Grantsville council reviews proposed fee-waiver policy and revised development fees, staff seeks input on $35,000 council threshold

Grantsville City staff presented a proposed fee-waiver policy and a revised development fee schedule at a council work meeting, asking for council input on eligibility rules, reporting and whether an administrative waiver limit of $35,000 is appropriate. All five council members were present for the discussion, which also reviewed example reductions and budget implications.

The policy, as described by staff member Sherry, would create an application, scoring criteria and a committee review process for waiving certain municipal fees. "The council has the ability to waive impact fees, but there's nothing else in the code regarding the waiving of fees," Sherry said, adding the proposal is intended to improve transparency and fairness by documenting waivers and grouping decisions rather than leaving them to a single staff member.

Sherry told the council the policy lists eligible uses and applicants — including nonprofits, affordable housing projects, economic development, public-benefit projects and special accommodations for low-income housing — and enumerates the kinds of fees that could be waived: building permits, development impact fees, utility connection charges and planning and zoning fees. She said fines, penalties and third-party legal or review fees would not be eligible for waiver. "We can waive them. We can put the waiver right on the fee schedule, the link for an application for the waiver if you want," Sherry said.

Why it matters

Staff said the primary goals are transparency, predictable review, and economic development. Sherry said documenting waivers and linking them to a scoring matrix would let the city report annually on the total value of waivers and the estimated economic impact (for example, sales-tax effects). She also said the proposed fee schedule is based on a time-and-cost study of city processes; the study was used to bring certain fees in line with staff time and to ensure the community-development department is adequately funded.

Threshold for council approval

The proposal currently would require city-council approval for waivers exceeding $35,000. Staff tied that figure to the city procurement policy and asked whether the council wanted a higher or lower threshold. One councilmember asked whether $35,000 would be enough for large projects such as those at Lakeview Business Park; another commented that if a requested waiver were as large as $200,000 it would need council approval because the city would have to identify funding to cover the waived impact fee.

A councilmember asked for clarity whether the $35,000 is a ceiling on administrative action or a threshold for review. Sherry responded that the amount is the current limit for in-house administrative approval under procurement rules and that anything above it would come to council. Council members expressed concern about two risks: setting the administrative limit so low that many small waivers would need council action and setting it so high that staff would be unable to stop very large waivers without council review.

Fee-schedule examples and reductions

Staff presented example fee reductions to illustrate how the city could use discounts to attract development. For preliminary site plans (0–3 acres) the existing proposed fee shown in the materials was $2,000; a 10% reduction would lower that to $1,800 and a 25% reduction to $1,500, staff said. For final site plans the materials showed a baseline of $3,000 plus $100 per acre; a 10% cut would reduce the base amount to $2,700 and a 25% cut to $2,250. Staff also presented numbers for larger commercial site plans and a high-end final-site-plan example that was proposed at about $6,100 (staff provided 10% and 25% reduction scenarios for council review).

A councilmember asked whether the city compared Grantsville's fees to other cities. Sherry said the fee study calculated staff time, planning commission time and application-processing costs specific to Grantsville; because staffing and processes differ across cities, she said comparing raw fee amounts to other municipalities would not provide a reliable benchmark. As an example of a nearby schedule, a participant noted Tooele City's published per-acre commercial fees, but staff said Grantsville's study ties fees to internal cost calculations and process time.

Corrections and specific fees

During the discussion staff corrected a previously quoted internal-ADU fee that had been misread in earlier materials: Sherry said the proposed internal ADU fee shown in the study should be $119.32 (the earlier packet figure of "$4.30" was an error in the materials). She also noted the community-development department had historically operated in the red but that the most recent year — using Shelby's analysis — had not been in deficit; the department may need additional staff if application volumes rise.

Application process, reporting and accountability

Sherry described an application and review process that would start with planning-department review, include committee scoring, and allow administrative approval for smaller waivers. The policy would require annual reporting of all waivers to the council; staff recommended syncing that report with the city's other annual revenue reports in August so the council would receive it before audit work begins. "July is usually a crazy month with the July 4 (holiday)... August is okay. We just like to keep it in sync and keep them together," Sherry said.

Limitations and next steps

Staff emphasized the policy would not authorize waiving fines or fees charged by third parties and that any large waivers would require council action because the city would have to identify funding to cover the waived revenue. Sherry said she would add a subsection to the policy addressing smaller incidental fees for qualified nonprofits (for example, temporary-event permits or facility rental fees) and would refine the draft to correct typographical or itemization errors before formal introduction to the council.

Budget implications

Council members asked whether the city budget had been built on the fee increases. Sherry said the draft budget assumed the fee-study numbers and that the city could make midyear budget adjustments if the council chose to reduce some fees. She noted that the fee study and staffing changes aim to speed permit review and reduce developer delays, and that the city would revisit fees annually or when projections diverged significantly from expenses.

Formal action

No ordinance or resolution was adopted at the work meeting. The session concluded with a motion and second to adjourn the work meeting; the council voted in favor.

What happens next

Staff will revise the draft policy to incorporate the council's input (including adding the nonprofit incidental-fee subsection and correcting line items), finalize scoring criteria with input from Bill when he arrives, and schedule the policy and revised fee schedule for a future council agenda for formal consideration and possible adoption.