Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews large cuts to several land‑development fees, asks for fiscal analysis
Summary
Planning staff proposed reducing many land‑development fees — including sharp cuts to site‑plan charges — and creating a new advertising charge for site‑location reviews. Councilors asked for a fiscal impact and comparison with peer cities; the committee postponed action to get more information.
Planning staff presented proposed changes to Bangor’s land‑development fee schedule at the Business Economic Development Committee meeting on March 17, saying the city would reduce many fees and introduce a new advertising fee for certain site‑location reviews.
Planning officer Anya Kale said the proposed schedule “decrease[s] quite a few of those fees. There are just a few that would increase, a little bit,” and that staff time does not rise proportionally for larger projects, which motivated most reductions.
The memo presented to the committee proposed several notable revisions: a sharp decrease in the fee for minor site‑plan reviews (shown in staff materials as dropping from about $3,437 to $70) and a reduction in the charge labeled for major site plans (from roughly $3,100 to about $608.90). Kale also described a proposed slight decrease to certain advertising fees for mobile‑home parks, an increase to advertising for regular zoning‑map amendments, and a newly proposed advertising fee for site‑location development reviews to cover city advertising costs.
Councilors pressed staff for fiscal context. Councilor Trimble said he had heard repeatedly that the city’s fees can be “quite high” and asked whether staff had estimated the budgetary effect if the new rates had been in place last year. Kale responded that a department‑level bottom‑line impact analysis had not yet been completed but that staff could provide one if the council wanted it. Councilor Fish and other members asked for comparisons with peer communities; Kale said staff maintain a comparison table but cautioned that practice and staffing differ among municipalities.
Councilor Malouf asked why some existing fees were so high to begin with; Kale said some line items date back many years and that annual percentage increases and past staffing needs likely played a role. Kale also told the committee that the very high, rarely triggered fee brackets affect few projects and that the proposed changes would mainly reduce charges at the small end of the schedule.
After discussion, the committee directed staff to provide a fiscal‑impact analysis and peer comparisons before taking action. Committee leadership postponed formal consideration of the fee changes pending that additional information.
The committee did not adopt any fee changes at the March 17 meeting; staff will return with the requested analysis for further consideration.
