No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout182-24 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 182-24 File Number: 2024-222 IMPLEMENT USER FEE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS (RESOLUTION OF INTENT): A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2024 USER FEE STUDY INCLUDING A FULL COST RECOVERY MODEL, ESTABLISHMENT OF A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, AND ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, Fayetteville has a long and well -established history of charging user fees for a number of City services, including those associated with development review; and WHEREAS, documentation from as early as the 1980s indicates codified fees for project classes that are still familiar today: lot splits, preliminary plats, large scale developments, and others; and WHEREAS, in mid-1991, a formal user fee study was initiated but, following a change in the form of Fayetteville's form of municipal government between 1991 and 1992, implementation was delayed with only portions adopted in the mid-1990's; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council approved a contract for a second user fee study, an element of which focused on Planning and Building Safety; and WHEREAS, in June 2005, the City Council approved a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy for City Services, but no discernable action was taken, with many fees from 2024 remaining as they existed in 2004; and WHEREAS, in February 2023, the City Council approved a contract with MGT for an updated user fee study whose core objectives include evaluating and improving the current fee structure, defining the cost of City services, and recommending fees based on the cost of service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its intent to implement the recommendations of the 2024 User Fee Study including a full cost recovery model, establishment of a master fee schedule, and annual adjustment. PASSED and APPROVED on July 2, 2024 Page 1 Resolution: 182-24 File Number: 2024-222 Page 2 Attest: r-fA r �f AY�_C�EVtLI>_ Kara Paxton, City Cl rk Treasurer c Pam' _ '�i 9 � /,QKAN'• � �J �• 'NG 'ON; `"� CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF JULY 2, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEMO 2024-222 TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council THRU: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director SUBJECT: A resolution expressing intent to implement the recommendations of the 2024 User Fee Study, including a full cost recovery model, establishment of a master fee schedule, and annual adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a resolution expressing intent to implement the recommendations of the 2024 User Fee Study, including a full cost recovery model, establishment of a master fee schedule, and annual adjustment. BACKGROUND: Fayetteville has a long and well -established history of charging user fees for a number of City services, including those associated with development review. Documentation from as early as the 1980s indicates codified fees for project classes that are still familiar today: lot splits, preliminary plats, large scale developments, and others. In mid-1991, a formal user fee study was initiated. Following a change in the form of Fayetteville's form of municipal government between 1991 and 1992, implementation was delayed, with only portions adopted in the mid-1990s. Subsequently in 2003, Council approved a contract for a second user fee study, an element of which focused on Planning and Building Safety. This limited scope indicated a near total cost recovery, and included a proposal to reduce Building Safety fees and increase Planning fees to accurately reflect the service costs of the individual divisions. During the same period, Council adopted a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy for City Services (attached) in June of 2005. Among other tenets, the policy included a standard for user fee evaluation on a three-year cycle, an annual adjustment of fees based on the All Urban Consumer Price Index, fees that "should be levied fairly and equitably and properly to account for the benefit received by each user", and a standard that "Development charges (annexation, rezoning, lot split, construction plan review, infrastructure, stormwater, etc.) shall recover 100% of the full cost of providing the services unless reduced or waived by City Council." Despite the user fee study's proposal and the policy's adoption, no discernable action was taken, with many fees from 2024 remaining as they existed in 2004. In the intervening years, several new development fees were introduced or saw one-off changes as additional services were offered or particular issues of recovery were identified, but no concerted study of development review fees occurred. Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 More recently, in February 2023 the City Council approved a contract with MGT for an updated user fee study. Core objectives of the study include evaluating and improving the current fee structure, defining the cost of City services, and recommending fees based on the cost of service. The scope of the contract does not include impact fees. DISCUSSION: MGT completed a review of City development review -related services, the hourly rates of staff providing those services, and the time providing each service in six areas. These include Building Safety, Business Licensing, Engineering, Fire, Planning, and Water & Sewer. The most prominent finding of the study is a significant discrepancy between the cost of services provided and the user fees charged, totaling approximately $2,164,691. Recovery `23/'24 Revenue Cost Subsidy Building Safety: 79% $2,124,791 $2,681,470 $556,679 Business License: 62% $119,401 $192,650 $73,249 Engineering: 24% $118,425 $494,359 $375,934 Fire: 0% $- $45,580 $45,580 Planning: 22% $159,715 $731,918 $572,203 Water & Sewer: 22% $156,975 $698,021 $541,046 TOTAL: 55% $2,679,307 $4,843,998 $2,164,691 Provided this information, staff and the consultant propose a comprehensive cross -divisional and cross - departmental modification to fees and fee structures related to development review (see attached User Fee Study, Appendix A). These changes are founded on several best practices and principles, and include: • Implement a full cost recovery model: While the community may be a beneficiary of the City's development standards being upheld, it is ultimately an applicant who is driving the need for development review services. Additionally, ensuring an adequate level of cost recovery also manages demand by providing resources for adequate development review staffing and ensuring that demand for services is not overly -stimulated by artificially low fees. • Adjust user fees annually: Incorporating an annual fee adjustment affords the City the opportunity to maintain cost recovery as salaries and benefits increase between formal fee studies. A consumer price index (CPI) factor is the most common means of enacting this practice. • Execute a user fee evaluation every three to five years: While implementing annual fee adjustments per consumer price index or other metric affords the ability to maintain cost recovery, changes in policy, development standards, staffing, and other factors can reduce or increase the cost of services in ways not captured by annual adjustment. • Restructure development fees: Where fee categories are more varied than annual demand suggests is appropriate, or conversely, too uniform, some fees are proposed for removal, addition, or restructuring. This seeks to accurately reflect the volume of applications, their respective costs, and instances where new services were created or old ones eliminated. • Establish a master fee schedule: With fees currently codified in the Unified Development Code and other sections of ordinance, they are subject to organizational limitations and require legislative action to modify. As an alternative, the creation of a master fee schedule allows for a centralized document to support staff and applicants that may also be adjusted administratively within the bounds of established standards, such as the consumer price index (CPI). These changes would then be routed to the City Council for consideration. Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 • Consider targeted, not blanket subsidies: Currently, all applicants benefit from development review fees that are publicly subsidized. This includes for -profit as well as non-profit organizations, luxury and Affordable home builders, as well as national corporations and locally owned business. Implementing a full cost recovery model of development fees allows both meaningful, targeted incentives and can encourage development that serves a public good. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: With implementation of the user fee study's findings, the City will be reimbursed for more of its costs in providing municipal services. ATTACHMENTS: SRF (#3), MGT User Fee Study (#4), Resolution 119-05 (#5), Raising Development Fees Memo (#6) Mailing address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 == City of Fayetteville, Arkansas y 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 - Legislation Text File #: 2024-222 A resolution expressing intent to implement the recommendations of the 2024 User Fee Study, including a full cost recovery model, establishment of a master fee schedule, and annual adjustment. A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2024 USER FEE STUDY INCLUDING A FULL COST RECOVERY MODEL, ESTABLISHMENT OF A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, AND ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, Fayetteville has a long and well -established history of charging user fees for a number of City services, including those associated with development review; and WHEREAS, documentation from as early as the 1980s indicates codified fees for project classes that are still familiar today: lot splits, preliminary plats, large scale developments, and others; and WHEREAS, in mid-1991, a formal user fee study was initiated but, following a change in the form of Fayetteville's form of municipal government between 1991 and 1992, implementation was delayed with only portions adopted in the mid- 1990's; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the City Council approved a contract for a second user fee study, an element of which focused on Planning and Building Safety; and WHEREAS, in June 2005, the City Council approved a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy for City Services, but no discernable action was taken, with many fees from 2024 remaining as they existed in 2004; and WHEREAS, in February 2023, the City Council approved a contract with MGT for an updated user fee study whose core objectives include evaluating and improving the current fee structure, defining the cost of City services, and recommending fees based on the cost of service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby expresses its intent to implement the recommendations of the 2024 User Fee Study including a full cost recovery model, establishment of a master fee schedule, and annual adjustment. Page 1 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2024-222 Item ID 7/2/2024 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Jonathan Curth 6/12/2024 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (620) Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a resolution expressing intent to implement the recommendations of the 2024 User Fee Study, including a full cost recovery model, establishment of a master fee schedule, and annual adjustment Budget Impact: Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? No Total Amended Budget Expenses (Actual+Encum) Available Budget Does item have a direct cost? No Item Cost Is a Budget Adjustment attached? No Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Purchase Order Number: Change Order Number: Original Contract Number: Comments: Fund Project Title $ - fi V20221130 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 39-23 Approval Date: 2/21/2023 Development Services User Fee Study CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Section I Fr Introduction - Executive Summary MGT Consulting Group (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas with this summary of findings for the recently completed development services user fee study. The City contracted with MGT to perform a user fee study using fiscal year 2023-2024 budgeted figures, staffing and operational information. The current fees listed in this study represent the fees being charged at the beginning of this study. This report is the culmination of an extensive study conducted by MGT in collaboration with City staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge the staff who participated in this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to its success. Study Scope and Objectives The study included a review of development related fee for service activities within the following areas: • Building • Business License • Engineering • Fire • Planning • Water & Sewer The goal for this study was to present a well -documented and defensible analysis that would identify rates that would be used to recover billable costs for services and to develop user fees that represent the services currently provided by the City. The study was performed under the general direction of the Development Services Director. The primary goals of the study were to: • Update and improve current fee schedule structures and functionality. • Define what it costs the City to provide the various fee -related services. • Recommend fee adjustments based on study findings. The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments. Section II - Summary of Findings User Fee Financial Overview The study's primary objective was to provide the City's decision -makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of each service for which a fee is charged and presents the staff's recommendations. The exhibit below shows the annualized costs and revenues for the City's user fees that were part of this analysis. The analysis was based on the average volumes from fiscal year 2022/2023 and the fiscal year 2023/2024 fee schedule. It is difficult to predict future revenues due to the fluctuation in the volumes and economic conditions. MGT has based the annual cost off the individual full cost for each service analyzed and then multiplied that cost by the average volumes. The results are shown below in _,., _, _: User Fee (A) Full Cost (B) FY2023/2024 •. User Fee Services • Revenue Building $ 2,681,470 $ 2,124,791 79% $ 556,679 • •y 21% "Recommenall (D) Cost RecoveryPolicy $ 2,681,470 100% (E) Increased Revenue $ 556,679 Business License $ 192,650 $ 119,401 62% $ 73,249 38% $ 197,375 102% $ 77,974 Engineering $ 494,359 $ 118,425 24% $ 375,934 76% $ 482,600 98% $ 364,175 Fire $ 45,580 $ - 0% $ 45,580 100% $ 41,660 91% $ 41,660 Planning $ 731,918 $ 159,715 22% $ 572,203 78% $ 642,993 88% $ 483,278 Water & Sewer $ 698,021 $ 156,975 22% $ 541,046 78% $ 617,994 89% $ 461,019 Totals: $ 4,843,998 $ 2,679,307 55% $ 2,164,691 45% $ 4,664,092 96% $ 1,984,785 Exhibit 1 The recommendations in exhibit 1 are indented to be accomplished over a three-year implementation period. Fees would increase by 33.3% annually each year, over the next three years, until 100% cost recovery is accomplished. Section II - Summary of Findings User Fee Financial Overview continued... • Column A, User Fee Costs — This column represents what it is costing the City to provide the annual user fee services based on the average volume activity. In total, this study evaluated $4,843,998 of costs to provide user and regulatory related services. It is this amount that is the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user fee -related revenues for the city. • Column B, FY 2023/2024 Estimated Revenues — This column represents the City's published fees for fiscal year 2023/2024 multiplied by the volume numbers from fiscal year 2022/2023. Based on this information, the City receives fee -related cost recovery in the amount of $2,679,307 and is experiencing an overall 55% cost recovery level. The details of individual fees may be found in and in Appendix A of this report. • Column C, Current Subsidy — This column shows the difference between what it is costing the city to provide services versus what is being recovered in revenue for these same services. Current fee levels recover 55% of full cost, leaving a 45% or $2,164,691 subsidy. This difference is being subsidized by other funding sources such as tax revenues which are intended to support services provided to the general public. This subsidy represents an opportunity for an updated and more focused cost recovery effort by the city for fee -related services. • Column D, Recommended Recovery — This column shows the proposed cost recovery that is based on the City's recommendations. If adopted as recommended in this study, user fee revenue would increase to $4,664,092. This would result in an overall cost recovery level of 94%. • Column E, Increased Revenue — $1,984,785 in potential new revenue could be generated through aligning fees at the recommended levels provided in this study. Methodology A user fee study is comprised of two basic elements: ♦ Hourly rates of staff providing the service. Time spent providing the service. The product of the hourly rate calculation multiplied by the time spent yields the cost of providing the service. Section II - Summary of Findings Methodology continued... HOURLY RATES The hourly rate methodology used in this study builds indirect costs into hourly salary and benefit rates to arrive at fully burdened hourly rates. The fully burdened hourly rates calculated are a mechanism used to calculate the total cost of providing services. Total cost is generally recognized as the sum of the direct cost together with a proportionate share of allowable indirect costs. The proper identification of all costs (including labor, operating expense, department administration, and citywide support) as "direct" or "indirect" is crucial to the determination of the total cost of providing services. Direct costs are typically defined as those that are specifically tied to a particular function or activity, including the labor of persons working directly on the specific service for which the fee is charged, and possibly materials or supplies for people to work on the service. Indirect costs are those that support more than one program area and are not easily identifiable to specific activities. Examples of indirect costs are: 1) departmental administrative and support staff, 2) training and education time, 3) public counter and telephone time, 4) some service and supply costs, and 5) citywide overhead costs from outside of the department. MGT's hourly rate calculation methodology includes the following: Personnel Services Analysis — each staff classification within the department or division is analyzed in the study. The first burden factor is comprised of compensated absences such as vacation/holidays/sick leave days taken in a year's time. Staff classifications are then categorized as either direct (operational) or indirect (administrative or supervisory) labor. In some cases, a classification will have both direct and indirect duties. The total indirect portion of staff cost is incorporated into hourly overhead rates. Indirect Cost Rate — a ratio of indirect cost to direct labor (salaries plus benefits) is established. There are three elements of indirect cost incorporated, including: • Indirect Labor — includes total compensation, administrative and supervisory staff costs. • Other Operating Expenses — most services and supplies are included as a second layer of indirect cost and are prorated across all fees and services. There are some service and supply expenses classified as "allowable direct." An example of this is professional services expenses. These allowable direct expenses would be directly associated with specific fees or programs, as opposed to being allocated across all activities through the indirect overhead. • External Indirect Allocations — this represents the prorated portion of citywide overhead which is attributable to the service for which the fee is charged. Operating departments can't function without support from support departments such as Finance and HR. Fully Burdened Hourly Rates — The fully burdened hourly rate was calculated by taking the total operating expenditures (the numerator) and dividing that by the number of direct employees. This creates the average cost per employee. MGT then looked at each direct employee, which has a base number of hours of 2,080 per year, and reduced the hours by the average holiday, sick and vacation hours. The result is a base of 1,800 direct hours available per employee. Next, MGT worked with each department/division to determine the average amount of training, meetings and administrative or supervisory hours spent per each employee. The reduction of these hours leaves the remaining employees' direct hours available to provide services. The average direct hours are then divided into the average cost per employee which creates the average hourly rate per department/division. Section II - Summary of Findings Methodology continued... TIME SPENT Once fully burdened hourly rates were developed for departments/divisions, staff and the consultant worked to identify the time spent directly on each of the user fee activities. Each staff person involved in the user fee services identified time spent to complete each task associated with all user fee services. To inform this analysis, staff and the consultant based this exercise on time spent on delivering various services in FY 2022-23 (the most recently completed fiscal year). FEE CALCULATIONS AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS Based on the time spent and fully burdened hourly rates, MGT was able to prepare both a per -unit cost and total annual cost (per -unit cost multiplied by annual volume equals total annual cost). As stated above, costs were calculated by multiplying per -unit time estimates by the fully burdened hourly labor rate; additional operating expenses directly associated with certain services were also added in. Finally, if other departments or divisions provided support to certain user fee activities, this time was accounted for and added into the analysis as a crossover support activity. Full costs are then compared to current fees/revenues collected, and subsidies (or over -recoveries) are identified. User fee summaries may be seen in Appendix A of this report. Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations Calculating the true cost of providing city services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and corresponding cost recovery levels. The following legal, economic and policy issues help to illustrate these considerations: • Economic barriers - It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford. • Community benefit - City Council may wish to subsidize some user fees in order to reflect policy considerations other than pure cost recovery. For example, some agencies may choose to use general purpose revenues for community wide services such as recreational fees for youth programs or senior programs. These fees may be set lower than full cost recovery as they are a benefit to the community. No such fees were analyzed in this study. • Private benefit - If a user fee service primarily benefits the fee payer, the City may set the fee according to the City's cost recovery policy and set the fee at a 100% cost recovery level. Development related fees generally fall into this category; however, exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged for certain types of residential projects. Section II - Summary of Findings Legal, Economic & Policy Considerations continued... • Service driver - In conjunction with the second point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered. For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate. • Managing demand - The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a market that is not overly -stimulated by artificially low prices. • Competition — Certain services may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demands for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City's fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private -sector competitors could be adversely affected. • Incentives - Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as a youth sports program or the issuance of a water heater permit. • Affordable Housing - Assertions are often made that development fees negatively impact housing affordability. In reality, development fees and their associated service facilitate housing by ensuring it is designed, built, and inspected to a minimum standards. Additionally, a full cost recovery model allows fees to be more effective as policy tools. For example, development fees can be waived for projects a municipality desires, like housing or businesses that align with a specific community needs. Section III —Analysis Highlights Below is a brief discussion of the findings for each department/division's analysis. Please see the user fee summary sheets in Appendix A of this report for the details on each fee calculation and cost analysis. Building Safety The Building Safety division oversees the construction and renovation of buildings. Before a building is constructed or altered, a building permit must be obtained. The division reviews plans to ensure all construction codes are satisfied. Once the permit is issued, certified building inspectors will conduct inspections for building code compliance and to make sure that the work is consistent with plans approved by the City. Building permits and plan checks benefit individuals and the development community and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general, because permits primarily benefit the fee payer, these fees are typically set at or close to 100% cost recovery. However, there may be some fees that are historically set at less than 100% cost recovery by the City Council to encourage certain types of projects/permits. Within the Building Safety division, current fees recover 79% ($2,124,791) of the total costs of providing these services, which are calculated to be $2,681,470. The difference between the current cost recovery and the total identified cost is $556,679 or about 21%. In addition to performing an analysis of the costs, MGT worked with the department to modify the fee structure allowing it to reflect the current permitting process and to have a more user-friendly fee schedule. It must be noted that a major restructuring is proposed for building construction permits. Building Safety division has two main types of permits: • Fixed priced permits, such as a moving permit fee which has a current fixed fee price of $100. — These types of permits tend to have a price that does not vary with the size of the project, because all applications tend to require a similar level of effort. • Variable permits, such as building construction permits, have fees that are dependent on the construction valuation/type of construction. The assumption is that as projects increases in size, so does the effort required to process the permit. Section III —Analysis Highlights Building Safety continued... The building analysis followed the following approach: MGT developed a fully burdened hourly rate and applied it to the average time spent performing services that were listed as fixed price permits. Subtracting the cost of activities associated with fixed price permits from the total cost of the division reflects the cost of activities associated with variable price (construction) permits. Dividing this figure by the construction valuation of projects permitted results in a cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for variable price (construction) permits. 1. Hourly rate x hours spent on activities associated with fixed price permits = cost of fixed price permits 2. Total cost of division minus cost of fixed price permits = cost of activities associated with variable price permits 3. Cost of activities associated with variable price permits divided by total construction valuation of projects permitted = cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for variable price permits Construction permits were then analyzed by the building division to identify how much effort is dedicated to plan review and inspection of construction permits. "Plan review" covers all activities related to the approval of the building plans. "Inspection" covers all activities to confirm that construction is according to approved plans and to close out the permit when work is completed. Using the identified effort and the previously determined variable price cost per construction valuation, a cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for plan review and a cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for inspections is determined. 1. Effort for plan review activities x cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for variable price permits = cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for plan review 2. Effort for inspection activities x cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for variable price permits = cost per $1,000 of construction valuation for inspection Below are some of the changes being proposed (details can be found on the executive summary listed in Appendix A at the end of this report): Section III —Analysis Highlights 'w7 Building Safety continued... CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CATEGORIES Construction permits were consolidated into 7 categories, 14 total fees with a price per $1,000 of construction valuation for plan review and inspections This restructuring resulted in a reduction in the number of fees from 60 to 14, which simplified this section of the building fee schedule and provides a more user-friendly fee schedule. Staff selected the following construction categories: • Commercial (including alterations) • Residential (SFD, 1-2 family, townhome, ADU, alteration) • Miscellaneous (deck, fence, pool, storage shed, etc.) • Electrical • Gas • Mechanical • Plumbing BUILDING FIXED PRICE PERMITS This section of the fee schedule also contains recommended structure changes. Most of these changes are related to one of the following: updating fee name, adding new fees, removing fees. Recommended New Fees • Permit Renewal Fee - 50% approved thru frame • Permit Renewal Fee - 90% approved thru slab • Re -inspection Fee - Per each reinspection • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - Per each renewal after expiration (valid 30 days) • Footing/Foundation Permit - Commercial • Commercial Plan revision fee (after issuance) • Residential Plan revision fee (after issuance) • Plan review resubmittal fee Commercial • Plan review resubmittal fee Residential • Pre -application plan review • Occupant Load Certificate • Residential Temp Certificate of Occupancy 10 Section III —Analysis Highlights FV Building Safety continued... Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation • Certificate of Occupancy - Existing Buildings • Re -inspection Fee - 1st reinspection • Re -inspection Fee - 2nd reinspection • Re -inspection Fee - 3rd reinspection • Re -inspection Fee - 4th reinspection • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - Per each renewal (valid 30 days) (new category) • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - 1st Renewal • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - 2nd Renewal • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - 3rd Renewal • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - 4th Renewal • Accessory Dwelling Fee Section III —Analysis Highlights Business License The Business License fee schedule contains a variety of fees related to business licensing. Within the Business License division, current fees recover 62% ($119,401) of the total costs of providing these services, which are calculated to be $192,650. The difference between the current cost recovery and the total identified cost is $73,249 or about 38%. The current fees for a new business license currently vary in price depending on what time of the year the business license application is submitted. The same goes for renewal late fees. Staff is proposing restructuring this section to remove variable pricing depending on time of year submitted. The time spent to process these licenses does not vary depending on what time of the year an application is submitted. Staff is proposing a single fee, regardless of what time of the year it is submitted. This has the potential added benefit of being simpler for customer use. Below are some of the changes being proposed (details can be found on the executive summary listed in Appendix A at the end of this report): Recommended New Fees • Non -home Based Business License • Home Based Business License • Non -home Based/Home Based Business License Renewal Late Fee (New Category) • Short -Term Rental Business License Renewal Late Fee (New Category) Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation • Submitted Jan 1- Feb 28; Non -home based • Submitted Jan 1 - Feb 28; Home based • Submitted Mar 1 - Aug 31; Non -home based • Submitted Mar 1 - Aug 31; Home based • Submitted Sep 1- Oct 31; Non -home based • Submitted Sep 1- Oct 31; Home based • Submitted Nov 1 - Nov 30; Non -home based • Submitted Nov 1 - Nov 30; Home based • Submitted Dec 1 - Dec 31; Non -home based • Submitted Dec 1 - Dec 31; Home based • Renewed Nov 1 - Nov 30; Non -home based • Renewed Nov 1 - Nov 30; Home based • Renewed Nov 1 - Nov 30; Short -Term Rental • Renewed Dec 1 - Dec 31; Non -home based • Renewed Dec 1 - Dec 31; Home based • Renewed Dec 1 - Dec 31; Short -Term Rental • Renewed after Jan 1; Non -home based • Renewed after Jan 1; Home based • Renewed after Jan 1; Short Term Rental • Short Term Rental Inspection Fee 12 Section III —Analysis Highlights Engineering The Engineering division provides technical review and support for all private development within the City of Fayetteville. The technical review includes reviews for compliance with the City's water, sanitary sewer, street design, grading, and stormwater runoff standards and ordinances. These services benefit the development community as well as individuals and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general compliance with the City's cost recovery policy, these projects primarily benefit the fee payer, and these fees are set at or close to 100% of the cost of recovery. Within the Engineering Division, current fees recover 24% of the cost of providing the service or $118,425, with current total costs at $494,359, which is a difference of $375,934 or about 76%. Some of the Engineering services include cross support from the Planning department. This cross -support represents the time that other departments/divisions may spend performing tasks in support of services provided by the Engineering division, and the costs of this cross -support are included in the total costs identified above. This Engineering fee schedule also contains recommended structural changes. Most of these changes are related to one of the following: updating fee name, adding new fees, removing fees, consolidating fees and expanding fees to simplify the current structure. Recommended New Fees Grading, Drainage, Tree Preservation — per each additional acre, up to 20 acres Grading, Drainage, Tree Preservation - Per each Additional acre >20, up to 40 acres Building Permit Drainage Review <10,000 SF Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation • Closure Fees — Large (expanded into 3 categories) • Grading < 0.5 acre • Grading 0.51 - 1.0 acre • Grading > 1.0 acre • Drainage < 0.5 acre • Drainage 0.51 - 1.0 acre • Drainage > 1.0 acre • Tree Preservation • Resubmittal Fee < 0.5 acre • Reinspection Fees (4th reinspection) 13 Section III —Analysis Highlights IW7/11 FV Engineering continued... Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation continued... Grading, Drainage, Tree Preservation • 1 acres or less • Per each additional acre, up to 5 acres • Per Each Additional acre, up to 20 acres • Per each Additional acre >20, up to 40 acres Recommended Fee Expansion — the following categories were expanded from a single fee to sub -categories as the size of the project has a direct effect on the required time spent for these services. • Closure Fees: • Closure Fees —Small • Closure Fees — Medium • Closure Fees — Large • Floodplain: • Floodplain - No Adverse Impact • Floodplain - Map Amendments • Floodplain - Map Revisions Section III —Analysis Highlights Fire The Fire Marshall's Office has historically provided fee related services without the ability to charge a fee. Currently, the division does not have any established fees. This study proposes for the division to establish their own fixed fee permits as well as capture their efforts/cost for building commercial construction projects via building permit fees. Within the Fire Marshall's Office, fixed fee services costs approximately at $45,580 annually. This is entirely subsidized as the division does not currently have fees established. The proposed fees would generate approximately $41,600. The fees being proposed for the Fire Marshall's Office fee schedule are: Recommended New Fees • Burn permit - Residential • Burn permit - Commercial • Indoor pyrotechnic and special effects permit • Blasting permit • Emergency responder communications coverage system permit • Fire alarm and detection systems permit • Fire sprinkler system permit (NFPA 13 system or NFPA 13R system) • NFPA 13D system • Alternative automatic fire extinguishing system permit • Event permit - Review Only • Event Permit - Inspection (if required) • Fire performance permit • Tent inspection (if required) 15 Section III —Analysis Highlights Planning The Planning division is responsible for managing growth and development within the City of Fayetteville, and the planning area surrounding the corporate city limits to achieve a higher quality of life for its citizens. One of the primary responsibilities of the City Planning Division is current planning - the review of zoning and development applications inside the Fayetteville city limits and planning area for compliance with the Fayetteville Unified Development Code. These applications include rezoning, large scale development, subdivision of land, and conditional use permits. Planning also reviews building permit requests, signage, outdoor lighting, and architectural design for compliance with the regulations established by the City Council. Within Planning, current fees recover 22% or $159,715 with actual costs at $731,918, which is a difference of $572,203 or about 78%. The Planning fees include cross support from other departments related directly to Planning. This cross support represents the time that other departments/divisions may spend performing tasks for services provided by the Planning division. By incorporating cross support costs into the fee, the full cost of providing the services is calculated and the City can set fees accordingly. In addition to performing an analysis of the costs, MGT worked with the department to modify the fee structure allowing it to reflect the current permitting process and to have a more user-friendly fee schedule. Most of these changes are related to one of the following: updating fee name, adding new fees, removing fees and consolidating fees to simplify the current structure. Recommended New Fees • Plan Amendments • Project Extensions • Appeals • Master Street Plan Amendment • Small Annexations less than 1 acre, Large Annexation - above 1 acre • Small PZD - Less than 1 acre • Large PZD - over 1 acre • Rezoning — Small — less than 1 acre, Rezoning - Large - over 1 acre • Right of Way Vacations • Easement Vacations • Floodplain Review • Tree Preservation Easement Vacation Some of these fees are not entirely new. They were previously combined in with another fee category and have been broken out into its own new fee category for simplicity purposes. 16 Section III —Analysis Highlights Planning continued... Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation • Public Notification Fee, Additional Sign, Per Sign • Preliminary, Final, Concurrent Plat: Nonresidential • Final Plat: Nonresidential • Preliminary Plat: Nonresidential • Home Occupation — Initial Permit • Home Occupation — Renewal • Large Scale Development/Large Site Improvement Plan/Small Site Improvement Plan: 10 or less residential units • Public Notification Fee • Mobile Home — Initial Permit • Mobile Home — Renewal • Property Line Adjustment • Technical Plat Review: First Review • Tree Preservation Fee • Zoning and Development Administrator Determination Section III —Analysis Highlights pr Planning continued... Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation continued.. • Final Plat • 10 or less residential units • 25 or less residential units • 26 or more residential units • Preliminary Plat • 10 or less residential units • 25 or less residential units • 26 or more residential units • Large Site Improvement Plan: • Nonresidential </= 5,000 s.f. • Nonresidential > 5,000 s.f. • 10 or less residential units • 25 or less residential units • 26 or more residential units • Public Notification Fee • Small Site Improvement Plan: • Nonresidential </= 5,000 s.f. • Nonresidential > 5,000 s.f. • 10 or less residential units • 25 or less residential units • 26 or more residential units • Planned Zoning District • Nonresidential </= 5,000 s.f. • Nonresidential > 5,000 s.f. • 10 or less residential units • 25 or less residential units • 26 or more residential units Section III —Analysis Highlights Water and Sewer The Water and Sewer division manages the operations, maintenance, safety and training of Water and Sewer related services. The Water Maintenance Program maintains the water distribution systems and area growth. This program works with other divisions, consulting engineers and contractors on all aspects of the water system. The Sewer Maintenance Program maintains the sewer collection systems for the cities of Fayetteville, Farmington, Greenland, small portions of Johnson, and the growth area, and provides wholesale service to the City of Elkins. This program manages the sewer overflow elimination and rehabilitation programs and coordinates with federal and state regulatory agencies, contract service vendors and consulting engineering firms working on sewer system projects. Within the Water and Sewer division, current fees recover 22% of the cost of providing the service or $156,975, with current total costs at $698,021, which is a difference of $541,046 or about 78%. The division recommends 100% cost recovery. The division understands that this is a significant increase to go from 22% cost recovery to 100% cost recovery. They are proposing a 4-year implementation period until 100% cost recovery is accomplished. In addition to performing an analysis of the costs, MGT worked with the division to modify the fee structure allowing it to reflect the current permitting process and to have a more user-friendly fee schedule. Most of the modifications were related to removing fee categories and adding new fee categories. Below is a list of new fees and fees removed during this study. Recommended New Fees • Cost per additional depth, if 5' exceeded (up to 10 feet) • Cost per additional depth, if 10' exceeded (Charged at Actual Cost) • Cost per additional length, if 60' exceeded (water/sewer) • City Street Bore, Cost per Additional Lane • Gravel Road Crossing/Cut (Inside/Outside City) Recommended Fee Removal and/or Consolidation • 6" Sewer • State Highway Permit • State Highway Bore (includes Permit) • State Highway Cut (includes Permit) Section IV - Peer Comparison Survey The purpose of a peer comparison survey is to provide the City with a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments. MGT worked with the City Fayetteville to identify the list of fees that would be part of the peer comparison survey. Please note that four of the five agencies selected are out-of-state agencies. Fayetteville is a unique agency in the region and comparing to only regional neighbors would produce unreliable results. Instead, staff carefully selected out-of-state agencies that are similar to Fayetteville. The following peer jurisdictions were included as part of the comparison survey: Lawrence, KS, Asheville, NC, Fort Collins, CO, Lincoln, NE and Fort Smith, AR. The fee amounts were determined by the jurisdictions published fee schedules at the time of the survey. A few things to keep in mind is that comparison surveys do not always provide an "apples to apples" comparison of the fee. When comparing fees there are several key factors to keep in mind: • When was the last time that agency updated their fees? • We do not know if the agency has set their fees below full cost recovery. • Salaries and benefits can vary from agency to agency and can impact the cost of services. • Often fee structures can differ, and a comparison is only an estimate of the fee that may be charged. In general, a comparison survey paints only part of the picture and can only provide a high-level comparison. Results of the survey can be seen in Appendix B of this report. Section V - General Recommendations MGT recommends the following: • Staff are looking for guidance from Leadership and the City Council on recommendations. • MGT recommends that the city continue to evaluate their user fees every three to five years or sooner if there are significant changes to the organization or process. • MGT recommends that for the period between analysis, that the City continue to increase fees based on a CPI factor in order to maintain cost recovery as salaries and benefits and services and supply costs increase. Appendix A User Fee Results BUILDING Fayetteville, AR Building CY23 Budget Final Revenue Cost Revenue minus cost Revenue / Cost Dept Recommends Final Decision Total 2,124,791 2,681,470 ($556,679) 79% 2,681,470 100% Table 1 Construction Permits 2,034,511 21275,825 ($241,314) 89% 21275,825 100% Allocated cost - Building 1/679/343 Allocated cost - Fire Marshal 130,925 Allocated cost - Planning & Urban Forestry 951443 Allocated cost - Engineering 204,036 Allocated Cost - Solid Waste 81508 Allocated Cost - Meter Ops/Backflow 157,571 TABLE 2 Building Fixed Permits 90,280 405,645 ($315,365) 22% 405,645 100% Fayetteville, AR Table 1 Construction Permits Building CY23 Budget Fee Study Source FY 2023 Appropriation $2,084,988 Hourly Rate Analysis Less cost of fixed price permit services TABLE 2 Building Fixed Permits $405,645 Cost to allocate $1,679,343 Table 1 Construction Permits Occupancy Types in category Job Title Percent of Time per Occupancy Type per Department Commercial Residential (SFD,1-2 Family, Townhome, ADU) Miscellaneous (deck, fence, pool, storage shed, etc.) Electrical Gas Mechanical Plumbing Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection DENNIS L Building Safety Director 14% 30% 10% 40% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% Elizebeth R Customer Service Rep - B. Safety 0% 13% 0% 62% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 10% 0% 10% ROBERT L Inspector/Comm & Residential 24% 65% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% JOHN C Inspector/Comm & Residential 24% 65% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% DANNY L Inspector/Comm & Residential 24% 65% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% CRAIG C Inspector/Comm & Residential 24% 65% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% KRISTEN M Permit Coordinator 15% 0% 50% 6% 1% 0% 8% 0% 1% 0% 8% 3% 8% 0% JORDAN W Permit Coordinator 15% 0% 50% 6% 1% 0% 8% 0% 1% 0% 8% 3% 8% 0% REBECCA S Plans Examiner Supervisor 60% 14% 5% 3% 1% 0% 5% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% ANDREW STRATTON Residential Plans Examiner 15% 10% 55% 2% 1% 0% 5% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% DAVIDK Sr. Inspector - Building Safety 0% 78% 0% 11% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 3% Inspector/Comm & Residential (New) 24% 65% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% Plans Examiner (New) 15% 10% 55% 2% 1% 5% 2% 5% 5% Permit Coordinator (New) 15% 0% 50% 6% 1% 8% 1% 8% 3% 8% 0% Raw percent 149% 275% 275% 463% 6% 7% 39% 23% 9% 7% 39% 39% 39% 30% Percent of Total 11% 20% 20% 33% 0% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% Cost to allocate (see above) Allocated cost- Building $ 178,730 $ 329,871 $ 329,871 $ 555,383 $ 7,197 $ 8,397 $ 46,782 $ 27,589 $ 10,796 $ 8,397 $ 46,782 $ 46,782 $ 46,782 $ 35,986 Allocated cost- Fire Marshal $ 71,757 $ 59,168 Allocated cost - Planning & Urban Forestry $ 48,676 $ 19,089 $ 22,906 $ 4,772 Allocated cost - Engineering $ 15,227 $ 45,680 $ 45,680 $ 91,359 $ 3,045 $ 3,045 Allocated Cost - Solid Waste $ 4,254 $ 1,702 $ 1,702 $ 851 Allocated Cost - Meter Ops/Backflow $ 29,919 $ 37,897 $ 17,951 $ 39,891 $ 15,957 $ 15,957 TOTAL ALLOCATED COST $ 348,562 $ 493,405 $ 418,110 $ 692,256 $ 26,199 $ 27,399 $ 46,782 $ 27,589 $ 10,796 $ 8,397 $ 46,782 $ 46,782 $ 46,782 $ 35,986 Valuation of Projects in a yearil 133,259,033 241,800,476 4,900,767 36,575,165 9,452,397 28,277,164 27,265,758 Cost per 1,000 of Valuation $2.61567 1 $3.70260 $1.72915 $2.86292 $5.34590 $5.59067 $1.27906 $0.75432 $1.14212 $0.88832 $1.65440 $1.65440 $1.71577 $1.31982 23 Fayetteville, AR Building CY23 Budget Hours I Per Customer I Budget Impact Tota I Annual Total Cross Annual Annual Department TABLE 2 Building Fixed Permits Current fee Demand Building Support Full Cost Subsidy Fee @ Policy Level Revenue Annual Cost Subsidy Recommends Hours Hours Mamintenance Fee-- Permit Extension $25 1 103.31 ($78.31) 100.00 $0 $0 $0 Permit Renewal Fee - 100%New $50 - $50.00 Varies - 100% New $0 $0 $0 Permit Renewal Fee - 50% approved thru frame (new category) 5 516.54 ($516.54) Varies - 50% New $0 $0 $0 wal Fee - 90% approved thru slab (new category) 4 361.58 ($361.58) Varies - 90% New $0 $0 $0 f Occupancy - New Project with Bld $15 - $15.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 L $25 $25.00 Remove $0 $0 $0 $15 - - - $15.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Building Permit (Multireview): - $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Permit Processing Fee $200 2 154.96 $45.04 Included in plan re $0 $0 $0 Plan Review Fee - $0.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Design Build Fee 1 14 3 1,394.65 ($1,394.65) 1600 $0 $1,395 -$1,395 1,600 Re -inspection Fee - Per each reinspection (new category) 1,353 1 2 129.13 ($129.13) 125 $0 $174,718 -$174,718 169,125 Re Fee 15t Feinspeetieff $25 1,102 $25.00 Remove $27,550 $0 $27,550 R- ---- `-- Fee ,_a Fein,.__K:__ 200 $50.00 Remove $10,000 $0 $10,000 Re Fee 3Fd Feinspeetiei-f $100 40 $100.00 Remove $4,000 $0 $4,000 Re Fee ^" Feinspeetieff $200 11 - - - $200.00 Remove $2,200 $0 $2,200 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fee - Per each renewal (valid 30 days) (new category) 465 3 4 309.92 ($309.92) 500 $0 $144,114 -$144,114 232,500 Tern papa ry `--""--`--`Geeupa--; F__ ,_ ewa 25 202 - $25.00 Remove $5,050 $0 $5,050 $50 90 $50.00 Remove $4,500 $0 $4,500 $100 60 $100.00 Remove $6,000 $0 $6,000 $200 113 $200.00 Remove $22,600 $0 $22,600 24 Hours I Per Customer I Budget Impact Total Total TABLE 2 Building Fixed Permits Current fee Annual Building Cross Full Cost Subsidy Fee @ Policy Level Annual Annual Cost Annual Department Demand Support Revenue Subsidy Recommends Hours Hours Commercial Demo Permit $50 73 3 292.36 ($242.36) 250.00 $3,650 $21,342 -$17,692 18,250 Residential Demo Permit $50 3 258.27 ($208.27) 200 $0 $0 $0 - Moving Permit $100 4 361.58 ($261.58) 250 $0 $0 $0 Footing/FoundationPermit- Residential $50 4 361.58 ($311.58) 100 $0 $0 $0 Footing/Foundation Permit - Commercial $50 19 6 2 619.84 ($569.84) 500 $950 $11,777 -$10,827 9,500 Various Building Permit (Emergency and After hours Inspection) (Min fee, per hour after 2 hours) $20 3 309.92 ($289.92) 300 $0 $0 $0 - Appeals $50 5 516.54 ($466.54) 250 $0 $0 $0 Driveway/Gurb Cut/Sidewalk Fee $25 - $25.00 Remove $0 $0 $0 A__...---y Dwelling Fee 100 $100.00 Remove $0 $0 $0 AsseS-- , Dwell:__ Unit inns) Residential Permit Fee (NEW) $0.00 Remove $0 $0 $0 Fee On "e • of _edewa k $5 $5.00 Remove $0 $0 $0 Electric Permit - $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Minimum Fee $20 48 3 258.27 ($238.27) 55 $960 $12,397 -$11,437 2,640 First Four Meters, New $20 - $20.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Additional Meters $5 $5.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Underslab Inspections $10 $10.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 25 $0.25 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Gas Permit - $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Minimum Fee $20 3 258.27 ($238.27) 55 $0 $0 $0 First Five Openings $20 - $20.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Additional Openings $2 $2.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Water Heater Gas Vent $5 $5.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 25 Hours Per Customer Budget Impact TABLE 2 Building Fixed Permits Current fee Annual Demand Total Building Hours Total Cross Support Hours Full Cost Subsidy Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Annual Cost Annual Subsidy Department Recommends Mechanical Permit - $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Minimum Fee $20 6 3 258.27 ($238.27) 55 $120 $1,550 -$1,430 330 First Unit $20 - $20.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Additional Units $5 $5.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Gas Vents $5 $5.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Exhaust Systems $2 $2.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Registers Underslab Inspections $10 $10.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Plumbing Permit - $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Minimum Fee $20 135 3 284.09 ($264.09) 55 $2,700 $38,353 -$35,653 7,425 First Five Fixtures $20 - $20.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Additional Fixtures $1 75 $1.75 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Underslab Inspections $10 $10.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Outside City Inspections $20 $20.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Work without a permit (3x permit, min $250) $0.00 3x, min $250 $0 $0 $0 NEW FEES $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Residential plan review fee (SFD/2-Family/Townhome/Misc) $0.00 Incl. in table 1 $0 $0 $0 Commercial Plan revision fee (after issuance) 5 2 464.88 ($464.88) 450 $0 $0 $0 Residential Plan revision fee (after issuance) 4 1 361.58 ($361.58) 250 $0 $0 $0 Plan review resubmittal fee Commercial (after 3rd submittal) 2 2 206.61 ($206.61) 200 $0 $0 $0 Plan review resubmittal fee Residential (after 2nd submittal) 2 1 154.96 ($154.96) 100 $0 $0 $0 Pre -application plan review 3 309.92 ($309.92) 200 $0 $0 $0 Occupant Load Certificate 2 1 154.96 ($154.96) 150 $0 $0 $0 Residential Temp Certificate of Occupancy 2 3 206.61 ($206.61) 250 $0 $0 $0 - TOTAL $90,2 00 $405,645 -$315,365 $405,645 26 BUSINESS LICENSE Fayetteville, AR Building CY23 Budget Hours I Per Customer I Budget Impact TABLE 3 Business License Current Fee Annual Demand Total Hours Full Cost Subsidy Fee @Policy Level Annual Revenue Annual Cost Annual Subsidy Annual Recommendations New Business: Submitted Jan 1 - Dec 31; Short -Term Rental $47 322 1.28 $165 -$118 $165 $15,134 $53,191 -$38,057 $53,130 Submitte�'�T Feb 28; Non hernebased 58 - Remove $3,016 $0 $3,016 Submitted jan 1 Feb 28; Herne based 39 - Remove $1,170 $0 $1,170 Submitted Mar 1 Aug 31; Non home based $475 211 - Remove $3,165 $0 $3,165 Submitted $475 100 - Remove $1,500 $0 $1,500 Submitted Sep _ Get __; . __...._..._ _____ 86 - Remove $2,752 $0 $2,752 Submitted Sep 1 Get31; I tinge based $2-0 34 - Remove $680 $0 $680 Submitted based $38 28 - Remove $1,064 $0 $1,064 Submitted Nev 1 Nov 30; Hemebased- $24 13 - Remove $312 $0 $312 27 Hours I Per Customer I Budget Impact TABLE 3 Business License Current Fee Annual Demand Total Hours Full Cost Subsidy Fee @Policy Level Annual Revenue Annual Cost Annual Subsidy Annual Recommendations Submitted Dec 1 Dee 31; Non herne ba3ea 18 - Remove $738 $0 $738 Submitted Dec 1 Dee 31based $2-6 7 - Remove $182 $0 $182 Non -home Based Business License (New Category) 401 0.18 $130 -$130 $130 $0 $52,297 -$52,297 $52,130 Home Based Business License (New Category) 193 0.20 $36 -$36 $35 $0 $7,043 -$7,043 $6,755 Annual Renewal. Renewed by Oct 31; Short -Term Rental $ 47.00 76 0.08 $35 $12 $35 $3,572 $2,698 $874 $2,660 Renewed by Oct 31; Home-based/Non-Home based $ 15.00 2,460 0.11 $10 $5 $10 $36,900 $24,601 $12,299 $24,600 Renewal Late Fee: Renewed Nev30; Nen herne ba $ 3 265 - Remove $10,070 $0 $10,070 Renewed Nev 1 Nev 30 Heme based $ 24 81 - Remove $1,944 $0 $1,944 Renewed Nov 1 Nov 30; Short Term Rental $58.99 28 - Remove 1,624 0 $1,624 Renewed Dee — Dee 31; Nen "erne "area 09 103 - Remove $4,223 $0 $4,223 Renewed Dee 1 Dee 31based $ 26.00 32 - Remove $832 $0 $832 Hours Per Customer Budget Impact TABLE 3 Business License Current Fee Annual Demand Total Hours Full Cost Subsidy Fee @Policy Level Annual Revenue Annual Cost Annual Subsidy Annual Recommendations Renewed Dee 1 Dee 33 ShertTeFfn Rental $--6i.AA 17 - Remove $1,037 $0 $1,037 Renewed afteF an , • Nee henge b $-52.99 473 - Remove $24,596 $0 $24,596 Renewed after an , • Hernebased $--3 163 - Remove $4,890 $0 $4,890 .09 Renewed afteFjan 1; ShertTeFm o $--:72.00 - - Remove $0 $0 $0 Non -home Based/Home Based Business License Renewal Late Fee (New Category) 1,117 0.50 $45 -$45 $50 $0 $50,775 -$50,775 $55,850 Short -Term Rental Business License Renewal Late Fee (New Category) 45 0.50 $45 -$45 $50 $0 $2,046 -$2,046 $2,250 SheFt:FeFnq Rental Inspeetien Fee$, 29.9-9 0.75 Remove TOTAL $119,401 $192,650 -$73,249 $197,375 ENGINEERING Agency: Fayetteville, AR Department: Public Works (61o) - Engineering (621) Fiscal Year: 2023 Budget 1 Driveway, Street, and Curb Cut Application 2 Street/ROW Excavation Application 3 Floodplain Development Permit Application 4 Road and Street Closure Application: 5 Application Fee 6 Closure Fees: 7 Closure Fees - Small 8 Closure Fees - Medium 9 Closure Fees - Large 10 Glesure FeesLarge 11 Extension Fees 12 Construction Noise Variance Request Per Unit Fixed Fee 1,366 $ 25 $ 89 Fixed Fee 256 $ 25 $ 119 Fixed Fee 24 $ 25 $ 58 Recommendations Annual Per Unit Annual 28% $ 120,959 $ 34,150 $ 86,809 100% $ 100 $ 136,600 $ 102,450 $ (15,641) 21% $ 30,383 $ 6,400 $ 23,983 84% $ 100 $ 25,600 $ 19,200 $ 4,783 43% $ 1,392 $ 600 $ 792 86% $ 50 $ 1,200 $ 600 $ 192 Fixed Fee 37 $ 50 $ 24 207% $ 894 $ 1,850 $ (956) 207% $ 50 $ 1,850 $ - $ (956) Per Day/Lane 9 $ 25 $ 28 88% $ 256 $ 225 $ 31 352% $ 100 $ 900 $ 675 $ (644) Per Day/Lane 148 $ 50 $ 28 176% $ 4,207 $ 7,400 $ (3,193) 528% $ 150 $ 22,200 $ 14,800 $ (17,993) Per Day/Lane 37 $ 100 $ 28 352% $ 1,052 $ 3,700 $ (2,648) 704% $ 200 $ 7,400 $ 3,700 $ (6,348) Remove - $ 150 $ 28 - Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- Fixed Fee 6 $ 25 $ 12 207% $ 72 $ 150 $ (78) 207% $ 25 $ 150 $ - $ (78) - $ - $ 31 0% $ - $ - $ - 100% $ 25 $ - $ - $ - Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual 13 Physical Alteration of Land (Grading), Stormater Management (Drainage), and Erosion Control Permit Application: 14 GFadi g 150.5 ,ere Remove $ 75 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 16 9.51 1.0 affe Remove $ 100 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 17 �cre.0 .mere Remove $ 200 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 18 Drainage Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 19 < 0.5 acre Remove $ 75 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 20 0.51 1.0 acre Remove $ 100 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 21 �ivaffe.0 .....e Remove $ 200 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 22 TFee PFes .watme Remove $ 120 $ Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- 23 Grading, Drainage, Tree Preservation 24 1 acres or less Fixed Fee 110 $ 100 $ 1,339 7% $ 147,297 $ 10,900 $ 136,397 75% $ 1,000 $ 109,000 $ 98,100 $ 38,297 25 Per each additional acre, up to 5 acres Fixed Fee 209 $ 200 $ 751 27% $ 157,022 $ 39,200 $ 117,822 100% $ 750 $ 147,000 $ 107,800 $ 10,022 25.1 Per Each Additional acre, up to 20 acres New Fee - $ - $ 549 0% $ - $ - $ - 100% $ 500 $ - $ - $ - 25.2 Per each Additional acre >20, up to 40 acres New Fee $ - $ 354 0% $ $ $ 100% $ 300 $ $ $ 26 Floodplain: 27 Floodplain - No Adverse Impact Fixed Fee $ 50 $ 58 86% $ $ $ 86% $ 50 $ $ $ 28 Floodplain - Map Amendments Fixed Fee $ 75 $ 116 65% $ $ $ 86% $ 100 $ $ $ 29 Floodplain - Map Revisions Fixed Fee $ 200 $ 174 115% $ $ $ 115% $ 200 $ $ $ 30 Resubmittal Fee (More than 2 reviews) 31 < 0.5. acre 32 0.51 - < 1.0 acre 33 > 1.0 acre 34 Grading Appeals 35 Work without a permit 36 Reinspection Fees (1st) 37 Reinspection Fees (2nd) 38 Reinspection Fees (3rd) 39 Reinspection Fees (4th) 40 Building Permit Drainage Review <10,000 SF Total User Fees % of Full Cost Footnotes Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Remove $ 75 $ - Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- Fixed Fee 6 $ 100 $ 243 41% $ 1,457 $ 600 $ 857 103% $ 250 $ 1,500 $ 900 $ Fixed Fee 46 $ 200 $ 344 58% $ 15,846 $ 9,200 $ 6,646 102% $ 350 $ 16,100 $ 6,900 $ Fixed Fee $ 100 $ 184 54% $ - $ - $ - 109% $ 200 $ - $ - $ 2x Fee $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 100% 2x Fee $ - $ Fixed Fee 74 $ 25 $ 124 20% $ 9,180 $ 1,850 $ 7,330 100% $ 100 $ 7,400 $ 5,550 $ Fixed Fee 26 $ 50 $ 124 40% $ 3,226 $ 1,300 $ 1,926 100% $ 150 $ 3,900 $ 2,600 $ Fixed Fee 9 $ 100 $ 124 81% $ 1,117 $ 900 $ 217 100% $ 200 $ 1,800 $ 900 $ Remove Fee 1 $ 200 $ 124 Fee is being removed as it is now consolidated with another fee section -- New Fee $ - $ 64 0% $ - $ - $ - 78% $ 50 $ - $ - $ $494,359 $118,425 $375,934 $482,600 $364,175 24% 76% 98% 308% 1 Closure Fees - Small - This is for Residential Link Lane Closure/Alleys 2 Closure Fees - Medium - This is for Neighborhood Link and Downtown/Urban Lane Closure 3 Closure Fees - Large - This is for Regional Link/High Activity Regional Link Lane Closure (43) (254) 1,780 (674) (683) $11,759 2% FIRE City of Fayetteville Fire Marshall's Office CY23 Budget Hours I Per Customer I Budget Impact TABLE 2 -Fire Fixed Fees Current fee Annual Demand Total Hours Full Cost Subsidy Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Annual Cost Annual Subsidy Annual Recommendations Operational Permits/Reviews (NEW FEES): Burn permit - Residential 1,646 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Burn permit - Commercial 23 0.91 $93 -$93 $0 $0 $2,135 -$2,135 $0 Indoor pyrotechnic and special effects permit 12 1.00 $102 -$102 $102 $0 $1,224 -$1,224 $1,224 Blasting permit 3 1.00 $102 -$102 $102 $0 $306 -$306 $306 Emergency responder communications coverage system permit 1 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Hours Per Customer Budget Impact TABLE 2 -Fire Fixed Fees Current fee Annual Demand Total Hours Full Cost Subsidy Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Annual Cost Annual Subsidy Annual Recommendations Fire alarm and detection systems permit 51 3.50 $357 -$357 $357 $0 $18,206 -$18,206 $18,206 Fire sprinkler system permit (NFPA 13 system or NFPA 13R system) 52 3.50 $357 -$357 $357 $0 $18,563 -$18,563 $18,563 NFPA 13D system 0.10 $10 -$10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 Alternative automatic fire extinguishing system permit 1 0.75 $76 -$76 $76 $0 $76 -$76 $76 Event permit - Review Only 50 0.25 $25 -$25 $0 $0 $1,275 -$1,275 $0 Event Permit - Inspection (if required) 5 1.00 $102 -$102 $0 $0 $510 -$510 $0 Fire performance permit 10 0.25 $25 -$25 $25 $0 $255 -$255 $255 Tent inspection (if required) 30 0.99 $101 -$101 $101 $0 $3,029 -$3,029 $3,029 TOTAL $0 $45,580 -$45,580 $41,660 Agency: Fayetteville, AR Department Development Services - Planning (630, 634) Fiscal Year: 2023 Budget 1 Administrative Items: 2 Plan Amendments 3 Project Extensions 5 Appeals 6 Master Street Plan Amendment 7 UDG Amendment 8 Small Annexation - less than 1 acre 9 Large Annexation - above 1 acre (New Fee) 10 Public Notification Fee (per sign) 11 Public Netifacatmen Fee, Additienal Sign, PeF Sign 12 Appeals 13 BOA Variance: 14 Prior to violation 15 After a violation Fixed Fee New SubCategory New SubCategory Remove Fee New SubCategory New SubCategory Remove Fee New Fee New Fee Per Sign Remove Fee Remove Fee Fixed Fee Fixed Fee 44 $ 1 $ 328 $ PLANNING Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual r 30 $ 111 27% $ 4,883 $ 1,320 $ 3,563 100%r$ 111 $ 4,883 $ 3,563 $ $ 608 0% $ - $ - $ - r 16%,$ 100 $ - $ - $ , $ 498 0% $ - $ $ 20%,$ 100 $ $ $ - --- Recommend Removing Fee Category ---Now- A , $ 1,209 0% $ $ $ 83% $ 1,000 $ $ $ $ 1,887 0% $ r $ $ 53% r$ 1,000 $ $ $ r --- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 325 $ 1,299 25% $ 1,299 r $ 325 $ 974 77% $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 675 $ 299 - $ 1,742 0% $ - $ - $ - r 86%r$ 1,500 $ - $ - $ - 5 $ 118 4% $ 38,834 $ 1,640 $ 37,194 r 84%r$ 100 $ 32,800 $ 31,160 $ 6,034 r --- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- r 100 --- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 26 $ 100 $ 813 12% $ 21,149 $ 2,600 $ 18,549 r - $ 200 $ 1,129 18% $ - $ - $ - r 35 61%r$ 500 $ 13,000 $ 10,400 $ 8,149 89% r$ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Service Name I WW_ , 16 Conceptual Plat Per Meeting 2 $ 50 $ 1,121 4% $ 2,243 $ 100 $ 2,143 89% 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,900 $ 243 17 Preliminary, Final, Concurrent Plat: r ' 18 "' n-` -" ' Remove Fee - $ 800 --- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 19 10 or less residential units number of lots Fixed Fee 20 $ 200 $ r 1,957 10% $ 39,144 $ 4,000 $ 35,144 r 77% $ 1,500 $ 30,000 $ 26,000 $ 9,144 20 25 or less residential units number of lots Fixed Fee 8 $ 400 $ 2,438 16% $ 19,507 $ 3,200 $ 16,307 , 82% $ 2,000 $ 16,000 $ 12,800 $ 3,507 21 26 or more residential units number of lots Fixed Fee 14 $ 800 $ 2,920 27% $ 40,874 $ 11,200 $ 29,674 , 86% 2,500 $ 35,000 $ 23,800 $ 5,874 22 Final Plat: 23 "effes`dentwa' Restructured Fee $ r 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- 24 10 eF less Fesod nt:_' • •nits Restructured Fee $ r 200 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 25 25 er less resodent'^' units Restructured Fee $ r 400 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- ► 26 26 e- -e-e Fes*d nt'a' units Restructured Fee $ 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- 27 °-mar 28 NenFes"dentin'"dentin' Restructured Fee $ I 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 29 Restructured Fee $ r 200 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 30 25 e-'ess Fes' ent'a' • nit. Restructured Fee $ r 400 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- 31 26 eF FneFe Fesodent'a' units Restructured Fee $ i 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 32 Conditional Use Permit Fixed Fee 125 $ 200 $ r 929 22% $ 116,138 $ 25,000 $ 91,138 r 86% $ 800 $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 16,138 36 Per Unit Annual 35 Door-to-door Solicitor: , 36 Principal Permit Fixed Fee 1 $ 40 $ 199 20% $ 199 $ 40 $ 159 37 Individual Solicitor Fixed Fee 1 $ 5 $ 90 6% $ 90 $ 5 $ 85 38 Fireworks Permit Fixed Fee 16 $ 500 $ 231 216% $ 3,701 $ 8,000 $ (4,299), r 39 Home Occupation: Recommend Removing Fee Category --- V 40 lnFt ' Permit Remove Fee $ 25 --- Recommend Removing Fee Category--- ► 41 Renewal Remove Fee $ 13 Recommend Removing Fee Category--- Large Scale Development/Large Site Improvement Plan/Small Site 42 Improvement Plan: , 43 Nonresidential </= 5,000 s.f. Fixed Fee 6 $ 400 $ 1,526 26% $ 9,157 $ 2,400 $ 6,757 , 44 Nonresidential > 5,000 s.f. Fixed Fee 32 $ 800 $ 2,535 32% $ 81,130 $ 25,600 $ 55,530 PF 45 10 er less FesWentW units Remove Fee $ 200 Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 46 25 or less residential units Fixed Fee 9 $ 400 $ 2,169 18% $ 19,525 $ 3,600 $ 15,925 , , 47 26 or more residential units Fixed Fee 13 $ 800 $ 2,859 28% $ 37,173 $ 10,400 $ 26,773 r 48 Mixed Use Category Remove Fee $ - Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 49 Pubke Netifieatk)n Fee Restructured Fee $ 5 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- ry yFee Qa Annual Increase 0 Policy Le Revenue Revenu , 75%$ 150 $ 150 $ 110 $ , 28% $ 25 $ 25 $ 20 $ , 97%$ 225 $ 3,600 $ (4,400) $ 49 65 101 , 98%$ 1,500 $ 9,000 $ 6,600 $ 157 , 99%$ 2,500 $ 80,000 $ 54,400 $ 1,130 , 69%$ 1,500 $ 13,500 $ 9,900 $ 6,025 , 87%$ 2,500 $ 32,500 $ 22,100 $ 4,673 37 Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Service Name Fee Descriptiop- 51 Nenresidential �/- 5,000 ^ s. Restructured Fee $ 400 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- I 52 Restructured Fee $ 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- I 53 10 e^'ess Fesident'a' unot^ Restructured Fee $ 200 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- I 54 25 e^'e^^ Fesident'a' units Restructured Fee $ 400 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- r 55 26 OF —6^e ^e^'dent'a' units Restructured Fee $ 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- I 56 Pub'O^ Netu" t6 Restructured Fee $ 5 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- 57 Small Site I ffi t Plan: I 58 - Restructured Fee $ 400 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- I 59 NonFe^'^'^^t'^' > 5,000 ^ ° Restructured Fee $ 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 60 10 ^^ less Fesident'^' units Restructured Fee $ r 200 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 61 25 er less resident'^' unot^ Restructured Fee $ r 400 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 62 26 ^^ MOFe ^^^'dent*' units Restructured Fee - $ r 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- I 63 Lot Split/Property Line Adjustment Fixed Fee 129 $ 200 $ 877 23% $ 113,111 $ 25,800 $ 87,311 91% $ 800 $ 103,200 $ 77,400 $ 9,911 64 Mobile Herne: I 65 '^'tom,,"'^^^^Peffnit Remove Fee - $ 25 --- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 66 Renewal Remove Fee $ 13 Recommend Removing Fee Category --- I 67 Outdoor Mobile Vendor Fixed Fee 17 $ 100 $ 179 56% $ 3,049 $ 1,700 $ 1,349 98%I$ 175 $ 2,975 $ 1,275 $ 74 68 Planned Zoning District: I 69 Small PZD - Less than 1 acre (New category) New Fee $ - $ 2,170 0% $ - $ - $ - 92%I$ 2,000 $ - $ - $ I 70 Large PZD - over 1 acre (New category) New Fee $ - $ 2,753 0% $ - $ - $ 91%I$ 2,500 $ - $ - $ Per Unit Annual Annual J �[I]1111[ I■:(Ql11 Lai■ l�:(a�[a1l1li �l111►}l[I\� I�Ra LQ� [<Ill[�IRaI l�:(a L41UI-1 �:(a [JIUI7 I[I[11/.1111p [I 71 NE)nFesiden"a' </- 5,000 s.f. Restructured Fee $ 800 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- 72 NE)nFes'aen"a' � 5,000 s.f. Restructured Fee $ 1,125 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- 73 10 6F less Fes'aen"a' units Restructured Fee $ 525 i Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- r 74 25 eF less Fes'ae-",' units Restructured Fee $ 725 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- r 75 26 eF Fn Fe Fesode-"a' units Restructured Fee $ 1,125 Fee is being removed as it was consolidated --- ■ 76 Planning Commission Variance: , 77 Prior to violation Fixed Fee 65 $ 100 $ 931 11% $ 60,546 $ 6,500 $ 54,046 86% $ 800 $ 52,000 $ 45,500 $ 8,546 , , 78 After a violation Fixed Fee 1 $ 200 $ 1,476 14% $ 1,476 $ 200 $ 1,276 102%$ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,300 $ (24) , 79 Sign Variance Fixed Fee 1 $ 25 $ 382 7% $ 382 $ 25 $ 357 78%,$ 300 $ 300 $ 275 $ 82 80 P-8-e-`•• "•-e ^a'••s`••-e-` Restructured Fee - $ 200 r '--- Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- , 81 Rezoning - Small - less than 1 acre New Fee 28 $ 325 $ 969 34% $ 27,134 $ 9,100 $ 18,034 93%,$ 900 $ 25,200 $ 16,100 $ 1,934 , 82 Rezoning - Large - over 1 acre (new category) New Fee 22 $ - $ 1,284 0% $ 28,254 $ - $ 28,254 93%,$ 1,200 $ 26,400 $ 26,400 $ 1,854 , 83 Sidewalk Vendor: Fixed Fee $ 100 $ 238 42% $ - $ - $ - 84%,$ 200 $ - $ - $ - , 84 Sign Permit: Per Sign 252 $ 25 $ 61 41% $ 15,279 $ 6,300 $ 8,979 99%,$ 60 $ 15,120 $ 8,820 $ 159 , 85 Windblown Sign Fixed Fee 1 $ 10 $ 40 25% $ 40 $ 10 $ 30 99%,$ 40 $ 40 $ 30 $ 0 86 T.._...:_..' Plat Rpyeeyg "Few Remove Fee - $ - r '--- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- I87 Technical Plat Review Tabling Fee Subsequent review for , 88 Fixed Fee 51 $ 200 $ 445 45% $ 22,691 $ 10,200 $ 12,491 90%,$ 400 $ 20,400 $ 10,200 $ 2,291 tabled items 89 Vacations: Fixed Fee , 90 Right of Way Vacations New Subcategory 6 $ $ 971 0% $ 5,829 $ $ 5,829 93%,$ 900 $ 5,400 $ 5,400 $ 429 , , 91 Easement Vacations New Subcategory 23 $ $ 788 0% $ 18,128 $ $ 18,128 89%$ 700 $ 16,100 $ 16,100 $ 2,028 a Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Service Name F Fee Descriptior al b , 92 Zoning Verification Letter Fixed Fee 9 $ 50 $ 106 47% $ 951 $ 450 $ 501 95%,$ 100 $ 900 $ 450 $ 51 94 Small Wireless Facility on an existing pole Fixed Fee $ 100 $ 325 31% $ - $ - $ 92% $ 300 $ - $ - $ i 95 Installation, modification, or replacement of a pole Fixed Fee $ 250 $ 301 83% $ $ $ 100% $ 300 $ $ $ , 96 Wireless Facility Fixed Fee $ 30 $ 172 17% $ $ $ 87%,$ 150 $ $ $ , 97 Wireless Facility city -owned pole Fixed Fee $ 240 $ 172 140% $ $ $ 87%,$ 150 $ $ $ r TFee P•-eseNa«'en Fee Restructured Fee - $ 120 --- Fee is being removed as it was consolidated--- T98 99 New Fees: 100 Floodplain Review New Fee $ - $ 178 0% $ $ $ 56% $ 100 $ $ $ 101 Zening and Develepment AdMiniStFater Determinatieft Remove Fee $ --- Recommend Removing Fee Category --- 102 Tree Preservation Easement Vacation New Fee $ $ 1,518 0% $ - $ - $ 99% $ 1,500 $ $ $ Total User Fees $731,918 $159,715 $572,203 $642,993 $483,278 $88,926 % of Full Cost 22% 78% 88% 303% 12% WATER AND SEWER Agency: Fayetteville, AR Departure Utilities (5400) - Water Distribution Maintenance (4310), Sewer Main Maintenance (4410) Fiscal Yeai 2021 Budget Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Ord Service Name Fee Description Annual Current Fe. Full Cost Current Annual Co-* Annual Annual Recovery Fee Qa Annual Increased Recommen V0lurr 0 0 Recovery 0 0 Revenu Subsidy Level 0 Policy Lev O Revenue, Revenue ded Subsii0 2 518" Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee 3 518" Double Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee 4 1" Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee 5 2" Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee 6 4" Sewer (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee 7 Cost per additional depth, if 5' exceeded (up to 10 feet) New Fee 7.1 Cost per additional depth, if 10' exceeded (Charged at Actual Cost) New Fee- Actual Cost 8 Cost per additional length, if 60' exceeded (water/sewer) New Fee - Per Foot 9 6" SeweT Remove Fee 10 City Street Cut (max length - 2 lone road) Fixed Fee 11 City Street Bore (max length - 2 lane road) Fixed Fee 12 Cost per additional lane New Fee - Per Lane 13 State Highway Permit Remove Fee 14 State ;6yhb ._.. Bere On h des P,,._.it) Remove Fee 15 State Highway Cut a..6ude Pe__,:.' Remove Fee 80 $ 425 $ 1,580 27% $ 126,439 $ 34,000 $ 92,439 72 $ 475 $ 1,921 25% $ 138,346 $ 34,200 $ 104,146 15 $ 525 $ 2,210 24% $ 33,151 $ 7,875 $ 25,276 9 $ 1,200 $ 4,348 28% $ 39,130 $ 10,800 $ 28,330 113 $ 425 $ 1,716 25% $ 193,931 $ 48,025 $ 145,906 - $ - $ 606 0% $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 0i $ $ $ - $ $ 40 0% $ $ $ - 74 $ 575 $ 2,257 25% $ 167,024 $ 21,850 $ 145,174 $ 225 $ 1,229 18% $ - $ 225 $ (225) $ - $ 640 0% $ - $ - $ - 100% $ 1,580 $ 126,439 $ 92,439 $ 100% $ 1,921 $ 138,346 $ 104,146 $ 100% $ 2,210 $ 33,151 $ 25,276 $ 100% $ 4,348 $ 39,130 $ 28,330 $ 100% $ 1,716 $ 193,931 $ 145,906 $ 100% $ 606 $ - $ - $ To be charged as Actual Cost -- 100% $ 40 $ - $ - $ Staff recommends removing this fee -- 100% $ 2,257 $ 85,769 $ 63,919 $ 81,255 100% $ 1,229 $ 1,229 $ 1,004 $ (1,229) 100% $ 640 $ - $ - $ - Staff recommends removing this fee -- Staff recommends removing this fee -- Staff recommends removing this fee -- 41 Per Unit Annual Per Unit Annual Ord 17 5/8" Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee $ 475 $ 2,040 23% $ $ $ 100% $ 2,040 $ $ $ 18 5/8" Double Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee $ 525 $ 2,381 22% $ $ $ 100% $ 2,381 $ $ $ 19 1" Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee $ 575 $ 2,670 22% $ $ $ 100% $ 2,670 $ $ $ 20 2" Water (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee $ 1,250 $ 4,807 26% $ $ $ 100% $ 4,807 $ $ $ 21 4"Sewer (Max depth and length - 5' vertical, 60' horizontal) Fixed Fee $ - $ 2,176 0% $ $ $ 100% $ 2,176 $ $ $ 22 Cost per additional depth, if 5' exceeded (up to 10 feet) New Fee - Per Foot $ $ 606 0% $ $ $ 100% $ 606 $ $ $ 22.1 Cost per additional depth, if 10' exceeded (Charged at Actual Cost) New Fee- Actual Cost $ $ - 0% $ $ $ To be charged as Actual Cost -- 23 Cost per additional length, if 60' exceeded (water/sewer) New Fee - Per Foot $ $ 40 0% $ $ $ 100% $ 40 $ $ $ 24 6"nee Remove Fee Staff recommends removing this fee -- 25 Street Cut (max length - 2lone road) Fixed Fee $ 525 $ 2,257 23% $ $ $ 100% $ 2,257 $ $ $ 26 Street Bore (max length - 2 lane road) Fixed Fee $ 225 $ 1,229 18% $ $ $ 100% $ 1,229 $ $ $ 27 Cost per additional lane New Fee - Per Lane $ - $ 640 0% $ $ $ 100% $ 640 $ $ $ 28 State Highway PefTnif Remove Fee Staff recommends removing this fee -- 29 State Highway Be-e flnelades Pefngt' Remove Fee Staff recommends removing this fee -- 30 S•a`e Highwa• Cut Oncludes Permit' Remove Fee Staff recommends removing this fee -- 32 Gravel Road Crossing/Cut (Inside/Outside City) New Fee $ - $ 1,171 0% $ $ $ 100% $ 1,171 $ $ $ Total User Fees $698,021 $156,975 $541,046 $617,994 $461,019 $80,026 % of Full Cost 22% 78% 89% 294% 11% I Appendix B Peer Comparison Survey Results City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Comparison Survey COMPARISON AGENCIES Current ProposedFee City of Fayeteville Lawrence, KS Asheville, NC Fort Collins, CO Lincoln, NE Fort Smith, AR Fee Business License Home -based Businses License $15-$30 $35 $50-$75 $50-$100 $25 $25 $35-$150 Non -Home -based Bus. Lic. $15-$52 $130 $60-$200 $500 No Fee $50 $100 Short -Term Rental License $47 $50 $67 $200 $150 $250 They do not regulate short term rentals Engineering Grading Permit - <1 acre $100 $1,000 No grading permits - for small residential grading, Res <10k sgft - $250 they don't regulate at all. For larger projects, they Res 10k> sgft - $475 Commercial< lOK sgft - $700 N/A Do not charge grading permit fees Grading Permit->1acre $200 $300-$750 would be rolled into other fees Commercial 10k>sgft-$1400 Floodplain - Small $50 $50 $20 $150 $50 $250 minimum for small projects Floodplain - Medium $75 $100 $20 $150 $100 Information not available 15% of building inspection fee Floodplain - Large $200 $200 $20 $700 $200 Reinpection Fees $25-$200 $100-$200 $47 per hour $100 $100 $50 Work w/out Permit 2x 2x $500 2x 2x 2x 43 Lawrence, KS Asheville, NC Fort Collins, CO Lincoln, NE Fort Smith, AR City of Fayeteville Current Fee Proposed Fee Planning Large Scale Dev'ment Nonresidential </= 5,000 s.f. $400 $1,500 $1,500 City Site Plan $26,675 Nonresidential > 5,000 s.f. $800 $1,500 Minor - $50 For Combo PDP/FDP projects only None Identified $300 10 or less residential units $200 $2,500 Standard - $200 Major - $400 N/A the PDP fee is assessed (not the FDP fee). 25 or less residential units $400 N/A 26 or more residential units $800 $1,500 Residential: $200 0-2 Acres $500 2-10 Acres Rezoning $325 $900 $800>10Acres $1000-$2500 $4,800 $440-$1056 $350 Other: $400 0-2 Acres $700 2-10 Acres $1000 >10 Acres None - would charge "Rezoning" Annexation $325 $1,000 0-10 acres - $200 for the initial zoning of the area $5,825 $440 $350 10> acres - $400 they want to annex but no specific annexation fee Water and Sewer None for 5/8", however 3/4" Meter None for 5/8", however Replacement Taps: $285 5/8" Water (Max depth and length - 5' $425 $1,580 $678 $235 3/4" Meter - $380.10 New Service (includes taps) - $809 vertical, 60' horizontal) 1" meter - $420.95 1" meter Replacement Taps: $316 New Service (includes taps) - $979 Information not available 1" Water (Max depth and length - 5' $525 $2,210 $989 $482 $420.95 Replacement Taps: $316 vertical, 60' horizontal) New Service (includes taps) - $979 4" Sewer (Max depth and length - 5' $425 $1,716 N/A $335.12 N/A $240 vertical, 60' horizontal) $4/sq.ft. (minimum of 25 sq.ft.). City Street Cut (max length - 2 lane $575 $2,257 $532 $5,000 maximum permit fee for $50 per 1,000 square feet N/A road) cuts totaling 1,250 square feet or larger. 44 Fayetteville Building Prototype Comparison Survey SingleNew 000 $350K Valuation Fayetteville Fayetteville Lawrence, KS Asheville, NC Fort Collins, CO Fort Smith, AR Current Recommended Valuation/Sq Ft $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 2000 sq ft $350,000 Building Plan Check $564 $479 Incl in price below $455 $338 Building Inspection $1,210 $931 $2,393 $3,400 $1,300 $563 Total $1,210 $1,495 $2,872 $3,400 $1,755 $900 Fayetteville Fayetteville Lawrence, KS Asheville, NC Fort Collins, CO Fort Smith, AR Current Recommended Valuation/Sq Ft $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 7500 sq ft $500,000 Building Plan Check $830 $1,245 $647 Incl in price below $1,050 $782 Building Inspection $1,660 $1,740 $3,234 $4,500 $3,000 $1,303 Total $2,490 $2,985 $3,881 $4,500 $4,050 $2,085 .❖. M G T Thank You • n LJ CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS POLICY STATEMENT At For Adoption as of June � 2005 Replaces all previous versions Effective Date: Effective Upon Adoption by City Council Subject: User Fee Cost Recovery Policy for City Services This policy statement establishes the City's cost recovery policy for selected city services and establishes and sets guidelines for the periodic evaluation of the City's charges for City services. General Policy 1. User fees should be considered as part of the City of Fayetteville's entire revenue system. 2. User fees should not be used for programs or services that generally benefit the citizenry as a whole or that are a basic service that should be provided through general revenue or enterprise revenues. Enterprise revenues shall be reviewed annually to assure compliance with the existing ordinance requirements: A. City's adopted minimum reserve requirement, B. Requirement of any bond/debt instrument that relies upon enterprise fund revenues, or C. City Council approved capital improvement program to be funded pay-as-you-go. 3. User fees should be levied fairly and equitably and properly account for the benefit received by each user. 4. User fees should be accountable to the persons who will be burdened by the costs of the fee and its administration. 5. The following definitions shall have the meaning ascribed to them as listed below for the purposes of User fee cost determination: A. Direct Cost (direct cost) shall be limited to the city employee/contractor providing the service and 6%% of the cost of all equipment/facility excluding buildings that are required for the service delivery and any additional expense incurred to provide the service. B. Departmental cost (departmental cost) shall be limited to Direct Cost plus a pro -rated share of departmental overhead (supervision and "ABUDGEWROJECTS\User Fee Study\2003 Study\User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Statement for City Services - Proposed 06062005.doc - 1 - • L administration), plus pro -rated cost recovery for buiIding/facilities (2% of original investment/reinvestment), plus pro -rated cost recovery for equipment (62/3% of original investment/re-investment) and shall not include any indirect central service administration cost. C. Full cost (full cost) shall include all direct: departmental and indirect central service administration cost including pro -rated cost recovery for buildings/facilities (2% of original investment/re-investment) and equipment (62/3% of original investment/re-investment.) See Attachment 1 for examples depicting cost development for each item listed above. 6. The Finance & Internal Services Department (FIS) shall maintain a comprehensive listing of all City of Fayetteville User Fees and Charges to include, at minimum, fee title, enabling ordinance and last date amended. 7. Current user fees and charges shall be evaluated by the FIS Department on a three-year cycle except Animal Services which shall be reviewed in 2009 and then placed on a three-year cycle, as described in the table below, to ensure that all user fees contain the full cost of providing the service. This does not prohibit the responsible division from reviewing and modifying user fees more frequently. More frequent division review is encouraged to eliminate excessive tn-annual adjustment. Division Initial Evaluation Year Airport Fees/Rents 2005 Parks & Recreation 2006 Development/BuildingDevelopment/Building Permits 2007 Water & Sewer — Maintenance 2008 Water & Sewer — Meter 2008 Animal Services 2009 8. The user fees adopted by City Council shall be adjusted annually by the maximum of 1) the All Urban Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics or successor organization on/about July 31 of the previous year, or, 2) the average merit increase for non -civil service employees of the City for the preceding twelve (12) months referred to as "formula increase." Additional adjustment to fees may be adopted by the City Council to recognize actual costs of service and service level changes. 9. All fee adjustments based on a formula increase become effective the following January 1. 10. Any adjustments to the existing structure of charges shall be published in the daily newspaper in advance of the annual budget public hearing notice. H:\BUDGET\PROJECTS\User Fee Study\2003 Study\User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Statement for City Services - Proposed 06062005.doc - 2 - E E 11. The following general guidelines shall be used in the annual evaluation: A. Charges for municipal services, where appropriate, should recover 100% of the full cost of providing any municipal service that is not a general service of the City except those listed below. B. Animal adoption fees and low cost spay/neuter fees may recover less than 25% of full cost until 2009 unless City Council amends the cost recovery policy for these services. The measure for the effectiveness of this cost recovery policy for these services is the change (increase/decrease) in the people participation in the program. C. Charges related to Youth Sports ActivitiesfUagues and Family Activities shall recover between 25% and 75% of the departmental cost of providing the services. Fees for public admission to Wilson Park Pool may recover less than 25% based on recommendations of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. D. Charges related to Adult Sports Activities/Uagues shall recover no less than 75% of the departmental cost of providing the services. E. Development charges (annexation, rezoning, lot split, construction plan review, infrastructure, stormwater, etc.) shall recover 100% of the full cost of providing the services unless reduced or waived by City Council. F. Building Permits fees shall recover 100% of the full cost of providing the service unless reduced or waived by City Council. G. Fees for the Water/Sewer Maintenance Division to make new or replacement connections to existing water and/or sewer mains shall recover 75% of the full cost of providing the services. H. Services performed after normal work schedule, on weekends or holidays, should recover 100% of the actual full cost of performing the service. 12. The review process will not provide an automatic mechanism for passing along any inefficiency which may exist in the system. Cost information will be reviewed for significant fluctuations (greater than 10%) as a part of the evaluation process. Continual process evaluation by the implementing division heads and department directors is mandatory. Efficiencies achieved by the continuous review will be utilized to reduce or contain user fees. 13. In instances where under -recovery of a cost is occurring, an additional maximum of 10% above formula increases may be phased in until cost recovery percentages reach 100% or the percentage of recovery identified in this policy statement. H:\BUDGET\PROJECTS\User Fee Study\2003 Study\User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Statement for City Services - Proposed 06062005.doc - 3 - OVERVIEW City policy and Arkansas municipal law provides that the charge for a municipal service is to be set at a level which does not exceed the cost of providing the service. The term "cost" in relationship to municipal services is defined as the allocable cost of direct and indirect labor, supplies, charges, and capital outlay used to provide each specific service. Allocations for both departmental and city wide administrative overhead are also included in the cost determination. Cost recovery levels of 75% to 100% are generally accepted as desirable for most services. Service efforts and accomplishments (SEA's) measures used to review the charges for services include, as appropriate, the following: Measures of Efforts • Non -financial resources o Number of labor hours, by position, expended to deliver services o Cost of materials and equipment expended to deliver services • Financial resources o Fully burdened labor costs, by position, expended to deliver services o Expenditures used to deliver services, including both direct and indirect costs Measures of Accomplishments •^Output measures o Number of service units produced • Outcome measures o Average cost per service unit produced o Average revenue generated per service unit produced Measures of Efficiency • Percentage of cost recovery • Percentage increase or decrease of average cost per service unit from prior period • Percentage increase or decrease of cost recovery from prior period HABUDGET\PROJECTS\User Pee Study\2003 Study\User Pee Cost Recovery Policy Statement for City Services - Proposed 06062005.doc - 4 - a PVI e lil ARKANSAS 6daary DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Dan Coody and City Council THRU: Stephen Davis, Finance & Internal Services Direct FROM: Kevin Springer, Budget Manager�V� DATE: June 3, 2005 SUBJECT: User Fee Policy Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approve a User Fee/Cost Recovery Policy that stipulates acceptable subsides from governmental revenues for services provided that are eligible for User Fees. The policy, as amended by the Ordinance Review Committee, is attached for City Council consideration and adoption. Summary Adoption of a policy statement by City Council will govern the timing of the fee area review as well as provide guidance for any future user fee adjustments. This project began in mid-2003 when the City entered into a contract with Maximus, Inc. to perform user fee study and cost allocation studies, and to develop a user fee report, a cost allocation model, and train City staff on the use of cost allocation and user fee software. These items have been delivered to the City and the Maximus, Inc. contract is considered to be completed. The original completion date for work was October 2003 to be available for the 2004 Budget. A revised schedule was approved that moved the completion date to June 2004. The consultant has provided staff the following items: cost allocation model, software, and software training. The draft User Fee policy was prepared and submitted to City Council as part of the September 21, 2004 agenda_ City Council tabled the User Fee policy and remitted it to the Ordinance Review Committee for study and changes. The attached user fee policy is the result of meetings between City Council Ordinance Review Committee and City Staff. The Ordinance Review Committee met on the following dates: January 20, 2005 Initial Staff briefing of the draft User Fee Policy to the Ordinance Review Committee. February 3, 2005 User fees being discussed were for the Water & Sewer Maintenance and Animal Services divisions. The committee approved the recommended fees for City Council apgroval. 0 February 23, 2005 User fees being discussed were for the Parks & Recreation Division. The Parks & Recreation Division was going to submit recommendations to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board for approval. March 4, 2005 Internal division meeting to determine which resolutions and ordinances need to be submitted for City Council approval. Background The City has a long history of charging user fees for a number of City services. The initial user fee study was initiated by the City approving a contract with DMG, Inc. in mid- 1991. The study results were delivered to the City in 1992 and due to the change in the form of government, staff was instructed not to bring the study forward. Portions of the 1991/1992 User Fee study were updated and were implemented in 1996. Staff identified funding in 2003 for an updated study, conducted a professional selection process and submitted a contract with Maximus, Inc. for City Council approve. Budget Considerations Adoption of a User Fee/Cost Recovery Policy will provide a mechanism for keeping user fees within pre -approved general revenue subsidy levels while maintaining the levels of service that are expected. 0 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR CITY SERVICES. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy for City Services, a copy of which, marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto, and made a part hereof. PASSED and APPROVED this 215t day of June, 200.5 APPROVED: AT as •1: DAN C© I 00 Mayor , • City of Fayetteville • Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items Contracts 21-Jun-05 City Council Meeting Date Kevin Springer 2)d� Budget & Research Submitted By Division Action rtequirea: Finance & Internal Services Department City Council is requested to approve a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy that will provide policy guidance concerning the development of user fees, establishing the maximum general revenue subsidy for specific types of user fees, determining the frequency of fee review and adjustment and the preferred method for the periodic user fee adiustments. N/A Cost of this request N/A Account Number N/A N/A Category/Project Budget (2005) N/A Funds Used to Date N/A N/A Program Category / Project Name N/A Program / Project Category Name N/A Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 4 G OS Original Contract Date: Departm nt Director Vate C::� . dc /,,� City Attorney D Original Contract Number: Received in City Clerk's Office i, � / �1'4 z < Received in Mayor's Office May r Datep Comments -- _ 05. Ask Page 1_• .,Clarice Pearman - Res._119-___ _ , From: Clarice Pearman To: Springer, Kevin Date: 6124/05 11:25AM Subject: Res.119-05 Kevin, Attached is a copy of the resolution passed by City Counci, June 21, 2005 regarding the User Fee Cost Policy. Please get me a clean copy with the date changed to June 21st. Thanks. Clarice CC: Deaton, Vicki RESOLUTION NO.119-05 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR CITY SERVICES. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy for City Services, a copy of which, marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto, and made a part hereof. PASSED and APPROVED this 215t day of June, 2005. ``��r���nurrrr,� °��-R TRs�''� APPROVE �U• ;FAYETTEVILLE. By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: <<«ulilt ►►0" ` By: S NDRA SMITH, City Clerk Received By: Stacy Barnes 06/27/2024 3:59 PM 41 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Mayor City Council CC: Kara Paxton, City Clerk/Treasurer Susan Norton, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Curth, Development Services Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: June 27, 2024 RE: Raising Development Fees Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Senior Assistant City Attorney Hannah Hungate Assistant City Attorney Stacy Barnes Paralegal I was on the City Council in the late 90's when the Administration proposed substantial increases in all development related fees from Large Scale Developments (LSDs) and Building Permits, to Rezoning requests and Lot Splits, etc. That Administration like today's proposed to charge home builders, developers, and persons needing any type of development permit 100% of the estimated cost to the City to process any requested permits and inspections required by such permit. My fellow City Council Members and I rejected the proposed 100% cost recovery fee schedule and instead agreed to a lesser amount, basically to cost share part of our expenses. There were several factors that caused that City Council to reject the proposed 100% cost recovery fee schedule. First, I want to make it clear that I believe that City Council enacted development regulations passed in the last three decades have helped make Fayetteville a more pleasant place to live and work. Basic health and safety development regulations for structural integrity, safe electrical and natural gas installation, water and sewer requirements, fire safety, etc. are certainly beneficial to both the City and its residents and to the builder and owner of homes, businesses, offices, etc. Our knowledgeable and experienced building safety inspectors can and have caught construction mistakes in time to ensure safe buildings while saving builders money to fix mistakes when they are the least expensive to fix. However, the City Council I served on as well as later City Councils have also imposed regulations for aesthetic or community reasons beyond the health and safety regulations noted above. Aesthetic considerations such as Commercial Design Standards (originally enacted by the Council I was a member of) are important and valuable for Fayetteville and her citizens. Aesthetics can legally support the imposition of regulations upon a developer or builder even if they cost the builders additional money to finish their buildings and may be deemed undesirable by the builder. The City Council I was a part of in the 90's thought these types of development regulations should be enforced upon developers, but the City should pay for at least part of our review and administration of these regulations which are clearly for the benefit of our City and citizens more than the developer or builder. For example, our sign ordinance's enforceability is supported by both aesthetics and traffic safety (to not divert drivers' attention from the road ahead). These sign limitations for businesses do not make the restricted business more valuable although these limitations overall have made Fayetteville more attractive and valuable for all businesses, offices, and residences. Because of First Amendment considerations, I have always advocated a very low permit cost for signs and do not recommend any increase in the current fee. All regulations for design standards are primarily for aesthetic reasons to enhance pedestrian and neighboring views even though they usually also result in a more attractive building for the owner. Aesthetic considerations legally support their imposition upon builders who might otherwise not include any of the required building enhancements because of the additional expense or even because these may not be viewed as actual enhancements by the builder nor what the builder would prefer to see on the building. For these and all other aesthetic rather than building safety regulations, the City Council I was on in the 90's refused to support the call for 100 % cost of city employee review of regulations as the proper and fair amount to charge builders and developers. The City Councils I served on in the 92-98 period passed the Tree Ordinance as well as the Parking Lot Landscaping Ordinance. I voted for both of these, but I recognized that these regulating ordinances were primarily to protect the interests of the City and citizens rather than the builder or developer. Again, we believed it was desirable and proper to require builders and developers to 2 comply with these regulating ordinances, but not also force them to pay for all of the City's work to administer these regulations for the public good. Some regulations beyond health and safety development regulations that I believe to be appropriate for substantial cost recovery from owners or developers are rezoning requests as well as vacations of easements, rights of way, alleys and streets, and variances from normal development requirements. This is because all of these requests principally benefit the owner rather than the City. An applicant for all of these requested permits or rezonings should probably pay for most or all of the City's cost to administer them. Finally, I have always believed that it is legally much safer not to assess the "full cost" to the city for development permits because if our consultant has made any possible mistakes in the complex analysis to determine our actual cost, their fees could be determined by a Court to be unauthorized taxes. Another consultant working for a developer wishing to challenge our development fees as too costly, might very well reasonably disagree with portions of our consultant's analysis and conclusions and claim we are charging more than our actual costs. Simply reducing the proposed new fees by as little as ten percent should prevent not only a successful, dangerously expensive court challenge to the newer fees, but therefore also prevent any costly and lengthy litigation at all. Because I have confidence in our consultant's experience, competence and ability, even a minor 10% cushion should prevent any legal challenge. The City Council could encourage more smaller (and therefore more affordable) housing, by eliminating building permit fees for houses under 1,200 square feet (such as an Accessory Dwelling Unit and maybe some regular or cluster housing). I think a square footage matrix is more reliable than some proposed valuation amount guessed at before construction. A dollar amount valuation would be more difficult to confirm and enforce than a square footage limitation. Currently there is only one fee for any appeal allowed in Chapter 155 Appeals. I am still not sure how that fee snuck in. I recommend that there be no separate fee assessed for any appeal authorized in Chapter 155 Appeals. Instead, I recommend that the basic fee for a vacation, rezoning or variance and all development proposals include an amount to recover the historical frequency of appeal and costs to the city for such zoning or development permit appeals. I suggest no additional amount should be separately assessed for an appeal. 3 CONCLUSION Our development permit applications often include both health and safety regulations and reviews as well as aesthetic regulations and reviews. I do not recommend trying to divide all the considerations into different permits which would just make our review and approval process more cumbersome. We should keep approximately the same number of paid permits needed for the project. The mixed permits for both health and safety as well as aesthetics and community purposes should include cost sharing of the expenses by both the applicants and taxpayers. The City Council may wish to reduce our taxpayers' expenditures from the current 45 % of current review costs to 25 % by boosting the rezoning and builder/ developer fees from 55 % to 75 % of the needed revenue. Please keep in mind that although an earlier City Council may have expressed its intent to recover 100% of regulation costs, in reality it continued to share the regulatory cost burden just as the City Council I served on in the 90's did. I think this fairer and more appropriate than placing 100 % of the regulatory costs to administrate all the regulations we impose on our, developers and builders. M