Print
Comment
Rate
County looks at fees for planning
By Shar Porier/Wick Communications
BISBEE - Though talks are still in the early stages, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors has heard the recommendations of the county Planning Department staff that would establish fees to recoup costs of holding meetings and reviewing improvement plans for subdivisions and commercial developments such as the Bowie power plant.
In a recent work session, Susan Buchan, the county's planning and zoning director, discussed what the fees would be and how they would be applied.
The department can have problems getting improvement and drainage plans as well as traffic impact studies reviewed within a time frame to meet developers' needs. The department currently does not charge for the extra amount it takes to pay an outside engineering firm to certify such plans in a timely manner. That places the burden of the cost on the taxpayer.
The county contracts with Wildan and Associates Inc. to provide the certification for such plans at a rate of $200 per sheet, said Susana Montana, planning manager. Since the county only charges $125 a page, it costs the county $75 per page of the plans.
Staff members also have suggested changing other fees for work done in-house to reflect the actual cost of employee time.
County documents show the fees as recommended are:
$650 plus $20 per lot for a tentative plat fee which covers the cost of two reviews by the county engineer and staff participation in one county/developer subdivision committee meeting. If a second is required, an additional $350 will be charged.
$650 plus $10 per lot for final plat fee, which includes two reviews and is spilt 50-50 between the Highway and Floodplain and Planning departments. Additional reviews are $150, and additional meetings would be $350.
$350 for two drainage report reviews, with $116 for each additional review of revised reports. If necessary, the county can submit the report to Wildan and will charge $500 per review.
$320 for two traffic impact analyses, plus $107 for each subsequent review; or $500 per review if plans are sent to Wildan.
The fees for reviewing improvement plans would become optional as the developer will be able to hire an engineer who can self-certify the plans rather than ask the county. For reviews conducted by the county engineer, there would be a charge of $126 per sheet which reflects a raise of only one dollar over the previous fee. If the county has to send it on to Wildan, the fee raises to $200 per sheet to recover actual costs, Montana said.
"We want the applicants to pay the full costs for staff and Wildan," she said. "We need the cost recovery for the consulting engineers. It's cutting into our budget. We came up with a typical baseline and looked at what the services and associated costs were."
The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that costs for these plans and reviews needed to be recouped by the county, Montana said.
If the new rates are approved, the department will take a look at the bottom line to be sure the new system is working for the county and the developers.
In response from developers, it was indicated that they preferred not to hire an outside engineer and want the county to handle the reviews to save money, Montana said.
"It seems to make sense to cover our costs," Supervisor Pat Call said. "It doesn't look like it is cost prohibitive. If we keep using county money, the taxpayers are paying for development."
He felt it was a fair proposal since there was the opportunity to hire an engineer of their choosing.
"I agree that developers should pay their own way, but as a government there can be the propensity to create new problems. I think this could snowball. We're adding costs and could end up pricing someone out of development," said Supervisor Richard Searle, who was unsure about supporting the fee increase.
Supervisor Paul Newman was not in attendance at the work session.
County administrator Mike Ortega said he was cognizant of how it will affect businesses, but the county needs to recover the costs. He suggested a cap on fees be determined and set a maximum of review meetings to three instead of two as a way to compromise.
The supervisors have planned another work session following a second fee review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
No other fees charged by the Planning Department are being recommended for an increase.
In a recent work session, Susan Buchan, the county's planning and zoning director, discussed what the fees would be and how they would be applied.
The department can have problems getting improvement and drainage plans as well as traffic impact studies reviewed within a time frame to meet developers' needs. The department currently does not charge for the extra amount it takes to pay an outside engineering firm to certify such plans in a timely manner. That places the burden of the cost on the taxpayer.
The county contracts with Wildan and Associates Inc. to provide the certification for such plans at a rate of $200 per sheet, said Susana Montana, planning manager. Since the county only charges $125 a page, it costs the county $75 per page of the plans.
Staff members also have suggested changing other fees for work done in-house to reflect the actual cost of employee time.
County documents show the fees as recommended are:
The fees for reviewing improvement plans would become optional as the developer will be able to hire an engineer who can self-certify the plans rather than ask the county. For reviews conducted by the county engineer, there would be a charge of $126 per sheet which reflects a raise of only one dollar over the previous fee. If the county has to send it on to Wildan, the fee raises to $200 per sheet to recover actual costs, Montana said.
"We want the applicants to pay the full costs for staff and Wildan," she said. "We need the cost recovery for the consulting engineers. It's cutting into our budget. We came up with a typical baseline and looked at what the services and associated costs were."
The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that costs for these plans and reviews needed to be recouped by the county, Montana said.
If the new rates are approved, the department will take a look at the bottom line to be sure the new system is working for the county and the developers.
In response from developers, it was indicated that they preferred not to hire an outside engineer and want the county to handle the reviews to save money, Montana said.
"It seems to make sense to cover our costs," Supervisor Pat Call said. "It doesn't look like it is cost prohibitive. If we keep using county money, the taxpayers are paying for development."
He felt it was a fair proposal since there was the opportunity to hire an engineer of their choosing.
"I agree that developers should pay their own way, but as a government there can be the propensity to create new problems. I think this could snowball. We're adding costs and could end up pricing someone out of development," said Supervisor Richard Searle, who was unsure about supporting the fee increase.
Supervisor Paul Newman was not in attendance at the work session.
County administrator Mike Ortega said he was cognizant of how it will affect businesses, but the county needs to recover the costs. He suggested a cap on fees be determined and set a maximum of review meetings to three instead of two as a way to compromise.
The supervisors have planned another work session following a second fee review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
No other fees charged by the Planning Department are being recommended for an increase.
 |
 |
|
| Public Records | CNF meetings |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of willcoxrangenews.com.
Just Wondering wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:54 AM:
Once a development is past this point how much is recouped from building impact fees and how much over the first five years will be recouped from the new buildings once they are added to the tax rolls? "