Agenda 02-10-2026; 2 - Presentation of Fee Study for Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)

Browse Search

15 As noted in the Legal, Economic, and Policy Considerations section above, community benefit and individual and public benefit activities typically follow within the 0%to 20% and 20%to 80% recovery levels, respectively. These percentages are not hard-set rules but instead serve as general guidance when making policy decisions regarding cost recovery. DEAPR, and specifically the Parks and Recreation division, have activities that fall between each of the different levels of the cost recovery pyramid. Guidance for cost recovery levels for Parks and Recreation is not as clearly defined as it is for departments such as Planning and Inspections. The County Commissioners should evaluate each program individually and the Division wholistically to determine an allowable subsidy range for each program and the Division. Budgetary factors must be considered as subsidizing Parks and Recreation programs more than current levels could strain the County's general fund, but the Commissioners could consider prioritizing subsidy level efforts to youth sports at the cost of reducing subsidies for other programs such as adult sports, recreation classes, drop-in fees, and certain special events. Peer Comparison Analysis For the Parks and Recreation comparison analysis, MGT collected information from several peer agencies, parks and recreation departments or divisions. The fees compared mainly focused on rentals, but MGT did gather information for some other services, such as youth and adult athletes and youth summer camps. For youth athletics,the County is similar to the peer average, being only$6 more than the peers. For adult athletics however,the County is $115 less per team than the peer average with the County's current rate of$350 and the average being $465. For rental rates,the County appears to be in the middle of most offerings. The peer group has several different methods of charging fees such as hourly, daily, flat rate, or a combination of methods. No specific method is the "correct" method, and MGT generally suggest agencies not change its methods of charging fees unless its current system does not meet the needs of the agency. Please see Exhibit B for the complete listing of peers and fees MGT collected data for. Planning and Inspections The Planning and Inspections Department serves residents by implementing adopted land use, environmental, and building policies through a system of development regulations. The department manages current planning and zoning, building permitting and inspections, erosion control and stormwater review, floodplain management, and related development services to support stable, high-quality growth while protecting the environment. The user fee analysis covered the full range of development review and inspection services, including zoning and subdivision applications, special use and rezoning requests, site plan and engineering review, and residential and non-residential building permits and inspections. The model estimates that fees related to Planning and Inspections services cost approximately$4 million per year. Current fees recover approximately $2.6 million, or 65%of these costs, leaving an annual general fund subsidy of about $1.4 million for services that primarily benefit private development activity. Two factors are relevant when considering cost recovery and revenues. First, planning market activity can be highly cyclical, meaning that departments activity is not consistent over time. In some years, like FY25, planning market activity was lower than average. A fee schedule may need to be set to cover the cost in an average year, one that considers fluctuations in activity over time. MCIT PAGE 11