Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING DIVISION FEE ANALYSIS <br />Community Development Director Keating reviewed the <br />following memo: <br />TO: Charles Balczun CATE�uly 7, 1988 FILE: <br />County Administrator <br />PLANNING -DIVISION FEE <br />SUBJECT: ANALYSIS <br />FROM:Robert M. Keating, AICPR REFERENCES:- _ <br />Director <br />Community Development Department <br />It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal - <br />consideration by the' Board of County Commissioners at their <br />regular meeting of July 19, 1988. <br />DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: <br />In the beginning of 1987, -the planning staff, at the direction of <br />the Board of County Commissioners,: initiated an analysis of the <br />planning division's fee structure. This analysis involved <br />estimating total county costs for the division's various review <br />and permitting functions. It also. involved a survey of other <br />local governments to determine the fee structure of those <br />governments. <br />Because of staff turnover and competing priorities, the fee <br />analysis was delayed. ,However, at. the beginning of 1988, the <br />analysis was reactivated, and it was completed recently. The <br />completed analysis, proposed fee schedule, and implementing <br />resolution are attached to this agenda item. The analysis report <br />is self-explanatory, identifying methodology, man-hour estimates, <br />and revised fees. <br />ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: <br />The proposed fee schedule reflects the county's costs to process <br />permits and reviews. The cost estimates include not only the <br />planning division's staff time, but also the staff time of other <br />county departments. As such, the proposed fees assess applicants <br />a fee comparable to the county's processing costs. <br />In considering the proposed fee schedule, the Board of County <br />,Commissioners has several alternatives. The Board can approve <br />the proposed fees, approve a modification of the proposed fees, <br />r deny the recommended fee schedule revisions. Because' the <br />w�;rxstaff has estimated processing costs'and compared these costs to <br />°the fees charged.*by other local governments, the staff feels that <br />h the fees are reasonable. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />M11% staff recommends that the Board approve the <br />schedule by adopting.the attached resolution. <br />proposed fee <br />J U L 2 6 1988 32 eool, 7 3ri fE�% <br />