HR Green Rate Fee Survey Report - Manual (Page 27)

26
Exhibit D: State by State Fee Comparisons
Fee Table Information:
The sections that follow include fee schedules corresponding to low and high ends of the fee spectrum.
To the extent that sample sizes were large enough, median values are inserted in the tables to provide
some perspective for low and high values that have significant variances. In addition, fee data provided
by many communities did not lend itself to reporting in a tabular form. As such, a section summarized
as
“
variations on these fees
” provide a breakdown of
values. For example, referencing a base fee and
an additional unit (e.g., per acre, lot, etc.) fee that applies.
For those sections referencing fees associated site development plans that accompany conditional or
special use permits, the values expressed under the column header of Conditional Use Permit Fees
reveal data that specifically broke this fee out. In the course of reviewing the data, some respondents
did not break out this value or combined it with other applicable values (i.e., site development fee +
conditional use permit fee = total fee). Readers should consider table entries cited as: N/A or $0 as
either insufficient information or the responses were inconclusive.
Communities in some states, particularly California and Minnesota, cited requirements to deposit or
escrow and fees with the city. For purpose of interpreting results, the authors assume these values
reflect a review process conducted on a time and materials or full-cost accounting basis. Roughly
translated, the city or county would require the applicant to pay a minimum amount into an escrow
/deposit account and the reviewing agency or agencies would charge fees consistent with standard
practices as part of the review process.
Site plan review is often associated with a parallel process such as a change in zone, zoning variance,
or conditional use permit. It is relatively common for local governmental agencies to develop
procedures and fees associated with performing this function largely based on the interdisciplinary
nature of the review and its influence on associated land use decisions. The questionnaire (Exhibit A)
summarized a series of situations where fees are common. The summary below highlights some
common attributes associated with each fee table.

Site Plan Review Fee: In its simplest form, many local government land development agencies
conduct a review of site development plans (SDPs) and charge a fee for this service. As the
tables and associated responses reveal these fees range from flat fees to time and material
fees, and/or a combination of the above.

Amended or Revised Site Plan: From time to time SDP
’s are subject to change. Sometimes
these changes are minor and other times involve a substantial (major) change. While the terms
“
minor
” nor “
major
” were defined in the questionnaire, the survey instrument acknowledged a
common practice in the development community relative to distinguishing between a minor and
major SDP.

Site Plan Review conducted as part of a Conditional/Special Use Request: Projects subject to
submitting SDP often include conditional/special use permits. The tables illustrate comparative
fees corresponding to minor and major changes to SDP
’s that are tied to Conditional/Special
Uses as well as cases where no modifications are necessary.

SDP Fees Applied by Reviewing Agencies: This fee category includes fees that might be added
by a decision making body charged with reviewing the SDP. Often times, proposed