Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kissimmee staff recommend shifting development review fees to full cost recovery; commission advances proposal
Summary
City staff presented a Matrix Consulting Group update recommending that the city raise development review fees (now recovering about 30% of cost) toward full (100%) cost recovery, add or rename several fees, and index fees annually to CPI; the commission voted 3–0 to direct staff to draft a resolution.
Douglas Etheridge, development services assistant director for the City of Kissimmee, told commissioners at a Jan. workshop that a 2023 update to a 2015 Matrix Consulting Group study found the city recovers roughly 30% of development review costs and is subsidizing the remainder with general revenues. "Cost recovery should be 100%, not 30%," Etheridge said, summarizing the study's principal recommendation.
The study recommends several changes to bring fees closer to actual cost: add new fee lines (for inspections, notices, continuances and insufficient‑payment handling), consolidate and rename overlapping application categories, split fees by project complexity or size (for example, base fees plus per‑acre or per‑unit charges), and adopt an annual Consumer Price Index adjustment to avoid large periodic increases. Staff noted the review covers planning and zoning activities — annexations, land‑use and site plans — and does not address building inspections or code enforcement.
Commissioners pressed staff on specific examples in the proposed fee table. One commissioner asked whether the proposed $17,511 rescission/pro‑review fee was accurate; staff explained that rescinding older, preexisting development approvals often entails multi‑jurisdictional review and outside counsel and can require six months to a year of staff time. Staff also clarified special‑event permitting: the code allows 20 days per calendar year for single‑site events (30 days for multi‑tenant sites), with longer, multi‑day or recurring events handled through a different process and higher complexity reviews.
City staff urged that the fee schedule be updated as a resolution and returned to the commission for a formal vote after public review. Commissioners asked for additional detail on the business rules for small/expedited permits and on the CPI mechanism; staff said the study built current time and cost estimates into the proposed schedule and recommended annual CPI adjustments (typical CPI changes were described in the workshop as roughly 1.5%–3.5% in recent years).
A motion to advance staff's recommendation and direct staff to prepare a resolution was made and seconded; the commission approved that motion 3–0. Staff will draft the resolution and return it for a future meeting where the public may comment before a final vote.
Why it matters: raising development review fees shifts more of the administrative cost to applicants and could increase development costs (especially for complex projects such as rescissions of prior regional approvals), while providing clearer fee categories and predictable annual adjustments to keep fees current. Next steps: staff will prepare a resolution based on the recommendations and present it at a future commission meeting, with timing and any public comment opportunities to be posted on the city's agenda website.
