Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs 2025 fee schedule with clarifications on plan-check and FCOS fees
Summary
Emigration Canyon Planning Commission recommended the 2025 land-use fee schedule with edits: add a $110 over-the-counter plan-check line, raise residential plan-check from 40% to 65% of the building permit fee (reflecting canyon review complexity), and strike redundant FCOS fee lines; commission also asked staff to reexamine some stormwater illicit-discharge fines.
Emigration Canyon — The Emigration Canyon Planning Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to recommend the city’s 2025 land-use fee schedule to City Council, subject to a set of clarifications and edits intended to reduce fee confusion and better reflect the additional review effort required in canyon terrain.
The proposed packet is rooted in an outside fee audit that aligned many charges with neighboring jurisdictions, Adam Long, land-use counsel for the Municipal Services District (MSD), told the commission. The commission’s discussion focused on two recurring issues: overlapping fee lines that can lead to apparent double-charging for Foothills and Canyons (FCOS) projects, and whether residential plan-check fees should be higher than the 40% figure shown in the draft because canyon reviews typically require more time and technical checks.
What commissioners did: Commissioner Jody Giroux moved a package of changes staff will forward to Council: delete redundant FCOS/permitted-use lines where they merely duplicate a site-plan review, add a top-line over-the-counter plan-check fee of $110 for quick counter reviews, and change the residential plan‑check fee from 40% to 65% of the building permit fee (matching the auditor’s suggested rate for canyon-level reviews). "To recommend adoption of the 2025 fee schedule with the following changes," Giroux said in moving the motion; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Why it matters: Commissioners said FCOS-related entries in the fee table could be read as cumulative — for example, a small residential accessory structure might be charged an over-the-counter building permit fee plus a separate $990 FCOS site-plan fee. Staff and multiple commissioners agreed the intent is not to double-charge and recommended striking redundant line items and clarifying the descriptions that explain the scope each fee covers.
Operational points and follow-up: Staff noted an existing counter-practice: planners currently collect a $110 fee for over-the-counter reviews when a full planning file is unnecessary. The commission asked staff to put that $110 line explicitly into the plan-check section and confirm how plan-check percentages are applied (in practice these are commonly assessed as part of the building permit fee). Commissioners also asked staff to revisit several illicit-discharge/stormwater fines to ensure sanctions fit harms.
Next steps: The commission’s recommendation, including the edits and suggested clarifications, will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Staff will confirm the specific rule language and the placement of the over-the-counter fee in the schedule before the Council packet is finalized.
