Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pueblo West staff propose 9.6% increase to Committee of Architecture application fees; board questions justification and long-term funding
Summary
Staff recommended a 9.6% increase to the Committee of Architecture permit fee schedule to cover program shortfalls and two new FTEs; the board debated whether land-sale revenue has historically funded COA and asked staff to clarify personnel and operating cost breakdowns and OpenGov expense.
Staff proposed a 9.6% increase to the Committee of Architecture (COA) application fee schedule to help close a projected revenue shortfall and to support recently added staff positions. Directors pressed staff for clearer justification and asked whether land-sale revenues were intended to sustain the COA.
Sean Winters, Director of Operational Support, explained the proposal grew from an analysis of 2024 estimated revenue and what the program needs to be sustainable for 2025. “We proposed an increase of 9.6% to the existing fee schedule,” he said, adding the district also hired two neighborhood services officers and that application fees would only fund roughly 1.75 full-time equivalents (FTE) of the five-person program. Sean said the remaining 3.25 FTE are enforcement work with no revenue source tied directly to enforcement.
A director asked whether COA had been intended to be self-sustaining; staff responded that land-sale revenue has historically gone into the Community Development Fund and has been used to support COA operations, but there is not an explicit policy that ties that revenue stream exclusively to COA operations. That led directors to ask for more precise budget details: one director asked how much of the $591,677 expense budget is labor cost and whether the fee increase used the whole expense budget as justification rather than isolating personnel-related costs.
Sean said some operating costs include vehicles and field verification work tied to enforcement and suggested staff could revisit how vehicle costs are allocated in the justification. Directors asked staff to refine the report to separate personnel costs, vehicle costs, software costs (OpenGov), and other operating expenses so the board can assess whether fee increases should be smaller or phased.
Board members also discussed OpenGov, the district’s online application platform, noting it is part of the regional “Pueblo Means Business” package shared with other jurisdictions. Staff said OpenGov’s total district cost would be confirmed and that the district’s contract runs through 2026, at which point the district could evaluate whether another instance or integration would reduce costs and improve data sharing.
No formal fee change or final board decision was recorded in the transcript excerpt; staff agreed to revise the justification and return with a clearer breakdown for the public meeting packet.
