Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends 2025 land-use fee schedule with clarifications and edits
Summary
The Emigration Canyon Planning Commission on Thursday recommended that the City Council adopt the 2025 land-use fee schedule but asked staff to make clarifying edits: add an over-the-counter building plan-check fee, remove redundant FCOS line items, raise the residential plan-check percentage to 65% and ask staff to review stormwater illicit-discharge fines.
The Emigration Canyon Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the 2025 land-use fee schedule on Thursday, subject to staff clarifications and several edits that commissioners said would reduce redundancy and clarify when higher fees apply.
Planning staff presented the fee schedule as a largely unchanged annual update prepared after an MSD fee audit and said only a handful of changes were proposed from 2024. Staff told the commission the schedule covers a broad set of land-use, building and inspection fees used by all former metro jurisdictions the MSD serves.
Commissioners focused on three recurring issues: (1) redundant fee lines referencing Foothills and Canyons ("FCOS") and separate Foothills/Canyons fees when the entire city is legally within the former FCOS area; (2) whether plan-check fees are part of or in addition to building-permit fees; and (3) a need for a clearer over-the-counter/site-plan fee for small, routine permits such as a minor fence or small shed.
Commissioner Jody Giroux moved that the commission recommend adoption of the 2025 fee schedule with specific edits: add an over-the-counter plan-check fee of $110; change the residential plan-check fee from 40% to 65% of the building‑permit fee (to match the higher review effort in canyon areas); strike the separate "plan check fee, FCOS projects" line; strike separate "residential development, FCOS" and "Foothills/Canyons" land-use fee lines to avoid double charging; and request that staff and Council review stormwater pollution prevention plan illicit-discharge fine amounts for consistency. Jim Carcotte seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Staff explained the roles of fees and said MSD's auditor had recommended a consolidated approach: fees should approximate the average staff time and agency review required for different application types rather than itemizing each subtask. Curtis Woodward, senior planner, explained that the fee schedule's middle column describes the scope of work a fee covers (agency review cycles, technical review, planning commission hearing, etc.) and that an over-the-counter building permit option is already used in practice but should be clarified in the table.
Commissioners and staff noted practical concerns: a $990 site-plan-review fee for smaller projects creates a disproportionate burden for minor work if the fee triggers a full technical review; however, removing the higher-fee category entirely would underpay staff for complex canyon reviews that require geotechnical, fire and other specialty checks.
Because the fee schedule also contains an MSD policy authorizing staff to adjust fees in unique circumstances (up to $1,500 per application, with higher adjustments by the MSD general manager), the commission asked staff to add clearer criteria for when and how those adjustments are used.
The commission's recommendation asks that the Council consider the edits so the fee schedule is clearer for applicants and staff and to ensure fees align with actual review effort in the canyon jurisdiction.
