Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bee Cave staff outline fee schedule options, including pass-throughs for third-party reviews
Summary
City staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 3 that current site-development fees do not fully cover review costs and proposed options such as third-party review deposits or escrow prepayments; staff emphasized the goal is cost recovery rather than revenue generation and will return with recommendations.
City planning staff on Feb. 3 told the Bee Cave Planning and Zoning Commission that the city's current site-development fees are not covering the full cost of application review and that staff will evaluate options to better align fees with neighboring jurisdictions and recover third-party review costs.
Planner Sean LaPotta reviewed the history: the Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted in mid-2022 and the initial matching fee schedule followed in December 2022, with only minor adjustments since. He said for common small sites (0–5 acres) Bee Cave currently charges a flat fee of $10,000; site plan revisions are $500 and site plan amendments $1,000. LaPotta illustrated regional approaches: some cities charge flat fees plus a percentage of estimated construction cost (Dripping Springs: flat rate plus 1.5% of estimated construction costs), others base fees on lot size or impervious cover (Bridal, Leander), and Lakeway charges roughly 2% of estimated construction cost.
LaPotta said Bee Cave does not currently apply third-party review fees to site development applications and recommended adding a mechanism for deposit and pass-through for consultant review when needed, noting neighboring cities typically recover consultant costs either directly or through escrow with an administrative fee. "We would like to be better aligned with our neighboring cities, when it comes to the third party review costs," he said. Assistant City Manager Christopher Baker emphasized the intent: "This is not to be a revenue stream. It is specifically to ensure that the general taxpayers of the city are not subsidizing development applications."
Commissioners asked whether the neighboring cities' fee approaches produced net revenue or simply shifted consultant costs to applicants; staff replied that those jurisdictions are passing consultant costs to applicants rather than absorbing them. Commissioners also asked whether the UDC includes a formal cadence for fee updates; staff said there is no automatic review schedule in the UDC and that staff will return with findings and recommendations, including the potential option of removing the fee schedule from the UDC so council and finance could manage it.
No formal action was taken on the fee schedule at the meeting; the item was presented as information and staff will report back with recommendations.
