Fees and terms

How we’re paid

In most cases, the developer pays for our work. We say so plainly, because pretending otherwise would be our first broken promise. Here is how it works, and why the money does not buy the outcome.

Isometric illustration of a signed contract with a pen and a stamp

Who pays, and why it does not buy the outcome

Either side can hire us. In practice, the developer usually pays. Here is why that money does not decide the result:

We are paid the same whether the project is approved or denied.
We publish who is paying us, and on what terms, before the first public meeting.
The process happens in public, where everyone can see it.

The rule that matters

Being neutral is not about who writes the check. It is about whether the fee depends on the result.

This is standard practice in mediation. Mediators are often paid by one side. Arbitrators are paid by the parties in the dispute. Court-appointed monitors are paid by the company they watch, and they report to the court. In local land-use decisions, it is ordinary for the developer to pay for an outside review that the local government chooses and directs.

What the mediation profession’s Model Standards of Conduct forbid is a fee that depends on the result. So: no success fees. No cut of a benefits package. No bonus for reaching agreement, and no discount if the project is denied. We are paid for doing the hard work, at the same rate, whatever we find.

Three ways to pay for a process

Developer pays, community chooses
The developer puts money into a separate account (called escrow). The local government chooses us, directs our work, and receives it. The side with the money pays. The side with the authority is in charge. Neither side controls what we find. This is the setup we prefer. It is already the standard way communities get outside traffic and noise reviews for data centers and other large projects.
Shared across local governments
When several towns and a county are affected, each one chips in. No one is the only payer, and people who pay in tend to show up, which makes the partnership real.
Both sides pay, in a published split
Often the developer covers most of the cost and the community pays a smaller share, and the split is made public. The community’s share is partly symbolic, but it matters: it makes the community a client, not just a subject, and gives it the right to fire us.

The terms, published before we start

A fixed fee or an hourly rate. It never depends on the outcome, in any form.
Paid in advance into a separate account (escrow), so no one can cut off funding midway to gain leverage.
A set term that cannot be renewed while the dispute is still going, so we are never angling for the next contract.
No follow-on work for anyone. No contract to build the project, no public relations work, no advisory role after the process ends.
A published limit on how much of our income can come from any one client, so no single client becomes too important to us.
A public list of the jobs we have turned down, and why.

What we will not do, for anyone

Write materials that argue for either side.
Take a job where the conclusion is already decided, without saying so publicly.
Claim a project has community support it does not have.
Take a role meant to create a paper trail instead of a real process.
Sign a secrecy agreement covering information about community impacts, such as water, power, noise, emissions, traffic or tax terms, or any agreement that requires destroying records or officials’ own notes.

Aerial view of transmission pylons crossing green and gold farmland at low sun

Start a conversation

Tell us where the project is, who is involved, and how far along it is. A short call is usually enough to see whether we are the right fit.

Get in touch