Dev.fee.comparison.public

215 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
215
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dev.fee.comparison.public

  1. 1. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICINTRODUCTION A comparative analysis of development review fees was undertaken beginning inOctober of 2008. The purpose of this examination was to benchmark Cheyenne’s fee scheduleamong 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 issignificantly different, some cities were excluded from comparison for some fees, and somehypothetical development models were used to align divergent fees for some developmentactions. 35 Cities were initially contacted for response. First, all web-published fees werecollected for each participating city and assembled into a matrix. Then, all cities were contactedby telephone and/or electronic mail to verify their respective fees and include any that wererelevant. Appendix A is a copy of the correspondence used. Cities were also asked aboutcurrent development trends, population trends, and general policy positions surroundingdevelopment and fees. Appendix B is a copy of the written correspondence from the respectivecities. On January 5, 2009 new responses were suspended, the data was assimilated in finalform, and the Phase III analysis was completed. At this point, 29 cities were included or partiallyincluded 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 RockyMountain West, the Northwest, and Plains states west of the Mississippi. Cities within theStates of California and Oregon were excluded intentionally as the planning processes aresignificantly more costly. The City of Spokane, Washington was included on the original data setdue to its comparable cost of living and growth rate; however Washington would generally begrouped with Oregon as a ‘higher cost of planning’ State. For Phase II of the analysis, Peer Cities were grouped by population (as defined by thecurrent 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 meanpercentage change reported by the US Census between the years of 2000 – 2007); and bymedian home price (as reported on the Multiple Listing Service as of December 20, 2008). City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 1 Don Threewitt, Planner
  2. 2. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICMETHODOLOGY FOR ASSIMILATING DATAHypothetical Development Examples In order to align divergent fee structures, two key hypothetical development exampleswere used. Clearly stated, one city may charge a flat rate ($150) for a final site plan whileanother may charge a scaled fee ($100 plus $25 per dwelling unit and/or $10 per acre).Generally, for a ‘simple’ or ‘basic’ development, an example of a 9 acre development with adensity of 5 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) was used. For a ‘standard’ or ‘complex’development an example of 99 acres with a 5 DU/acre density was used. Understandably, thistype of development would be unlikely in smaller municipalities and only serves as a standardfor comparison.METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSISCalculating the Mean The mean for each category was devised as the sum of all fees charged divided by thenumber of cities that charge a fee. Cities that do not charge a fee are excluded from the index,and each category includes notation of the number of cities reporting. Indexing could have alternately included all cities—regardless of whether or not theycharge a fee, but inconsistent reporting by the jurisdictions could skew the average were a cityto not report a fee that is actually charged. That is, several municipalities contain partial data.Instead of completely excluding all cities that don’t offer complete fee schedules, a variableindex was used. Since this is the case, the number of cities reporting a fee is relevant to the discussion.Subtracting the Aberrant In order to uncover a realistic average fee, the highest and lowest fees charged weresubtracted prior to calculating the mean in cases where they were dramatically deviant. Thesewere generally Boulder, CO and Gillette, WY respectively; but Albuquerque, NM or Bozeman,MT was also in some cases eliminated in lieu of the above. For example, Boulder waseliminated from 9 mean calculations where its fees were in excess of 10 times the average, insome cases Boulder’s fee was over 150 times Cheyenne’s fee. To illustrate, hypothetically: City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 2 Don Threewitt, Planner
  3. 3. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICBozeman Boulder Cheyenne Frisco Laramie Gillette Ogden Parker Rapid City Average$ 150 $ 18,560 $ 150 $ 100 $ 125 $ 20 $ 150 $ 200 $ 200 $ 153.57In the above example, Boulder and Gillette clearly deviate from the general trend. Thus, theywere eliminated when calculating the average; which was the sum of the remaining citiesdivided by the number of remaining cities. The average becomes the index, and Boulder andGillette 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 1.30The overarching goal of this analysis is to realistically benchmark Cheyenne’s Development feeswith that of other regional peers. Eliminating deviant data and keeping the field of comparatorsas 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.FINDINGSPolicy Implications Each of the ‘tiers’ of fee structures evident in the data collected can be loosely groupedinto 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 throughfees. Cheyenne is well-grounded in the ‘heavily subsidize development’ category. However, looking into growth rates as related to development fees, cities whichsubsidize 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 inactual fees. In fact, interviews and surveys with development professionals from othercommunities indicate that an expedited review process is “exponentially” more valuable thanthe hard cost fee. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 3 Don Threewitt, Planner
  4. 4. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICActual Time and Resources Cost of Each Development Action An enumerated cost of the actual review process as well as the coinciding public processinvolved for a particular development action is beyond the efficient scope of this analysis. Theintent is to extract a probable cost from the existing data—which is based on the assumptionthat a median fee is likely close to the actual cost for the action. This assumption is grounded inthe premise that most review processes are similar (with respect to time and resources) amongcommunities, and that the local municipality is not intent on profiting from the process. Under the current City of Cheyenne Departmental organization, the Building andDevelopment departments are self-sufficient. This is primarily due to a recent building permitfee increase. As a total departmental budget, these two departments rely on fees at thebuilding phase to recoup costs of the concept and entitlement phases. This allows thedevelopment 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 CheyenneMPO, among others. These departments do not recover the costs incurred in developmentreview. During peak periods, staff from these departments potentially spend 25% of full-timeequivalent (FTE) dealing directly with development review. Additionally, ‘special projects’ suchas updating codes, comprehensive planning, subarea planning and other directly related butindirectly billable projects are undertaken specifically to support and advance the goals of theBuilding 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 developmentprofessionals. These entities have extensive knowledge of the local market, and will generallydevelop pro formas based primarily on local conditions. Therefore, adoption of a fee schedulecomparable to other communities will adversely affect their business model. This negativeimpact 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 boththe 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 fulleconomic recovery is evident, and building is resumed at a normal pace, fees should then be City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 4 Don Threewitt, Planner
  5. 5. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICbrought 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 theaverage, Cheyenne could gain approximately $120,000 in revenue per year. At the average feestructure, Cheyenne could gain $250,000 - $275,000 annually. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 5 Don Threewitt, Planner
  6. 6. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICThe following tables illustrate Cheyenne’s position among peers for each individual developmentaction. Peers were defined as cities similar in one of three ways: 1. Actual population, 2. Averageannual rate of growth over 10 years, and 3. Median home price as currently reported by theMLS. There are several other factors in determining peers, but these three would most directlyillustrate similar development/construction activity. Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Admin. Approval Admin. Approval Admin. ApprovalCity Index City Index Cheyenne WY 1.12Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo UT 0.90Casper Wy 0.90 Casper Wy 0.90 Englewood CO 1.35Cheyenne, Wy 1.12 Cheyenne Wy 1.12 Gillette WY -Flagstaff, AZ 4.50 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque NM 0.40Parker, CO 1.35 Frisco, CO 0.67 Westminster CO 2.25Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut - Bozeman MT - Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 2.25Administrative Approval17 of 27 cities charge a fee for Administrative Approval, which averages $118.18. Cheyenne is higherthan average, charging $125. However, some municipalities assess additional fees for additional time, oran hourly rate.Annexation19 of 27 cities charge a fee for annexation. Annexation fees vary widely from a high of $17,340 forBoulder, 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, Cheyennes fee is $150. Municipalitiesthat do not have a published annexation fee either actively subsidize the process, or are fully built outwithin their Urban Service Area. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 6 Don Threewitt, Planner
  7. 7. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICFor purposes of comparison, reported fees were reduced to the basic fee structure. Total fees will beaddressed 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, thefee is 33% of standard annexations.Boulder, CO is the only municipality that requires an Annexation Study, with an accompanying fee of$2100. Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Annexation Annexation AnnexationCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.18Bismarck, ND 0.30 Bismarck, ND 0.30 Provo 0.12Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 1.21Cheyenne, Wy 0.18 Cheyenne Wy 0.18 Gillette 0.03Flagstaff, AZ 0.91 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque -Parker, CO 0.48 Frisco, CO 2.05 Westminster 0.36Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.24 Bozeman 0.30 Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 0.36Board Approval Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Board Approval Board Approval Board ApprovalCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.33Bismarck, ND 0.27 Bismarck, ND 0.27 Provo 0.27Casper Wy 0.67 Casper Wy 0.67 Englewood 0.33Cheyenne, Wy 0.33 Cheyenne Wy 0.33 Gillette 0.04Flagstaff, AZ 0.67 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.27Parker, CO 0.67 Frisco, CO 3.07 Westminster 0.67Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.27 Bozeman 1.34 Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 0.67 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 7 Don Threewitt, Planner
  8. 8. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICBoard Approval fees are one of the more consistent fee structures across the 30 jurisdictions. Theaverage 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 platswere illustrated as the fee charged for a 9 acre parcel at 5 dwelling units per acre. Standard plats wereillustrated as a 99 acre parcel with 5 dwelling units per acre. Again, this is the base fee for the Final Platreview and did not include any impact fees or additional review fees. There were no aberrantjurisdictions, so all cities were included. Average fee for the Simple Plat scenario totaled $1,063.65 andfor the Standard Plat scenario was $4,713.44. Out of the 27 cities, 4 did not state a final plat fee.However, 1 city assesses the total plat fee at the preliminary level, and the remaining 3 have incompletedata. Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Simple Final Plat Simple Final Plat Simple Final PlatCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.12Bismarck, ND 0.14 Bismarck, ND 0.14 Provo 0.73Casper Wy 0.24 Casper Wy 0.24 Englewood 0.56Cheyenne, Wy 0.12 Cheyenne Wy 0.12 Gillette 0.52Flagstaff, AZ 1.79 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 1.17Parker, CO 0.89 Frisco, CO 1.08 Westminster 0.33Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.52 Bozeman 0.68 Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 0.33 Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Standard Final Plat Standard Final Plat Standard Final PlatCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.03Bismarck, ND 0.17 Bismarck, ND 0.17 Provo 1.60Casper Wy 0.05 Casper Wy 0.05 Englewood 0.21Cheyenne, Wy 0.03 Cheyenne Wy 0.03 Gillette 1.07Flagstaff, AZ 2.31 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.74Parker, CO 1.16 Frisco, CO 0.24 Westminster 0.07Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 1.07 Bozeman 2.84 Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 0.07 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 8 Don Threewitt, Planner
  9. 9. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLIC.Land Use Plan Amendment (9 acres) Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Plan Amendment Plan Amendment Plan AmendmentCity Index City Index Cheyenne -Bismarck, ND 0.20 Bismarck, ND 0.20 Provo -Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 0.78Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 2.62 Fargo, ND 0.23 Albuquerque 0.33Parker, CO 0.31 Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.39Rapid City, SD 0.20 Ogden Ut 0.49 Bozeman - Rapid City, SD 0.20 Westminster, CO 0.3918 of 27 cities exact a Land Use Plan Amendment fee. Municipalities which emphasize land use controlstend to charge higher than average fees, while cities that place fewer controls on development chargelesser or no fees. The average fee assessed is $1279.44Preliminary PlatMinor Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Minor Prelim. Plat Minor Prelim Plat Minor Prelim PlatCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.79Bismarck, ND 1.81 Bismarck, ND 1.81 Provo 5.77Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 2.72Cheyenne, Wy 0.79 Cheyenne Wy 0.79 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 16.98 Fargo, ND 1.58 Albuquerque 0.20Parker, CO 3.85 Frisco, CO 2.26 Westminster 1.36Rapid City, SD 5.21 Ogden Ut - Bozeman 12.45 Rapid City, SD 5.21 Westminster, CO 1.36 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 9 Don Threewitt, Planner
  10. 10. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLIC25 of 29 cities reported fees for Preliminary Plats. For a minor preliminary plat (exemplified as 9 acres at5 DU/acre), the average fee is $220.87. For a major preliminary plat (exemplified as 99 acres at 5DU/acre), the average fee is $4391.30. Cheyenne charges $175 for either. In the comparative analysis ofMinor Preliminary Plats, Boulder CO ($4680) and Albuquerque NM ($45) were excluded for havingaberrantly 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 assessfees for Final Plats.Preliminary PlatMajor Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Major Prelim. Plat Major Prelim Plat Major Prelim PlatCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.04Bismarck, ND 0.13 Bismarck, ND 0.13 Provo 2.85Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 0.23Cheyenne, Wy 0.04 Cheyenne Wy 0.04 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 5.88 Fargo, ND 0.14 Albuquerque 0.01Parker, CO 1.22 Frisco, CO 0.11 Westminster 0.08Rapid City, SD 2.31 Ogden Ut - Bozeman 5.86 Rapid City, SD 2.31 Westminster, CO 0.08Public Hearing/Advertising FeeThe high variability of the nature of fee exactions for Public Hearing and Advertising does not allow foreffective comparative analysis. 16 of 27 cities report a charge for mailings, advertisements, andhearings. The highest fees assessed are Spokane WA ($1160 hearing fee, $85 per hour staff time, cost ofmailing, and cost of advertising), Flagstaff AZ ($750 plus all costs), and Boulder CO ($1580 fee). Thelowest 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. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 10 Don Threewitt, Planner
  11. 11. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICPUDConcept Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price PUD Concept PUD Concept PUD ConceptCity Index City Index Cheyenne -Bismarck, ND 0.52 Bismarck, ND 0.52 Provo -Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 0.74Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 1.56 Fargo, ND 0.45 Albuquerque -Parker, CO - Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.52Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.07 Bozeman 0.74 Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 0.52PUDPreliminary Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price PUD Preliminary PUD Preliminary PUD PreliminaryCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.25Bismarck, ND 0.61 Bismarck, ND 0.61 Provo 0.76Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 2.48Cheyenne, Wy 0.25 Cheyenne Wy 0.25 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 5.76 Fargo, ND 0.61 Albuquerque -Parker, CO 0.71 Frisco, CO 3.44 Westminster 0.71Rapid City, SD 0.51 Ogden Ut 0.10 Bozeman 2.48 Rapid City, SD 0.51 Westminster, CO 0.71 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 11 Don Threewitt, Planner
  12. 12. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICPUDFinal Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price PUD Final PUD Final PUD FinalCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.12Bismarck, ND 0.28 Bismarck, ND 0.28 Provo 0.72Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 0.46Cheyenne, Wy 0.12 Cheyenne Wy 0.12 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 2.64 Fargo, ND 0.28 Albuquerque -Parker, CO 0.66 Frisco, CO 1.58 Westminster 0.32Rapid City, SD 0.23 Ogden Ut 0.05 Bozeman 0.46 Rapid City, SD 0.23 Westminster, CO 0.32Recording Fee Total of Cities with Fee Recording Fee City IndexFountain CO 0.58Frisco CO 1.45Gillette WY 0.96Parker CO 0.19Rock Springs WY 0.96Scottsbluff NE 1.93Spokane WA 0.96Westminster, CO 0.96Cheyenne 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. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 12 Don Threewitt, Planner
  13. 13. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICSite PlanPreliminary Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Site PlanCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.16Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo -Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood -Cheyenne, Wy 0.16 Cheyenne Wy 0.16 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 0.40 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.07Parker, CO 0.40 Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.64Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.08 Bozeman - Rapid City, SD - Westminster, CO 0.64 Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Simple Site Plan Simple Site Plan Simple Site PlanCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.12Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo 0.04Casper Wy 0.12 Casper Wy 0.12 Englewood -Cheyenne, Wy 0.12 Cheyenne Wy 0.12 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 1.24 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.32Parker, CO 0.62 Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.50Rapid City, SD 0.31 Ogden Ut 0.06 Bozeman - Rapid City, SD 0.31 Westminster, CO 0.50 Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Standard Site Plan Standard Site Plan Standard Site PlanCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.07Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo 0.62Casper Wy 0.18 Casper Wy 0.18 Englewood -Cheyenne, Wy 0.07 Cheyenne Wy 0.07 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 1.06 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.28Parker, CO 1.06 Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.29Rapid City, SD 0.18 Ogden Ut 0.04 Bozeman - City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 13 Don Threewitt, Planner
  14. 14. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLIC Rapid City, SD 0.18 Westminster, CO 0.29 Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Complex Site Plan Complex Site Plan Complex Site PlanCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.02Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo 1.33Casper Wy 0.06 Casper Wy 0.06 Englewood -Cheyenne, Wy 0.02 Cheyenne Wy 0.02 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 1.47 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.87Parker, CO 2.58 Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.10Rapid City, SD 0.06 Ogden Ut 0.01 Bozeman - Rapid City, SD 0.06 Westminster, CO 0.10Special Use Permit Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Special/Cond. Use Permit Special/Cond. Use Permit Special/Cond. Use PermitCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.32Bismarck, ND 0.64 Bismarck, ND 0.64 Provo 0.26Casper Wy 0.64 Casper Wy 0.64 Englewood 1.28Cheyenne, Wy 0.32 Cheyenne Wy 0.32 Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 1.92 Fargo, ND 0.47 Albuquerque 0.26Parker, CO 1.28 Frisco, CO 2.56 Westminster 1.15Rapid City, SD 0.64 Ogden Ut 0.36 Bozeman - Rapid City, SD 0.64 Westminster, CO 1.15 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 14 Don Threewitt, Planner
  15. 15. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICVacation Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Vacation Vacation VacationCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.39Bismarck, ND 1.26 Bismarck, ND 1.26 Provo 0.32Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 1.42Cheyenne, Wy 0.39 Cheyenne Wy 0.39 Gillette 0.08Flagstaff, AZ - Fargo, ND 1.89 Albuquerque 0.95Parker, CO 0.47 Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.95Rapid City, SD 0.79 Ogden Ut 0.55 Bozeman - Rapid City, SD 0.79 Westminster, CO 0.95VarianceResidential Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Res. Variance Res. Variance Res. VarianceCity Index City Index Cheyenne -Bismarck, ND 0.29 Bismarck, ND 0.29 Provo 0.14Casper Wy 0.72 Casper Wy 0.72 Englewood 0.43Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 0.43 Fargo, ND 0.53 Albuquerque 0.29Parker, CO 0.58 Frisco, CO 2.30 Westminster 0.86Rapid City, SD 0.58 Ogden Ut 0.40 Bozeman 1.44 Rapid City, SD 0.58 Westminster, CO 0.86 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 15 Don Threewitt, Planner
  16. 16. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICVarianceCommercial Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Comm. Variance Comm. Variance Comm. VarianceCity Index City Index Cheyenne -Bismarck, ND 0.25 Bismarck, ND 0.25 Provo 0.13Casper Wy 0.63 Casper Wy 0.63 Englewood 0.38Cheyenne, Wy - Cheyenne Wy - Gillette -Flagstaff, AZ 1.26 Fargo, ND 0.47 Albuquerque 0.25Parker, CO 0.51 Frisco, CO 2.02 Westminster 0.76Rapid City, SD 0.51 Ogden Ut 0.35 Bozeman 2.53 Rapid City, SD 0.51 Westminster, CO 0.76Zone ChangeSmall City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 16 Don Threewitt, Planner
  17. 17. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICZone ChangeLarge Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Small Zone Change Small Zone Change Small Zone ChangeCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.20Bismarck, ND 0.70 Bismarck, ND 0.70 Provo 0.39Casper Wy 0.39 Casper Wy 0.39 Englewood 1.56Cheyenne, Wy 0.20 Cheyenne Wy 0.20 Gillette 0.04Flagstaff, AZ 3.05 Fargo, ND 0.47 Albuquerque 1.15Parker, CO 0.69 Frisco, CO 2.35 Westminster 0.78Rapid City, SD 0.39 Ogden Ut 0.47 Bozeman 1.92 Rapid City, SD 0.39 Westminster, CO 0.78 Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price Large Zone Change Large Zone Change Large Zone ChangeCity Index City Index Cheyenne 0.12Bismarck, ND 0.42 Bismarck, ND 0.42 Provo 0.23Casper Wy 0.23 Casper Wy 0.23 Englewood 1.39Cheyenne, Wy 0.12 Cheyenne Wy 0.12 Gillette 0.02Flagstaff, AZ 6.42 Fargo, ND 0.28 Albuquerque 1.55Parker, CO 2.05 Frisco, CO 1.39 Westminster 0.46Rapid City, SD 0.23 Ogden Ut 0.28 Bozeman 3.68 Rapid City, SD 0.23 Westminster, CO 0.46 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 17 Don Threewitt, Planner
  18. 18. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICAppendix A: Correspondence to Potential Peer CitiesMy office is currently undertaking a comparative analysis of the fees assessed for development review. Ihave collected some information from web-based documents, and am asking each office respectively toreview 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 includeadditional services (Higher final plat fee but no public hearing or advertising fee). Alternately, some citieshave lower fees that are less inclusive. If you could notify me of any particular circumstances to your feestructure, it would be greatly appreciated. If there are any special policy circumstances (i.e., city councilbelieves in subsidizing development, or developers pay their way completely), these would be great toknow. Also, could you add current population numbers, and identify whether your community is in astate of general growth, stability, or decline.I hope to assemble this into as much of an “apples to apples” comparison as possible. Of course, oncecompleted I will share the information with all involved cities for their own use. The spreadsheetattached should be relatively self-explanatory, but feel free to contact me with any questions.Thank you in advance for your time.Sincerely,Donald L. ThreewittCity of Cheyenne Urban Planning Office City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 18 Don Threewitt, Planner
  19. 19. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICAppendix B: Written Responses to InquiryDon;Wow, great job compiling this data. I have a couple of additions for Friscos 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: $50.00Also, we dont record site plans, only final plats - and we charge actual recording costs plus an admin feeof $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 asfollowsFinal Plat - no chargePreliminary Plat - $250+20/lotMinor Plat - $250+20/lotMajor Plat - NAAdd PDD - no chargePD - Initial submission - $250PD - Final submission - $250**PD Initial and Final submitted together - $250Special Use Permit - our CUPVacation of ROW - $250Vacation of Easement - $25Variance-Subdivision - $200ParkerHeres 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 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 19 Don Threewitt, Planner
  20. 20. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICCurrently, our residential development has come to a stop, but non-residential developmentis still steady. Our population is 26,500. I hope this helps.Steve GreerDevelopment Review ManagerTown of Parker, ColoradoIn general, the City of Fargo has experienced consistent growth over the past 20 years (atapproximately 2 % per year). While things are maybe a bit slower this year in terms of housingstarts, our remodel and commercial numbers have remained strong. In fact, in terms of the totalvalue 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 betelling. For more detailed information regarding population and population breakdown, pleasetake 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 Fargo200 North 3rd StreetFargo, ND 58102I’ve attached a copy of your spreadsheet with a couple of additions (in red) for Rock Springs. For siteplans, we only have two categories, Minor and Major, so I used your Simple and Complex. Also, I’veattached our Fee Schedule which has a comprehensive list of our application fees which becameeffective October 1, 2008.Rock Springs has been in a pattern of significant growth over the last few years, probably similar toGillette with oil/gas explorations. As far as Rock Springs current population, we are well over the 2000Census 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. Withthe political climate changing in the country, we are waiting to see what happens with our economyhere. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 20 Don Threewitt, Planner
  21. 21. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICLet me know if you have any questions, and thanks for sharing your data with everyone.Jennifer ShieldsAssistant City PlannerCity of Rock Springs, WyomingChecked your information on the City of Scottsbluff, everything listed is correct. I assume you looked atour 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 propertyowners. 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 countis 14,732.Thanks for the information, will look forward to the final report.Annie UrdialesPlanning AdministratorDon:I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can. I am not using the form you provided because Idon’t think that our process fits into the form very well. Here is what we charge:Annexation – FreePlat - $250 (We currently do not do preliminary plats. A replat is the same cost as a final plat). Final platsrequire P & Z public hearing and 3 readings at Council. Replats require P & Z public hearing and 1reading 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 isadministrative. Between 20,000 and 43,560 sf is P & Z. Over 43,560 requires P & Z and Councilapproval).Conditional Use Permit - $250 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 21 Don Threewitt, Planner
  22. 22. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICException - $250Zone 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,CraigCraig CollinsAssociate PlannerCity of Casper200 North David Street, Room 205Casper, WY 82601(307)-235-8241I reviewed your chart and wanted to add a couple of things for the Ogden, Utah section and explain whatthe categories mean to us so that you are making the right comparisons. The first heading isadministrative approvals and in my mind that means plans that are administratively approved such as asite plan, a conditional use permit and a subdivision. A site plan fee is $50 and a conditional use permitis $140. The conditional use permit may be what you call a special use permit . It is the idea that a reviewof the specific location is required for some uses to determine if appropriate for that location or ifconditions 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 hasbeen lefty blank in your document. Under Board approval is final plat and with the fee that you have used this must mean standardsubdivision 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 makinga change in the city’s general master plan. If what you mean is to change the text of the zoning City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 22 Don Threewitt, Planner
  23. 23. Development Review Fees: Comparative Analysis PUBLICordinance or land use ordinance the correct fee is $220. Under the land use plan amendment heading ispreliminary plat and it seems to me what you are requesting here is the cost of a preliminary subdivisionplat which is $100 + $10 per lot. I mentioned above what the special use permit may really be our conditional use permit and thefee 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 ifonly 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 MontgomeryCity of Ogden UtahHi Don – The fees for Monument outlined in the spreadsheet are correct. As a side note, all ofthe recording and advertising fees, as well as any consultant review fees, are deducted from theapplicant’s retainer.Thanks,Natalie EbaughTown of Monument Development Services166 Second StreetP.O. Box 325Monument, CO 80132719-884-8018 Direct719-884-8011 Fax City of Cheyenne, Wyoming | Urban Planning Office 23 Don Threewitt, Planner

×