Dev.fee.comparison.public

Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION

A comparative analysis of development review fees was undertaken beginning in October of 2008. The purpose of this examination was to benchmark Cheyenne’s fee schedule among roughly 30 cities across the Western US which share commonalities in economy, growth, industry, cost of living, as well as other factors. As each city’s fee structure is significantly different, some cities were excluded from comparison for some fees, and some hypothetical development models were used to align divergent fees for some development actions.

35 Cities were initially contacted for response. First, all web-published fees were collected for each participating city and assembled into a matrix. Then, all cities were contacted by telephone and/or electronic mail to verify their respective fees and include any that were relevant. Appendix A is a copy of the correspondence used. Cities were also asked about current development trends, population trends, and general policy positions surrounding development and fees. Appendix B is a copy of the written correspondence from the respective cities. On January 5, 2009 new responses were suspended, the data was assimilated in final form, and the Phase III analysis was completed. At this point, 29 cities were included or partially included in the analysis.

METHODOLOGY FOR DEFINING PEER CITIES

For the initial analysis, Peer Cities were loosely defined based on prior comparisons, general population size, and regional affiliation. The search was then broadened to the Rocky Mountain West, the Northwest, and Plains states west of the Mississippi. Cities within the States of California and Oregon were excluded intentionally as the planning processes are significantly more costly. The City of Spokane, Washington was included on the original data set due to its comparable cost of living and growth rate; however Washington would generally be grouped with Oregon as a ‘higher cost of planning’ State.

For Phase II of the analysis, Peer Cities were grouped by population (as defined by the current estimate reported by the US Census bureau in the American Community Survey, 2007; or as self-reported). Cities were also grouped by Growth Rate (determined as the annual mean percentage change reported by the US Census between the years of 2000 – 2007); and by median home price (as reported on the Multiple Listing Service as of December 20, 2008).

City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning OfficeDon Threewitt, Planner

1


METHODOLOGY FOR ASSIMILATING DATA

Hypothetical Development Examples

In order to align divergent fee structures, two key hypothetical development examples were used. Clearly stated, one city may charge a flat rate ($150) for a final site plan while another may charge a scaled fee ($100 plus $25 per dwelling unit and/or $10 per acre). Generally, for a ‘simple’ or ‘basic’ development, an example of a 9 acre development with a density of 5 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) was used. For a ‘standard’ or ‘complex’ development an example of 99 acres with a 5 DU/acre density was used. Understandably, this type of development would be unlikely in smaller municipalities and only serves as a standard for comparison.

METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS

Calculating the Mean

The mean for each category was devised as the sum of all fees charged divided by the number of cities that charge a fee. Cities that do not charge a fee are excluded from the index, and each category includes notation of the number of cities reporting.

Indexing could have alternately included all cities—regardless of whether or not they charge a fee, but inconsistent reporting by the jurisdictions could skew the average were a city to not report a fee that is actually charged. That is, several municipalities contain partial data. Instead of completely excluding all cities that don’t offer complete fee schedules, a variable index was used.

Since this is the case, the number of cities reporting a fee is relevant to the discussion.

Subtracting the Aberrant

In order to uncover a realistic average fee, the highest and lowest fees charged were subtracted prior to calculating the mean in cases where they were dramatically deviant. These were generally Boulder, CO and Gillette, WY respectively; but Albuquerque, NM or Bozeman, MT was also in some cases eliminated in lieu of the above. For example, Boulder was eliminated from 9 mean calculations where its fees were in excess of 10 times the average, in some cases Boulder’s fee was over 150 times Cheyenne’s fee. To illustrate, hypothetically:


2


Bozeman Boulder Cheyenne Frisco Laramie Gillette Ogden Parker Rapid City Average$ 150 $ 18,560 $ 150 $ 100 $ 125 $ 20 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 153.57

In the above example, Boulder and Gillette clearly deviate from the general trend. Thus, they were eliminated when calculating the average; which was the sum of the remaining cities divided by the number of remaining cities. The average becomes the index, and Boulder and Gillette are then indexed as below:

Bozeman Boulder Cheyenne Frisco Laramie Gillette Ogden Parker Rapid City Average$ 150 $ 18,560 $ 150 $ 100 $ 125 $ 20 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 153.57.97 120.85 .97 .65 .81 .13 .97 1.30 1.30

The overarching goal of this analysis is to realistically benchmark Cheyenne’s Development fees with that of other regional peers. Eliminating deviant data and keeping the field of comparators as open as possible helps to achieve this aim. If the aim were to undertake a complete, comprehensive analysis of Western US Development review, other methods would be employed.

FINDINGS

Policy Implications

Each of the ‘tiers’ of fee structures evident in the data collected can be loosely grouped into four implicit (in some cases explicit) policy stances: (1) Heavily subsidize development, (2) Subsidize development, (3) Pay-their-own-way, or (4) Control/Regulate Development through fees. Cheyenne is well-grounded in the ‘heavily subsidize development’ category.

However, looking into growth rates as related to development fees, cities which subsidize development solely via review fees do not generally affect actual growth rates. Developers will build where there is a market regardless of the few dollars spent or saved in actual fees. In fact, interviews and surveys with development professionals from other communities indicate that an expedited review process is “exponentially” more valuable than the hard cost fee.


3


Actual Time and Resources Cost of Each Development Action

An enumerated cost of the actual review process as well as the coinciding public process involved for a particular development action is beyond the efficient scope of this analysis. The intent is to extract a probable cost from the existing data—which is based on the assumption that a median fee is likely close to the actual cost for the action. This assumption is grounded in the premise that most review processes are similar (with respect to time and resources) among communities, and that the local municipality is not intent on profiting from the process.

Under the current City of Cheyenne Departmental organization, the Building and Development departments are self-sufficient. This is primarily due to a recent building permit fee increase. As a total departmental budget, these two departments rely on fees at the building phase to recoup costs of the concept and entitlement phases. This allows the development professionals to minimize outlay until a project is ready to build.

However, several other departments’ involvement is necessary in the initial phases. These include: Urban Planning, Urban Forestry, Engineering, Fire and Rescue, and Cheyenne MPO, among others. These departments do not recover the costs incurred in development review. During peak periods, staff from these departments potentially spend 25% of full-time equivalent (FTE) dealing directly with development review. Additionally, ‘special projects’ such as updating codes, comprehensive planning, subarea planning and other directly related but indirectly billable projects are undertaken specifically to support and advance the goals of the Building and Development department.

Possible Fee changes and Potential Revenue based on 2007 – 2008 data

In Cheyenne, a majority of the building occurs under the direction of local development professionals. These entities have extensive knowledge of the local market, and will generally develop pro formas based primarily on local conditions. Therefore, adoption of a fee schedule comparable to other communities will adversely affect their business model. This negative impact is magnified in depressed economic conditions. Ultimately, given the current recession, the potential impact of a fee schedule increase would yield multiple negative scenarios for both the individual development entities as well as the general public welfare.

Consensus among staff is that review fees should not be modified now; and, once a full economic recovery is evident, and building is resumed at a normal pace, fees should then be


4


brought in line with regional averages. Cheyenne’s development review fees are, as a whole, 19% of the average fee charged among the 29 cities. Were fees to increase to 50% of the average, Cheyenne could gain approximately $120,000 in revenue per year. At the average fee structure, Cheyenne could gain $250,000 - $275,000 annually.


5


The following tables illustrate Cheyenne’s position among peers for each individual development action. Peers were defined as cities similar in one of three ways: 1. Actual population, 2. Average annual rate of growth over 10 years, and 3. Median home price as currently reported by the MLS. There are several other factors in determining peers, but these three would most directly illustrate similar development/construction activity.

Administrative Approval17 of 27 cities charge a fee for Administrative Approval, which averages $118.18. Cheyenne is higher than average, charging $125. However, some municipalities assess additional fees for additional time, or an hourly rate.

Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price

Admin. Approval Admin. Approval Admin. Approval

City Index City Index Cheyenne WY 1.1

2

Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo UT 0.9

0

Casper Wy 0.90 Casper Wy

0.90 Englewood CO

1.35

Cheyenne, Wy

1.12 Cheyenne Wy

1.12 Gillette WY -

Flagstaff, AZ 4.50 Fargo, ND -

Albuquerque NM

0.40

Parker, CO 1.35 Frisco, CO

0.67 Westminster CO

2.25

Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut - Bozeman MT -

Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO

2.25

Annexation


6


19 of 27 cities charge a fee for annexation. Annexation fees vary widely from a high of $17,340 for Boulder, Colorado to a low of $50 for Gillette, Wyoming. Excluding Boulder, the average fee is $774.17. Were Boulder included, this average becomes $1,646. Currently, Cheyenne's fee is $150. Municipalities that do not have a published annexation fee either actively subsidize the process, or are fully built out within their Urban Service Area. For purposes of comparison, reported fees were reduced to the basic fee structure. Total fees will be addressed in a later comparative analysis by acreage/unit/lot.

Fees for Residential Pockets only differ in Boulder CO, and Manitou Springs CO; fees average $757.94. In Boulder, fees for residential pockets are 50% of standard annexations, and in Manitou Springs, the fee is 33% of standard annexations.

Boulder, CO is the only municipality that requires an Annexation Study, with an accompanying fee of $2100.


Annexation Annexation Annexation

City Index City Index Cheyenne 0.1

8

Bismarck, ND 0.30 Bismarck, ND

0.30 Provo

0.12

Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 1.2

1 Cheyenne, Wy

0.18 Cheyenne Wy

0.18 Gillette

0.03


Albuquerque -


2.05

Westminster

0.36

Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.2

4 Bozeman 0.3

0 Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO

0.36

Board ApprovalPeers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price

Board Approval Board Approval Board Approval


3


7



0.27 Provo

0.27


0.67 Englewood

0.33

Cheyenne, Wy

0.33 Cheyenne Wy

0.33 Gillette

0.04


Albuquerque

0.27


3.07

Westminster

0.67


7 Bozeman 1.3

4


0.67

Board Approval fees are one of the more consistent fee structures across the 30 jurisdictions. The average fee of $374.23 excludes Boulder ($2100) and Gillette ($15).

Final PlatFee structures are highly variable for Final Plats. In order to garner an accurate comparison, simple plats were illustrated as the fee charged for a 9 acre parcel at 5 dwelling units per acre. Standard plats were illustrated as a 99 acre parcel with 5 dwelling units per acre. Again, this is the base fee for the Final Plat review and did not include any impact fees or additional review fees. There were no aberrant jurisdictions, so all cities were included. Average fee for the Simple Plat scenario totaled $1,063.65 and for the Standard Plat scenario was $4,713.44. Out of the 27 cities, 4 did not state a final plat fee.


Simple Final Plat Simple Final Plat Simple Final Plat


2


0.14 Provo

0.73


0.24 Englewood

0.56

Cheyenne, Wy

0.12 Cheyenne Wy

0.12 Gillette

0.52


Albuquerque

1.17


1.08

Westminster

0.33


8



2 Bozeman 0.6

8


0.33


Standard Final Plat Standard Final Plat Standard Final Plat


3


0.17 Provo

1.60


0.05 Englewood

0.21

Cheyenne, Wy

0.03 Cheyenne Wy

0.03 Gillette

1.07


Albuquerque

0.74


0.24

Westminster

0.07


7 Bozeman 2.8

4


0.07

However, 1 city assesses the total plat fee at the preliminary level, and the remaining 3 have incomplete data.


9


.

Land Use Plan Amendment (9 acres)


Plan Amendment Plan Amendment Plan Amendment City Index City Index Cheyenne -


0.20 Provo -


8 Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -

Flagstaff, AZ 2.62 Fargo, ND

0.23

Albuquerque

0.33

Parker, CO 0.31 Frisco, CO -

Westminster

0.39

Rapid City, SD 0.20 Ogden Ut

0.49 Bozeman -

Rapid City, SD 0.2

0 Westminster, CO

0.39

18 of 27 cities exact a Land Use Plan Amendment fee. Municipalities which emphasize land use controls tend to charge higher than average fees, while cities that place fewer controls on development charge lesser or no fees. The average fee assessed is $1279.44

Preliminary PlatMinor


Minor Prelim. Plat Minor Prelim Plat Minor Prelim Plat


9


1.81 Provo

5.77


10



2

Cheyenne, Wy

0.79 Cheyenne Wy

0.79 Gillette -


1.58

Albuquerque

0.20


2.26

Westminster

1.36

Rapid City, SD 5.21 Ogden Ut - Bozeman

12.45

Rapid City, SD 5.2

1 Westminster, CO

1.36

25 of 29 cities reported fees for Preliminary Plats. For a minor preliminary plat (exemplified as 9 acres at 5 DU/acre), the average fee is $220.87. For a major preliminary plat (exemplified as 99 acres at 5 DU/acre), the average fee is $4391.30. Cheyenne charges $175 for either. In the comparative analysis of Minor Preliminary Plats, Boulder CO ($4680) and Albuquerque NM ($45) were excluded for having aberrantly high and low fees respectively. In the analysis of Major Preliminary Plats, Bozeman ($25,750) and Albuquerque ($45) were excluded. The four cities that do not charge for Preliminary Plats do assess fees for Final Plats.

Preliminary PlatMajor


Major Prelim. Plat Major Prelim Plat Major Prelim Plat


4


0.13 Provo

2.85


3

Cheyenne, Wy

0.04 Cheyenne Wy

0.04 Gillette -


0.14

Albuquerque

0.01


0.11

Westminster

0.08

Rapid City, SD Ogden Ut - Bozeman 5.8


11


2.31 6

Rapid City, SD 2.3

1 Westminster, CO

0.08

Public Hearing/Advertising Fee

The high variability of the nature of fee exactions for Public Hearing and Advertising does not allow for effective comparative analysis. 16 of 27 cities report a charge for mailings, advertisements, and hearings. The highest fees assessed are Spokane WA ($1160 hearing fee, $85 per hour staff time, cost of mailing, and cost of advertising), Flagstaff AZ ($750 plus all costs), and Boulder CO ($1580 fee). The lowest are Casper, WY (cost of mailings and advertisements), Frisco CO ($50), Parker CO (Cost plus 15%), and Provo, UT ($60). Cheyenne does not charge a Public Hearing and Advertising fee.

PUDConcept


PUD Concept PUD Concept PUD Concept City Index City Index Cheyenne -


0.52 Provo -


4 Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -


0.45

Albuquerque -

Parker, CO - Frisco, CO - Westminster

0.52


7 Bozeman 0.7

4


0.52


12



PUD Preliminary PUD Preliminary PUD Preliminary


5


0.61 Provo

0.76


8

Cheyenne, Wy

0.25 Cheyenne Wy

0.25 Gillette -


0.61

Albuquerque -


3.44

Westminster

0.71


0.10 Bozeman

2.48

Rapid City, SD 0.5

1 Westminster, CO

0.71

PUDPreliminary


13


PUDFinal


PUD Final PUD Final PUD Final


2


0.28 Provo

0.72


6

Cheyenne, Wy

0.12 Cheyenne Wy

0.12 Gillette -


0.28

Albuquerque -


1.58

Westminster

0.32


0.05 Bozeman

0.46

Rapid City, SD 0.2

3 Westminster, CO

0.32

Recording Fee

Total of Cities with Fee

Recording Fee

City IndexFountain CO 0.58 Frisco CO 1.45 Gillette WY 0.96 Parker CO 0.19 Rock Springs WY 0.96 Scottsbluff NE 1.93 Spokane WA 0.96 Westminster, CO 0.96


14


Cheyenne does not charge a Recording Fee. The average fee is $51.88, and is assessed by 8 of 27 cities. These cities correlate as either cities with the highest or lowest overall development review fees.

Site PlanPreliminary


Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Site Plan


6

Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo -

Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood -

Cheyenne, Wy

0.16 Cheyenne Wy

0.16 Gillette -


Albuquerque

0.07


Westminster

0.64


8 Bozeman -


0.64

Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Simple Site Plan Simple Site Plan Simple Site Plan


2

Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo 0.0

4


0.12 Englewood -

Cheyenne, Wy

0.12 Cheyenne Wy

0.12 Gillette -


Albuquerque

0.32


Westminster

0.50

Rapid City, SD Ogden Ut 0.0 Bozeman -


15


0.31 6

Rapid City, SD 0.3

1 Westminster, CO

0.50

Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Standard Site Plan Standard Site Plan Standard Site Plan


7


2


0.18 Englewood -

Cheyenne, Wy

0.07 Cheyenne Wy

0.07 Gillette -


Albuquerque

0.28


Westminster

0.29


0.04 Bozeman -

Rapid City, SD 0.1

8 Westminster, CO

0.29

Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Complex Site Plan Complex Site Plan Complex Site Plan


2


3


0.06 Englewood -

Cheyenne, Wy

0.02 Cheyenne Wy

0.02 Gillette -


Albuquerque

0.87


16



Westminster

0.10


0.01 Bozeman -

Rapid City, SD 0.0

6 Westminster, CO

0.10

Special Use Permit


Special/Cond. Use Permit Special/Cond. Use Permit Special/Cond. Use Permit


2


0.64 Provo

0.26


0.64 Englewood

1.28

Cheyenne, Wy

0.32 Cheyenne Wy

0.32 Gillette -


0.47

Albuquerque

0.26


2.56

Westminster

1.15


0.36 Bozeman -

Rapid City, SD 0.6

4 Westminster, CO

1.15

Vacation


17



Vacation Vacation Vacation


9


1.26 Provo

0.32


2

Cheyenne, Wy

0.39 Cheyenne Wy

0.39 Gillette

0.08

Flagstaff, AZ - Fargo, ND 1.8

9 Albuquerque

0.95


Westminster

0.95


0.55 Bozeman -

Rapid City, SD 0.7

9 Westminster, CO

0.95

VarianceResidential


Res. Variance Res. Variance Res. Variance City Index City Index Cheyenne -


0.29 Provo

0.14


0.72 Englewood

0.43

Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -


0.53

Albuquerque

0.29


2.30

Westminster

0.86

Rapid City, SD Ogden Ut 0.4 Bozeman 1.4


18


0.58 0 4

Rapid City, SD 0.5

8 Westminster, CO

0.86

VarianceCommercial


Comm. Variance Comm. Variance Comm. Variance City Index City Index Cheyenne -


0.25 Provo

0.13


0.63 Englewood

0.38

Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -


0.47

Albuquerque

0.25


2.02

Westminster

0.76


0.35 Bozeman

2.53

Rapid City, SD 0.5

1 Westminster, CO

0.76


19


Zone ChangeSmall


Small Zone Change Small Zone Change Small Zone Change


0


0.70 Provo

0.39


0.39 Englewood

1.56

Cheyenne, Wy

0.20 Cheyenne Wy

0.20 Gillette

0.04


0.47

Albuquerque

1.15


2.35

Westminster

0.78


0.47 Bozeman

1.92

Rapid City, SD 0.3

9 Westminster, CO

0.78

Zone ChangeLarge


Large Zone Change Large Zone Change Large Zone Change


2 Bismarck, ND Bismarck, ND 0.4 Provo 0.2

3


20


0.42 2


0.23 Englewood

1.39

Cheyenne, Wy

0.12 Cheyenne Wy

0.12 Gillette

0.02


0.28

Albuquerque

1.55


1.39

Westminster

0.46


0.28 Bozeman

3.68

Rapid City, SD 0.2

3 Westminster, CO

0.46

Appendix A: Correspondence to Potential Peer Cities

My office is currently undertaking a comparative analysis of the fees assessed for development review. I have collected some information from web-based documents, and am asking each office respectively to review the fee chart for accuracy. If there are additional fees, please include these in a response.

Naturally, each city’s fee structure is different. Some seem to have higher fees and may include additional services (Higher final plat fee but no public hearing or advertising fee). Alternately, some cities have lower fees that are less inclusive. If you could notify me of any particular circumstances to your fee structure, it would be greatly appreciated. If there are any special policy circumstances (i.e., city council believes in subsidizing development, or developers pay their way completely), these would be great to know. Also, could you add current population numbers, and identify whether your community is in a state of general growth, stability, or decline.

I hope to assemble this into as much of an “apples to apples” comparison as possible. Of course, once completed I will share the information with all involved cities for their own use. The spreadsheet attached should be relatively self-explanatory, but feel free to contact me with any questions.


21


Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

Donald L. Threewitt

City of Cheyenne Urban Planning Office


22


Appendix B: Written Responses to Inquiry

Don;Wow, great job compiling this data. I have a couple of additions for Frisco's information: Special Use Permits (we call it a conditional use permit): $1,000.00Variance (both residential and commercial): $800.00Preliminary Plats: $500.00Advertising/Noticing Fee: $50.00 Also, we don't record site plans, only final plats - and we charge actual recording costs plus an admin fee of $75.00. Hope this helps. I would love to see the final version when you are finished. Thanks.

Marcia, a hard copy of the spreadsheet is on your desk. Corrections to the Rapid City fees would be as follows Final Plat - no chargePreliminary Plat - $250+20/lotMinor Plat - $250+20/lotMajor Plat - NA Add PDD - no chargePD - Initial submission - $250PD - Final submission - $250**PD Initial and Final submitted together - $250 Special Use Permit - our CUP Vacation of ROW - $250Vacation of Easement - $25Variance-Subdivision - $200 ParkerHere's my comments: Final Plat = 500+10/du or 30/acPreliminary Plat = 400+10/du or 25/acPUD = 400+10/ac+5/duZone Change = 350+10/ac+5/du for residential and 400+75/ac for non-residentialRecording Fee = 10/page for size 24x36 + 1/per document and 5/page for size 81/2x11 + 1/per document Currently, our residential development has come to a stop, but non-residential development is still steady. Our population is 26,500. I hope this helps.


23


Steve GreerDevelopment Review ManagerTown of Parker, Colorado

In general, the City of Fargo has experienced consistent growth over the past 20 years (at approximately 2 % per year). While things are maybe a bit slower this year in terms of housing starts, our remodel and commercial numbers have remained strong. In fact, in terms of the total value of development in Fargo for this year, we’re on track to exceed last year numbers. Based on census estimates, the City of Fargo is approximately 95,000 in population; however, city officials believe that number may closer to 100,000. The 2010 census information should be telling. For more detailed information regarding population and population breakdown, please take a look at the following link. http://www.cityoffargo.com/CityInfo/Departments/Health/Reports/CommunityHealthSnapshotReport/Demographics/ I’m looking forward to reviewing the completed study. If you have any questions, let me know. Jim Hinderaker, Senior PlannerCity of Fargo 200 North 3rd StreetFargo, ND 58102

I’ve attached a copy of your spreadsheet with a couple of additions (in red) for Rock Springs. For site plans, we only have two categories, Minor and Major, so I used your Simple and Complex. Also, I’ve attached our Fee Schedule which has a comprehensive list of our application fees which became effective October 1, 2008. Rock Springs has been in a pattern of significant growth over the last few years, probably similar to Gillette with oil/gas explorations. As far as Rock Springs current population, we are well over the 2000 Census count of 18,708. Conservative estimates we did in January of this year (almost a full year ago) indicated that we are well over 24,000, although many people believe this number is even higher. With the political climate changing in the country, we are waiting to see what happens with our economy here. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for sharing your data with everyone.


24


Jennifer ShieldsAssistant City PlannerCity of Rock Springs, Wyoming

Checked your information on the City of Scottsbluff, everything listed is correct. I assume you looked at our web page for city fees # 6-6-29 for land use.

We also charge a $100 filing fee for annexations plus $3.00 each for notification of surrounding property owners. The special permit fee for our PUD is $250.00.

We are looking at changing our review fees of preliminary plats.

We feel that our community is in a state of stability at this time. Our population at the last census count is 14,732.

Thanks for the information, will look forward to the final report.

Annie Urdiales

Planning Administrator

Don: I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can. I am not using the form you provided because I don’t think that our process fits into the form very well. Here is what we charge: Annexation – Free Plat - $250 (We currently do not do preliminary plats. A replat is the same cost as a final plat). Final plats require P & Z public hearing and 3 readings at Council. Replats require P & Z public hearing and 1 reading at council. Minor Boundary Adjustment - $100 (This is a replat of one or two lots that is handled administratively – no public hearings). Site Plan - $250. (Process depends on the size of the structure. Less than 20,000 (footprint) sf is administrative. Between 20,000 and 43,560 sf is P & Z. Over 43,560 requires P & Z and Council approval). Conditional Use Permit - $250 Exception - $250


25


Zone Change - $250 (Requires both P & Z approval and Council approval (3 readings)) Vacation - Free

• There are no additional fees for appeals, continuances, etc.

• We do not do amendments to our land use plan in Casper so it is N/A

• All recording fees are paid by the applicant as ACTUAL COST according to County Clerk’s fee schedule.

• Advertising/notification fees are based on the ACTUAL COST for mailings. The amount collected

is so small that the City is moving away from charging for advertising/notification because it is more trouble than it is worth.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to let me know. Regards, Craig Craig CollinsAssociate PlannerCity of Casper200 North David Street, Room 205Casper, WY 82601(307)-235-8241

I reviewed your chart and wanted to add a couple of things for the Ogden, Utah section and explain what the categories mean to us so that you are making the right comparisons. The first heading is administrative approvals and in my mind that means plans that are administratively approved such as a site plan, a conditional use permit and a subdivision. A site plan fee is $50 and a conditional use permit is $140. The conditional use permit may be what you call a special use permit . It is the idea that a review of the specific location is required for some uses to determine if appropriate for that location or if conditions need to be added to the use development to make them compatible. The next line is annexations and Ogden’s fee is $200 for an annexation petition where this has been lefty blank in your document. Under Board approval is final plat and with the fee that you have used this must mean standard subdivision approval which is what that fee reflects. The next section is land use plan amendment and the amount of $625 is used. This is for making a change in the city’s general master plan. If what you mean is to change the text of the zoning ordinance or land use ordinance the correct fee is $220. Under the land use plan amendment heading is


26


preliminary plat and it seems to me what you are requesting here is the cost of a preliminary subdivision plat which is $100 + $10 per lot. I mentioned above what the special use permit may really be our conditional use permit and the fee would be $140 THE $220 amount is for changing the text of the zoning ordinance. Vacation fees which is the next category are $175 if all abutting property owners sign or $625 if only partial signatures of owners asking for the vacation of the street or plat. The variance section would be our BZA fee of $100 and not $140 as listed on the chart. Greg Montgomery

City of Ogden Utah

Hi Don – The fees for Monument outlined in the spreadsheet are correct. As a side note, all of the recording and advertising fees, as well as any consultant review fees, are deducted from the applicant’s retainer. Thanks,Natalie EbaughTown of Monument Development Services166 Second StreetP.O. Box 325Monument, CO 80132719-884-8018 Direct719-884-8011 Fax


27

Documents

Dev.fee.comparison.public