HomeMy WebLinkAbout11. A4 Planning Fee
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Planning Fee Study Report and Recommendation
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to draft a resolution to approve the proposed Planning
Fee Schedule with an adoption date of March 2, 2015.
MOTION: I hereby direct staff to bring to the City Commission a Resolution to approve the 2015 Planning Fee Schedule effective March 2, 2015, with a provision to incorporate annual updates to the fee schedule.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The review of the planning fees was undertaken in order to update
a fee schedule that had not been assessed, or changed, for seven years. The goals is to improve cost recovery as part of a continuing commitment to the citizens of Bozeman to uphold a fiduciary responsibility, to simplify the planning process for all customers, and to continue to
offer a level of service that meets community expectations.
The study was undertaken using data gathered from SunGard (the City’s computer software program that tracks application review by staff and time), principles based on the budget principles adopted by the City Commission as a part of the annual budget, and past practice by
the City to use limited general funds to support the Planning Division. The consultant and staff
created the fee schedule based on the following:
Balance the need to serve diverse customers,
Approach cost recovery,
Treat development projects equally,
Support effective and efficient review by investing in technology, skills, and long range planning activities, and
Comply with all legal requirements.
The attached study, prepared by Open Window Consulting, recommends a fee schedule that is:
Dramatically simplified and easy to use,
Supportive of cost recovery for the processing of planning applications,
Adding a technology fee,
Adding fees for planning review of building permits, and
Adding a fee for the review of extensions of previously approved by not fully executed
projects.
232
The City of Bozeman is fortunate to have a professional planning staff that accomplishes a great amount with limited funding. The review process has improved in terms of efficiency in the last two years. However, if efficiency were the only goal of the department, the review process
would be noticeably different. The Planning Division is also committed to community
participation and meeting the expectations the community has for development within Bozeman.
The proposed fee schedule continues to support the division’s commitment to customer service, efficient service and creating a desirable community for generations to come.
The proposed fee schedule has been shared with the Chamber of Commerce, the Southwest
Montana Building Industry Association, the Gallatin Association of Realtors and the Inter-
Neighborhood Council.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution to adopt the Planning Fee Schedule as proposed; or
2) Direct staff to draft a resolution to modify the proposed Planning Fee Schedule as
directed by the Commission; or 3) As determined by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Directing Staff to bring back the recommended fee schedule for approval
will result in greater cost recovery for planning applications submitted to Community
Development. Greater cost recovery will result in savings to the General Fund by reducing the operating subsidy given each year. Revenue results will vary based on application volume.
Attachments:
Development Review Fee Study & Fee Schedule Revision
Report compiled on: January 24, 2015
233
C ITY OF B OZEMAN
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEE STUDY
&
FEE SCHEDULE REVISION
JANUARY 14, 2015
PREPARED BY:
Open Window Consulting, LLC
229 Silver Cloud Circle
Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 624-6972
Julie@OpenWindowConsulting.net
www.OpenWindowConsulting.net
234
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 2
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2015 PLANNING REVIEW FEE PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................... 3
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS FOR 2015 ................................................................ 4
III. COST ESTIMATIONS AND COST-RECOVERY ....................................................................................................... 7
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FUTURE FEE SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................... 9
V. RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED 2015 PLANNING REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 11
FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING REVIEW APPLICATIONS ............................................................................. 12
APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED 2015 FEES AND EXISTING FEES .......................................................... 15
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ..... 20
235
3
I. INTRODUCTION
Open Window Consulting was contracted by the City of Bozeman to study the development review fees
charged by the Department of Community Development (“DCD” or “the Department”) and provide
recommendations for changes.
The Department reviews all proposed developments to assure that they are in compliance with the
City’s Unified Development Code and compatible with the City’s growth policy. The Department
assesses fees for the review of development applications in an effort to defray the cost of conducting
the review, to recover the cost of any mandated public noticing via newspaper, and to support long-run
planning activities. Bozeman’s current review fee schedule has been in place since 2008. The proposed
2015 Planning Review Fee Schedule is found at Appendix A.
The Department has undertaken the planning review fee study to update fees that have been
unchanged for seven years; to improve cost recovery so as to uphold its fiduciary responsibility to the
citizens of Bozeman; and to simplify the fee schedule to make it more understandable for applicants and
to improve fee collection.
As part of this process, a set of revised principles were developed to guide fee setting.
2015 PLANNING REVIEW FEE PRINCIPLES
Planning review fees should:
1. Balance the needs of the Department of Community Development’s diverse customer groups,
and serve each one well. The customer groups served by Department include project applicants,
the current citizens of Bozeman, and the future citizens of Bozeman.
2. Approach full cost recovery for the City of costs attributable to development reviews so as to
relieve the general taxpayer and the General Fund from costs originated by specific requests, to
the greatest extent feasible.
3. Treat all development projects – large and small, residential and commercial – equitably.
4. Discourage some behaviors, including violations of standards, seeking of special exceptions
without compelling reason, submitting applications that are incomplete or require multiple re-
submissions, and appeals of administrative decisions.
5. Assess fees throughout the development process so that expenses for large projects are
distributed to multiple points and reflect, to a degree, the ability of the applicant to recover the
costs in a timely manner.
236
4
6. Support the effectiveness of City planning and the efficiency and cost-efficiency of planning
review processes by investing consistently in the necessary technologies, skills, and long-range
planning activities.
7. Comply with legal requirements affecting fee amounts.
These principles are grounded in the City’s vision – “Bozeman – the most livable place.” They reflect and
support the City’s financial policies of collecting and using user fees rather than general taxes, where
appropriate and feasible.
The resulting recommended fee schedule is greatly simplified from the perspective of the applicant and
moves toward a more accurate cost basis for fees. It fosters the City’s vision by directly supporting its
goals of providing “quality customer service” and providing “excellent and equitable public services
which are responsive to the community within available resources,” as well as anticipating “future
service demands and resources deficiencies and [proactively] addressing them.”1
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS FOR 2015
A proposed fee schedule that incorporates the following revisions is attached at Appendix A. A
comparison of the old and new fee schedules is also provided, at Appendix B. Below, we summarize the
key elements of the proposed fee schedule, how they compare to the previous fee schedule and how
they serve the City’s vision, goals and policies.
Fee Schedule is simplified. Working closely with planning staff, the fee schedule was simplified and
restructured to make it easier for applicants to understand and use. Application types have been
reduced in number and grouped by the type of activity the applicant is pursuing. For each type of
project application, the schedule lists a clear base fee and, where applicable, a scaled fee based on the
number of lot, dwelling units, or commercial space. Applicants are notified that additional fees may
apply (see next).
City planning staff will calculate the total fee for applicants. The applicant is no longer required to
determine whether the project will require deviations, variances, or relaxations of code, a Conditional
Use Permit, or a Certificate of Appropriateness. Rather, the burden of responsibility for making these
determinations and accurately calculating the total fee is placed upon the Community Development
Department. The fee schedule explicitly notifies applicants of possible additional fees and encourages
them to communicate with planning staff. We strongly recommend that each applicant be issued a
clearly itemized invoice for the total fee. The improved clarity will foster more accurate fee collection by
the City and supports the City’s goals of improving customer service to applicants.
1 See the City of Bozeman’s mission, vision, goals, and financial policies for revenue collection, most recently published in the Approved Budget for Fiscal Year 2015, pages 28 and 33, available at
http://www.bozeman.net/Business/Budgets-and-Financials.
237
5
A fee is established for “Pre-Application Consultation with Planners.” This is a new charge intended to
achieve cost recovery and reduce subsidization for pre-application consultation that can in some cases
be significant. The Department will open a file on each potential applicant that seeks consultation with
planners. Initial consultation of up to two hours will be provided free of charge, after which consultation
time will be billed at $40 per hour and invoiced upon submission of a formal application. This billable
rate is a blended fully burdened productive hourly rate for all planners. Planning staff will track time
spent in consultation using the SunGard system. The invoiced amount must be paid before application
review will begin.
Planning staff expect that for most applicants the two hours will be sufficient to obtain all the needed
pre-application guidance. This free consultation provides a mutually-beneficial dialog between planners
and applicants that facilitates submission of complete and accurate applications that can be reviewed
efficiently. The fee charged after two hours will address the past problem of some applicants that return
to City planners for excessive amounts of guidance and consultation to develop an application. In these
cases, the City’s planning staff supplants the use of private sector planners at sometimes significant cost
to the City. To date, the Department of Community Development has had no means by which to charge
an applicant for this cost; thus the cost was born inappropriately by the General Fund and the taxpayer.
This situation also disadvantaged those applicants who secured the services of their own planning
professionals rather than taking excessive advantage of support from the City planning staff.
The Pre-Application Consultation fee is compatible with the City’s finance policy of adopting user fees
when distinct beneficiaries can be identified. Further, the use of the existing SunGard system makes
implementation cost effective and administratively feasible. The new fee serves the City’s goal of
providing “excellent and equitable public services” by providing planning staff support equitably to all
applicants and eliminating the benefit that some applicants have gained through the over-use of City
planning staff.
A 5% Technology Fee is applied to all base fees. This new surcharge will provide consistent investment
in necessary technology improvements that offer mutual benefits to the development community and
the City. The technological landscape of the community planning profession holds important best
practices that cannot be ignored, including the expanded use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
and a move toward paperless processes. GIS has become an essential tool for land use management and
community planning, offering clear and usable information of value to both planners and developers.
Eliminating paper improves efficiency and offers significant cost reductions for applicants as well as the
city. A paperless environment has been adopted by not only large cities, but also smaller communities
including Gillette, Wyoming. As Bozeman continues along a strong growth trajectory, it will become ever
more important to modernize its land management and planning processes.
Adopting these best practices will require significant investment in equipment, software, and staff
training in the coming years. One of the City’s seven goals is to “anticipate future service demands and
resource deficiencies and be proactive in addressing them.” Toward this end, the Community
Development Department proposes to establish a Technology Fund, similar to the existing Long-Range
Planning Fund, through which resources can be accumulated gradually and consistently to support these
238
6
investments. The adoption of a small technology surcharge on planning applications will reduce the
need for large or erratic increases in funding from fee increases or the General Fund to support
technology improvements. It will allow the City to make steady improvements in planning technology;
improve predictability for City finances and fee-paying applicants; spread the cost of technology
improvements over time; and assure that the costs – like the benefits – are shared by the City and the
developer community.
New or revised fees will be applied to building and sign permits to cover the cost of planner reviews. A
flat fee will be assessed for commercial and residential building permits, sign permits, and
comprehensive sign plans. These fees will be assessed and collected by the Building Division as part of
the permitting process. The flat fee for sign permits replaces a current planning review fee that is based
on the value of the sign. The fee level has been set to approximate the fees currently paid by sign
applicants. The other permitting fees are new fees, adopted to address the previously unrecovered cost
of time spent by planners to review these permits.
New fees will be applied when extensions are requested for approved plans. Currently the City charges
no fee for these requests and the staff time required to review them. Two fee levels are established: one
for extensions that must be approved by the City Commission, and a lower fee for those that do not
require City Commission approval. Both fees are calculated using conservative estimates of the staff
time required.
Base fees are adjusted for inflation and improved cost recovery. Existing fees were first adjusted for
inflation, adding an adjuster of 10.3% (2008-2014).2 Cost data were then used to consider whether these
fees would reasonably recover the cost of reviews. In some cases the adjusted fees were far below the
cost estimate. This is likely a function of the low cost of labor used to set fees in 2008 and perhaps also a
reflection of more accurate estimates of staff time due to improved use of SunGard. Cost estimations
based on currently available data are likely still under-estimated because the SunGard system has not
been calibrated perfectly to the needs and practices of the department and staff may not consistently
log their time. We have found no factors that would contribute to an overestimation of cost. As a result,
fees could be expected to increase further over the next two to five years as more accurate and
complete cost data is collected.
To achieve cost recovery through fees, in support of the City’s finance policies, the application fees
should be cost-based to the degree possible. In future, as cost data improves, the City can update these
fees with annual inflation adjustments and periodic adjustments based on cost analysis.
Mandated fees for public noticing via newspaper have been incorporated into the base fees to reduce
the complexity of the fee schedule for applicants. These fees were previously referred to as
“advertising fees” and recover the actual cost.
2 The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation calculator was used.
239
7
Scaled fees based on lots/dwelling units/commercial space were adjusted for inflation and presented
in a simplified form for applicants. The revised scaled fees have two components: one portion that goes
into the long-range planning set-aside fund; and one portion that defrays the cost of reviewing project.
On the previous schedule these were listed separately. The Department will allocate the funds received
to the separate accounts internally. Fees on non-residential space have been simplified, assessed per
1,000 square feet but not per "non-residential unit". The adjusted fees remain within the statutory limits
of $50 per residential lot or unit and $250 for each non-residential lot or unit (76-1-410(2) MCA). The
use of 1,000 square feet as a “unit” to assess the fee for non-residential space should comply with
statute, and will avoid favoring large commercial spaces over small ones. The more equitable treatment
of projects and the simplification of the published fees contributes to the City’s goal of improving
customer service.
Additional fees for deviations, variances, and relaxations of code have been standardized across
project types. Previously the additional cost to applicants varied across project types. This additional fee
is particularly important as current cost data suggests that review costs rise with the addition of
deviations/variances/relaxations. As cost data improves over time, it should be analyzed for this
correlation. The fees help recover the cost of additional staff time and serve to discourage such
exceptions to code.
Fees for Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) have been standardized across projects. The COA can
be requested alone or as an additional component to a development project. It contributes resources
for the overlay planning fund as well as cost recovery revenues to address the more extensive planning
review needed for projects in an Overlay District.
Penalty fees remain for incomplete applications, revisions to applications, after-the-fact applications,
and additional Occupancy Site Inspections. The fees help recover the cost of additional staff time and
also discourage these behaviors. Fees are also retained for special considerations including impact fee
deferral, reductions in security, and initial improvement agreements. In the absence of available
relevant cost data, most of these fees have been simply adjusted for inflation.
Fees for regulatory changes have been adjusted. Fees for amending the Growth Policy or Unified
Development Code have been adjusted for inflation. Fees for Zoning Map Amendments have been
simplified and increased to provide improved cost recovery.
III. COST ESTIMATIONS AND COST-RECOVERY
Because the City sought to improve cost recovery through its planning review fees, an important
component of the fee revisions was the analysis of available cost data. While a detailed description of
the cost estimation methodology has been provided to the Community Development Department,
several key improvements on previous cost estimations are worth noting here.
240
8
First, the analysis was data-driven to the extent possible. Understanding the true cost to the City of
conducting planning reviews was fundamental to meeting the Department’s cost-recovery objective and
the fee principles. In recognition of this, the planning staff has worked since 2012 to begin tracking the
person-hours required to review development applications, using the City’s existing SunGard system. It
must be noted that this data collection effort has faced several very natural hurdles – the off-the-shelf
SunGard software as deployed does not always meet the specific data collection and analysis needs of
the Department; and comprehensively logging the time of salaried staff is a challenging new practice to
implement in any setting. As a result, the available cost data is sometimes incomplete and revenue data
is sometimes aggregated in ways that prevents its use. This data, nonetheless, offers important insights
that have been useful in revising the review fees for 2015. Furthermore, our analysis of the data has
identified important modifications that can be made to the set-up and use of the SunGard system so
that data collected in future years will be more accurate, reliable, and useful.
Second, to translate labor hours into costs, both direct labor costs and indirect (overhead) costs were
considered. Direct labor costs were calculated using productive hourly rates rather than simple “wage +
benefits” rates. This current best practice offers a more accurate calculation of costs as it accounts for
the “non-productive” time that is inherent in any salaried position (paid holidays, vacation and sick
leave, and training time). Markups were then calculated to recover three important categories of
indirect costs: Departmental overhead, City Central Services overhead, and overhead costs resulting
from operating several advisory boards that exist only to review projects (the Development Review
Committee, the Design Review Board, the Wetlands Review Board, and the Planning Board). By using
productive hourly rates and capturing indirect costs, the analysis comes closer to capturing the true cost
to the City of conducting development reviews.
Cost estimates were averaged for each project type and were considered against the fees charged under
the current published fee schedule.3 Considering only base fees, only four project types achieved
average cost recovery. Caveats must be made to this result, however, due to the weaknesses of the
currently available data. Costs are most likely underestimated because planning staff do not consistently
log all time spent on a project and non-DCD staff rarely log the time they contribute to projects.
3 Cost estimates were also compared to revenue data captured in SunGard, using scatter plots to examine costs versus revenues for individual projects by project type. However, we caution that the revenue data from
SunGard is aggregated in ways that make it inadequate to the task. In adjusting fees, we have therefore looked to the published fees to assess the level of current cost recovery. In future, such scatter plots generated from
more accurate data could provide many useful insights.
241
9
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FUTURE FEE SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS
We recommend that, in the future, the City (i) annually adjust all fees for inflation and increases in
noticing costs4, and (ii) periodically conduct a cost-recovery analysis and adjust fees accordingly.
As a matter of efficiency, we recommend that the Department be granted authority to make annual
inflation adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) without the approval of the Commission.
It is common to conduct a full review of the fees every 3-5 years. However, because data collection is
expected to improve significantly over the next few years, Bozeman should consider conducting a full
cost recovery analysis annually for the next three years to capture the benefits of this data collection
effort. We expect that current cost estimations are likely low, therefore annual reassessments would
likely improve cost recovery more quickly and avoid undercharging for planning review services over the
next 3-5 years. We have provided the Department with a description of a methodology for estimating
costs, which should allow them to perform this review in-house if they wish.
Future cost-recovery analysis should compare average project costs to the cost-recovery revenues
collected through application fees for each project type. We recommend that it also consider how
widely costs vary within a project type, seek to identify key drivers of variable review costs so that they
can be addressed in the fee structure, and seek to identify potential efficiency improvements in the
review process.
In order to conduct effective cost-recovery analyses in the future and set fees that achieve cost
recovery, it will be imperative that the SunGard system be set up to capture data in a way that facilitates
analysis and that Department and out-of-Department staff involved in the review process begin as soon
as possible to comprehensively log time spent on planning reviews.
We have provided the Department of Community Development with more detailed technical
recommendations regarding the calibration of SunGard to meet their needs, updating cost factors,
evaluating cost-recovery, and adjusting fees to improve cost recovery. Two excel workbooks have been
provided that will guide the Department through cost updates and cost-recovery analyses. The
documents provided to the Department are listed in Appendix C.
V. RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
To support implementation of these fees, we recommend that the City:
1. Recalibrate the SunGard system to facilitate data collection and analysis
2. Establish a Planning Technology Fund
242
10
3. Create an “Agreement to Pay” document, through which the potential applicant agrees to pay
for additional consultation with city planners, beyond the two hours provided free, at a stated
hourly rate
4. Adopt the practice of providing all applicants with an itemized fee invoice to ensure
transparency and accountability
4 The City is required to give notice to adjacent and nearby landowners via newspaper, certified mail, or first
class mail, per municipal code (§38.40.030).
243
11
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED 2015 PLANNING REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE
See next page.
244
Fee Schedule for Planning Review Applications
Effective tbd, 2015
Project application fee must include all relevant fees from the fee schedule. Please contact the Planning Division
staff if you need assistance with fee estimation. The Department of Community Development will make the final,
binding calculation of applicable fees for each application. Applicants will be responsible for any additional noticing
costs required under Bozeman municipal code.
Application Type Base Fee Scaled fee
by project size
Pre-Application Consultation - If these charges are incurred, the fees must be paid prior to final project approval.
1 Pre-application Consultation with City Planners $40 per hour after initial 2 hours
Site Development
2 Master Site Plan $1,775
3 Site Plan $2,100 $110 per DU; $530 per 1,000
ft2 non-residential space
Subdivision Development
4 Subdivision Pre-Application (Step 1) $420 minor/ $840 major $40 per lot
5 Subdivision Preliminary Plat (Step 2)
$1,775 minor/ $2,825 major;
PLUS noticing fee of $6.50 per
physically contiguous property
owner
$70 per lot
6 Subdivision Final Plat (Step 3) $1,575 minor/ $2,625 major $70 per lot
7 Subdivision Exemption $200
8 Condominium Review
(Independent of site development process) $160
Planned Unit Development
9 PUD Concept Plan (Step 1) $1,365
10 PUD Preliminary Plan (Step 2) $1,565 $90 per DU; $280 per 1,000
ft2 of non-residential space
11 PUD Final Plan (Step 3) $1,365 $90 per DU; $280 per 1,000
ft2 of non-residential space
Annexation
12 Annexation
(Including Initial Zone Map Amendment) $1,530
Appeals
13 Appeal of Administrative Interpretation $830
14 Appeal of Administrative Project Decision
Original application fee plus
$200 for public noticing via
newspaper
245
13
Application Type Base Fee Scaled fee
by project size
Zoning Reviews & Design Reviews
15 Commercial Reuse $120
16 Commercial/Non-Residential COA
(Independent of a Site Plan or Reuse application) $325
17 Historic Neighborhood (NCOD) Design Review / Residential
COA $80
18 Informal Review $265 per Board 19 Zoning Deviation $210 each
20 Zoning Variance or Subdivision Variance $1,775
21 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $1,460 22 Special Temporary Use Permit $160 per week 23 Comprehensive Sign Plan Review $215
24 Zoning Verification $90 25 Regulated Activities in Wetlands no fee
Regulatory Changes
26 Zoning Map Amendment
(non-Annexation) $1,775 $55 per acre
27 UDC Text Amendment $1,585
28 Growth Policy Amendment $2,825 $30 per acre If Growth Policy
Map is amended
Penalty / Special Consideration Fees - If these charges are incurred, the fees must be paid prior to final project approval.
29 After the Fact Permit $290 in addition to all other
applicable fees
30 3rd and Subsequent Submission of Revised Materials 1/4 of total original application
fee
31 Modification / Amendment to Approved Plan $265 32 3rd or Subsequent Occupancy Site Inspection $115
33 Extension to Approved Plan $325 if City Commission approval
is required; $95 all others
34 Initial Improvements Agreement (IA)
$460 OR
1 percent of face value,
whichever is greater
35 Reduction in Security
(other than final) $230
36 Impact Fee Deferral $60
Abbreviations: UDC = Unified Development Code; DU = Dwelling Unit; COA = Certificate of Appropriateness; NCOD = Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District; ECOD = Entryway Corridor Overlay District
246
14
Planning Review Fees for Building & Sign Permits
These fees will be assessed and collected by the Building Dept. as part of the permitting process. No planning
application is needed.
Permit Type Planning Review Fee
Sign Permit Review $125 if in Overlay District;
$25 all others
Residential Building Permit
Review $50
Commercial/Industrial
Building Permit Review $105
247
APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED 2015 FEES AND EXISTING FEES
Item
# Application ‡ Base Fee* Scaled fee by
project size †
Estimated
Average Cost to
City
Base Fee(s) on
2014 Schedule
Pre-Application Consultation
1 Pre-application Consultation
with Planning Staff
$40 per hour
after initial 2
hours N/A N/A
Site Development
2 Master Site Plan $1,775
$1,718 (1
project)
$1,000 + $200 for
advertising
3 Site Plan $2,100
$110 per DU;
$530 per 1,000
ft2 non-
residential
space
Average Prelim
+ Final = $2,472
or $2,920
depending on
method of
calculation
Prelim + Final =
$1,375
Subdivision Development
4 Subdivision Pre-Application
(Step 1)
$420 minor/
$840 major $40 per lot
$766 (most
betw $300 &
$600; Median =
$553); Major
only = $865;
Minor only =
$395
$500
5 Subdivision Preliminary Plat
(Step 2)
$1,725 minor/
$2,775 major;
PLUS $6.50
noticing fee per
physically
contiguous
property owner
$70 per lot
$3,362 (most
betw $1,500 &
$3,500, median
= $2,913);
Minor only =
$2,264; Major
only = $3,861
$500 minor /
$1,000 major +
$150 for
advertising
6 Subdivision Final Plat (Step 3) $1,575 minor/
$2,625 major $70 per lot
$1,289; Minor
only = $1,195;
Major only =
$1,321
$500 minor /
$1,000 major
7 Subdivision Exemption $200 $200
8
Condominium Review
(Independent of site
development process)
$160 $167 (1 project) $75
Planned Unit Development 9 PUD Concept Plan (Step 1) $1,365 $1,155 $550
10 PUD Preliminary Plan (Step 2)
** $1,565
$90 per DU;
$280 per 1,000
ft2 of non-
residential
space
$1,870 (1
project)
$1,000 + $200 for
advertising
248
16
Item
# Application ‡ Base Fee* Scaled fee by
project size †
Estimated
Average Cost to
City
Base Fee(s) on
2014 Schedule
11 PUD Final Plan (Step 3) ** $1,365
$90 per DU;
$280 per 1,000
ft2 of non-
residential
space
no data
available
$500 (3 step total
= $2,050)
Annexation
12 Annexation, Including Initial
Zone Map Amendment $1,530
$1,269 for
annexation;
$1,466 for initial
ZMA
$250 annexation
+ $550 ZMI +
$200 advertising
for each
Appeals
13 Appeal of Administrative
Interpretation $580
no data
available
$500 + $200 for
advertising
14 Appeal of Administrative
Project Decision
Original
application fee
plus $200 for
public noticing
via newspaper
no data
available
Original
application fee +
$200 for
advertising
Zoning Reviews & Design Reviews
15 Commercial Reuse $120 $111 Reuse
$100/$200 no
COA reuse; +$100
reuse w/COA;
$425 comm
Major sketch
COA; $575
COA/DEV
16
Commercial/Non-Residential
COA (Independent of a Site
Plan or Reuse application)
$325
$119 (from 69
"COA non-
sketch" projects
in COA2 review
type)
$250 (from 2008
Fee Resolution)
17
Historic Neighborhood
(NCOD) Design Review
/Residential COA
$80
$70 COA1; $153
COA2; $619
COA3
$75 - $400
allowed per 2008
Fee Adjustment
Resolution
18 Informal Review $265 per Board $529
$100 per DRC,
DRB, WRB; $200
per Planning
Board, Zoning
Commission
19 Zoning Deviation $210 each No data
available
$50 or $100 per
Dev/Var
20 Zoning Variance or
Subdivision Variance $1,775 $1,562 (two
projects)
$1,300 / $800
SFH + $200
advertising
249
17
Item
# Application ‡ Base Fee* Scaled fee by
project size †
Estimated
Average Cost to
City
Base Fee(s) on
2014 Schedule
21 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $1,460
$1,141 without
2 cost outliers
that have
Dev/Var ($1,348
with outliers)
$685 for
ADU/Home-
based business;
$875 for Cabaret;
$1,500 for all
others + $200
advertising for
each
22 Special Temporary Use
Permit $160 per week
$258 (two
projects,
presumably >
one week)
$100 one week /
$250 > one week
23 Comprehensive Sign Plan
Review $215 $203 No fee
24 Zoning Verification $90
no data
available $75
25 Regulated Activities in
Wetlands no fee
no data
available no fee
Regulatory Changes
26 Zoning Map Amendment
(non-Annexation) $1,775 $55 per acre
$1,768 without
one extreme
outlier ($2,458
with the outlier)
$1,000 plus $150
for advertising
27 UDC Text Amendment $1,585
$1,832 ($1,424
for the only
application-
driven ZCA)
$1,200 plus $200
advertising
28 Growth Policy Amendment $2,825
$30 per acre If
Growth Policy
Map is
amended
$2,056 $2,500 plus $200
for advertising
Penalty / Special Consideration Fees
29 After the Fact Permit
$290 in addition
to all other
applicable fees
no data
available $250
30
3rd and Subsequent
Submission of Revised
Materials
1/4 of total
original
application fee
no data
available same
31 Modification / Amendment
to Approved Plan $265
$162 (plus re-
advertising);
$140 for minor;
$196 final plan
mod
$25 minor; $250
final site plan
mod
32 3rd or Subsequent
Occupancy Site Inspection $115
no data
available $100
250
18
Item
# Application ‡ Base Fee* Scaled fee by
project size †
Estimated
Average Cost to
City
Base Fee(s) on
2014 Schedule
33 Extension to Approved Plan
$325 if City
Commission
approval is
needed; $95 all
others
Staff
conservatively
estimates 5
hours of work if
Commission
approval is
needed; 1.5
hours otherwise
No fee
34 Initial Improvements
Agreement (IA)
$460 OR
1 percent of face
value, whichever
is greater
no data
available
greater of $400
or 1% of face
value
35 Reduction in Security (other
than final) $230
no data
available $200
36 Impact Fee Deferral $60
no data
available $50
‡ The following abbreviations are used: UDC = Unified Development
Code; DU = Dwelling Unit; COA = Certificate of Appropriateness; NCOD =
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District; ECOD = Entryway Corridor
Overlay District
Planning Review Fees for Building & Sign Permits
Item
# Permit Type Planning
Review Fee
Scaled
Fee
Estimated
Average
Cost to City
Previous Fee
36 Sign Permit Review
$25; $125 if
in Overlay
District
-- $46
Generally $126
in Overlay
District & $26
for all others
37 Residential Building
Permit Review $50 -- $46 --
38 Commercial/Industrial
Building Permit Review $70 -- $69 --
251
19
252
20
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The following additional materials were provided to the Department to guide future analysis and fee
schedule adjustments:
1. Technical Recommendations for Future Fee Adjustment and Cost-Recovery Analysis
2. Billable Labor Rate Workbook (Excel)
3. Cost Recovery Workbook (Excel)
4. Allocation of Collected Fees Workbook (Excel)
253