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 Office 1
Don Threewitt, Planner


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:



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.



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



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.



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.
Peers by Population Peers by Growth Rate Peers by Median Home Price
Admin. Approval Admin. Approval Admin. Approval
City Index City Index Cheyenne WY 1.12
Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo UT 0.90
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

Administrative Approval
17 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.

Annexation

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 0.18
Bismarck, ND 0.30 Bismarck, ND 0.30 Provo 0.12
Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood 1.21
Cheyenne, Wy 0.18 Cheyenne Wy 0.18 Gillette 0.03
Flagstaff, AZ 0.91 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque -
Parker, CO 0.48 Frisco, CO 2.05 Westminster 0.36
Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.24 Bozeman 0.30
Rapid City, SD -

Board Approval

Board Approval Board Approval Board Approval
Casper Wy 0.67 Casper Wy 0.67 Englewood 0.33
Flagstaff, AZ 0.67 Fargo, ND - Albuquerque 0.27
Rapid City, SD -



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 Plat
Fee 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.

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

Simple Final Plat Simple Final Plat Simple Final Plat
Rapid City, SD -

Standard Final Plat Standard Final Plat Standard Final Plat
Rapid City, SD -



.

Land Use Plan Amendment (9 acres)

Plan Amendment Plan Amendment Plan Amendment
City Index City Index Cheyenne -
Bismarck, ND 0.20 Bismarck, ND 0.20 Provo -
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 0.20

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 Plat
Minor

Minor Prelim. Plat Minor Prelim Plat Minor Prelim Plat
Cheyenne, Wy 0.79 Cheyenne Wy 0.79 Gillette -
Rapid City, SD 5.21 Ogden Ut - Bozeman 12.45
Rapid City, SD 5.21



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 Plat
Major

Major Prelim. Plat Major Prelim Plat Major Prelim Plat
Rapid City, SD 2.31 Ogden Ut - Bozeman 5.86
Rapid City, SD 2.31

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.



PUD
Concept

PUD Concept PUD Concept PUD Concept
Bismarck, ND 0.52 Bismarck, ND 0.52 Provo -
Flagstaff, AZ 1.56 Fargo, ND 0.45 Albuquerque -
Parker, CO - Frisco, CO - Westminster 0.52
Rapid City, SD -

PUD
Preliminary

PUD Preliminary PUD Preliminary PUD Preliminary
Rapid City, SD 0.51 Ogden Ut 0.10 Bozeman 2.48
Rapid City, SD 0.51



PUD
Final

PUD Final PUD Final PUD Final
Rapid City, SD 0.23

Recording Fee

Total of Cities with Fee
Recording Fee
City Index
Fountain 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

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 Plan
Preliminary

Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Site Plan Preliminary Site Plan
Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo -
Casper Wy - Casper Wy - Englewood -
Rapid City, SD - Ogden Ut 0.08 Bozeman -
Rapid City, SD -

Simple Site Plan Simple Site Plan Simple Site Plan
Bismarck, ND - Bismarck, ND - Provo 0.04
Casper Wy 0.12 Casper Wy 0.12 Englewood -
Rapid City, SD 0.31

Standard Site Plan Standard Site Plan Standard Site Plan



Rapid City, SD 0.18

Complex Site Plan Complex Site Plan Complex Site Plan
Rapid City, SD 0.06

Special Use Permit

Special/Cond. Use Permit Special/Cond. Use Permit Special/Cond. Use Permit
Rapid City, SD 0.64



Vacation

Vacation Vacation Vacation
Flagstaff, AZ - Fargo, ND 1.89 Albuquerque 0.95
Rapid City, SD 0.79

Variance
Residential

Res. Variance Res. Variance Res. Variance
Rapid City, SD 0.58



Variance
Commercial

Comm. Variance Comm. Variance Comm. Variance
Rapid City, SD 0.51

Zone Change
Small



Zone Change
Large

Small Zone Change Small Zone Change Small Zone Change
Rapid City, SD 0.39

Large Zone Change Large Zone Change Large Zone Change
Rapid City, SD 0.23



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.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

Donald L. Threewitt

City of Cheyenne Urban Planning Office



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): $1,000.00
Variance (both residential and commercial): $800.00
Preliminary Plats: $500.00
Advertising/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 charge
Preliminary Plat - $250+20/lot
Minor Plat - $250+20/lot
Major Plat - NA

Add PDD - no charge
PD - Initial submission - $250
PD - Final submission - $250*
*PD Initial and Final submitted together - $250

Special Use Permit - our CUP

Vacation of ROW - $250
Vacation of Easement - $25
Variance-Subdivision - $200

Parker
Here's my comments:

Final Plat = 500+10/du or 30/ac
Preliminary Plat = 400+10/du or 25/ac
PUD = 400+10/ac+5/du
Zone Change = 350+10/ac+5/du for residential and 400+75/ac for non-residential
Recording 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.

Steve Greer
Development Review Manager
Town 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/CommunityHealthSnapshotRe
port/Demographics/

I’m looking forward to reviewing the completed study.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Jim Hinderaker, Senior Planner
City of Fargo
200 North 3rd Street
Fargo, 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.

Jennifer Shields
Assistant City Planner
City 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

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 Collins
Associate Planner
City of Casper
200 North David Street, Room 205
Casper, 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
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 Ebaugh
Town of Monument Development Services
166 Second Street
P.O. Box 325
Monument, CO 80132
719-884-8018 Direct
719-884-8011 Fax


Dev.fee.comparison.public

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Dev.fee.comparison.public

Dev.fee.comparison.public