not covered by the schedule. This is a dated baseline, not a guaranteed final invoice.
A minimum or an exemption
Phoenix
$293
Additional review time can increase the charge. The minimum cannot serve as a fixed low endpoint.
Austin
No sign permit
The captured exemption applies to the specified project. It is not a $0 fee observation.
A published figure with an unresolved question
Chicago
The record supports $250: $50 for the sign plus $200 on-premises zoning. The enacted-footnote issue remains unresolved, so the figure is not an all-in guarantee.
Charlotte
The FY2027 Residential schedule publishes a $240 Tier 3 Sign fee. The studied property is commercial. Schedule applicability, alternate-method or County routing, and additional fees remain unresolved. The row does not establish the permit cost for the studied storefront.
Seven conditions that left an all-in amount unsupported
These are dated findings about the records and scenario examined. They include different questions about components, applicable routes, minimums, source conflicts and operative rates.
Component and code-path question
The $165 records-management fee is one verified component. The separate sign-filing formula and the study-window code-path record do not support one all-in total. The study-window prior-code election remains part of the dated record; its enacted repeal takes effect July 17, 2027.
Dated official-source conflict
The dated calculator capture and state/code materials produced a documented official-source conflict. The study preserves the dated observation and withholds both a defect allegation and a fixed total.
Standard plus a footnote question
The sign row publishes $50 per face and zoning publishes $200 for an on-premises sign; 2026 permit records repeatedly report $250, including a 32-sq-ft non-illuminated wall sign. Footnote c still points to an additional factor-based permit calculation.
Staff-time floors and an unproven stack
The retained official record contains Planning and Building sign charges, but Building amounts function as staff-time-or-table floors and the exact Planning-plus-Building stack remains unproven.
Published row, unresolved applicability
The FY2027 Residential Zoning Fee Schedule publishes a $240 Tier 3 Sign row. Because the locked case is a commercial storefront and its anchorage remains outside the captured prescriptive standard, schedule applicability, alternate-method or County routing, and any additional fees remain unresolved.
Operative current rate unresolved
Current fixed lines were captured, but the operative Planning rate and other mandatory current components were not resolved from official records for the study window.
Project-specific review and rate vintage
Performance-based attachment review remains project-specific, and the legally required July 1 adjusted rate was not located in the reviewed official record.
One fully specified hypothetical sign
Using one specified project holds the size, weight, installation and filing assumptions constant across the records reviewed. The 32-square-foot panel makes the physical case concrete. It is not a survey of typical installations, and the study does not establish that these dimensions or anchors represent every storefront. Different specifications can change the permit path or charges.
- Sign face
- 8 ft wide × 4 ft tall = 32 sq ft; one permanent, on-premises business-identification wall sign; one face; non-electric and non-illuminated.
- Weight and assembly
- Maximum 40 lb; a 2-inch-thick assembly with the frozen 2-inch trim geometry.
- Mounting elevations
- Bottom at 10 ft and top at 14 ft above grade; flush and parallel to the existing wall; entirely on private property.
- Wall and attachment
- Fully grouted concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall; eight 1/4-inch anchors with 1.5-inch embedment; no new structural framing.
- Property assumptions
- Existing lawful one-story commercial storefront; ordinary commercial zoning; no change of use, unrelated construction, special overlay or right-of-way projection.
- Filing assumptions
- $5,000 declared value where required; three 24×36 building-plan sheets; licensed contractor; ordinary on-time filing and surcharge-free payment.
Population frame: the frozen study uses the U.S. Census Bureau's Vintage 2025 incorporated-place ranking, with consolidated-city balances named where applicable. “Population rank” below identifies sample order, not a fee ranking.
Full scenario and transaction boundary
Included: mandatory government charges for the initial authorization, including applicable sign, zoning, building, application, plan-review and ordinary inspection charges, plus required permit-linked surcharges and assessments.
Excluded: electrical work, special overlays, variances, right-of-way use, new structural framing, unrelated construction, penalties, reinspection, expedited service, renewals, refundable deposits, optional payment charges, and professional, engineering, fabrication, installation or contractor costs.
The parameters above summarize the controlling frozen record and its dated corrections. The full methodology and scenario records the comparison assumptions and limitations.
How the review was conducted: Official public records were used to compile the first-pass findings. Later reviews were informed by the existing record; disagreements, amendments and corrections were logged. An additional review in a separate context identified the dimensional-label inconsistency corrected in this edition. This process was not blind independent replication. No city was contacted.
Commercial interest: Signage.com operates in the commercial signage market and has a commercial interest in the subject. That relationship did not change the study's evidence hierarchy, correction rules or publication exclusions.
All 20 cities, including exclusions
Nine excluded cities carry no quantitative or documented-condition finding. The full record below keeps those exclusions visible. Each city name links to its sources and recorded qualifications.
Read the complete 20-city record
| Population rank | City | Outcome | Amount or result | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New York City | Documented condition | No amount | One $165 component is verified; a complete permit total is not established. |
| 2 | Los Angeles | Documented condition | No amount | The dated official-source conflict is retained; no defect allegation or fixed total is made. |
| 3 | Chicago | Documented condition with a qualified amount | $250.00 | $250 is a published/observed standard. The enacted footnote issue remains unresolved. |
| 4 | Houston | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 5 | Phoenix | Published minimum | $293.00 | Minimum only; additional review time may increase the charge. |
| 6 | Philadelphia | Fixed scenario calculation | $525.50 | Fixed scenario calculation assuming three 24×36 plan sheets. |
| 7 | San Antonio | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 8 | San Diego | Dated published fee stack | $1,543.11 | Dated published fee stack; additional hourly fees may apply. |
| 9 | Dallas | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 10 | Fort Worth | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 11 | Jacksonville | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 12 | Austin | Scenario exemption | No sign permit | No sign permit for this scenario; this is not a $0 fee result. |
| 13 | San José | Documented condition | No amount | Published Planning and Building charges do not establish one complete amount. |
| 14 | Charlotte | Documented condition with a qualified amount | $240.00 | $240 is a published Residential-schedule row. Commercial applicability and other routing remain unresolved. |
| 15 | Columbus | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 16 | Indianapolis balance | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 17 | San Francisco | Documented condition | No amount | No total is established for the study window. |
| 18 | Seattle | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 19 | Denver | Excluded from substantive findings | No amount | Excluded because the study record did not meet its evidence threshold; no city-level finding is made. |
| 20 | Nashville–Davidson balance | Documented condition | No amount | No total is established for the study window. |
Research files and source notes
Explore the city ledger, calculation components, official-source links and methodology.
Use the source-checking guide to trace a city finding to its calculation, source dates and assumptions.
Referencing this study
Signage.com Research. One Storefront Sign, 20 Cities: Why a Posted Permit Fee May Not Be the Whole Permit Cost. September 4, 2026 edition; research window: August 2026.
Keep each amount’s label, applicability and caveat beside it. These findings concern one specified hypothetical project. They do not establish a national fee estimate, a city fee ranking or what businesses actually paid.
Limits and corrections
The findings describe the specified hypothetical project and the sources examined during the study window. The seven conditions have different causes and should not be treated as seven identical municipal defects. Excluded records do not establish a city-level finding.
This study does not measure processing time, approval probability, enforcement, service quality, policy merit, installed project cost or the economic effect of municipal rules. Different project facts, approval routes and later municipal updates can change the result.
September 5, 2026 presentation update: the opening summary was clarified and city-source links, citation guidance and navigation were expanded. The study’s scenario, amounts, city classifications and qualifications are unchanged.
September 5, 2026 clarification: a definition of “the fee gap” was added. The study’s scenario, amounts, city classifications and qualifications are unchanged.
September 4, 2026 correction: the workbook's width and height labels were corrected to 8 ft wide × 4 ft tall, consistent with the 10-to-14-ft mounting band. The 32-sq-ft area, 40-lb limit, reported amounts and city classifications are unchanged.
If a source, amount, arithmetic step or classification changes, Signage.com Research will update the affected ledger, page, downloads and dated correction record together.
Questions about a source, calculation or correction can be directed to:
Research contact: Michael Santiago · Signage.com Research · info@signage.com