Fairfax County Government

1
Fairfax County Government

• Land Development Services, DPWES
• Proposed Increase to Land and Building
  Development Fees
• October 17, 2008

2
Last Fee Increase

• July 1, 2005 - Increased zoning, plan review
  inspections, and permit fees
• Shifted recovery rate from 80 to 90
• July 1, 2006 Increased site inspection fees as
  part of phased adjustment

3
2005 Fee Increase Report Card

• Phased in the 2nd increase of site inspection
  fees
• Created a work group of industry representatives
  and County staff to identify process
  improvements.
• Developed a program to support and recognize the
  professionalism of plan reviewers and a system of
  accountability on par with designated plan
  examiners in private practice.
• More regular update to fees

4
Trends

• New residential and commercial development
  slowdown
• Increase in commercial alteration building
  permits issued
• Increase in the available minutes per residential
  inspection
• Increase in available minutes per single
  discipline for commercial inspections
• Increase in the number of complaints related to
  un-permitted work and work done in the resource
  protection areas

5
Trends

• Reduced number of projects in default
• Increase in cost of doing business
• Decrease in revenue due to economic downturn
• Decrease in site, subdivision and infill lot
  development

6
LDS Response to Workload Changes

• Reviewed workload measures and revenue collection
  activity
• Looked for ways to minimize expenses, i.e.,
  reduced service contracts
• Explored opportunities in DPWES to loan staff
• Transferred 16 positions to other business areas
• Reduced Exempt Limited Term positions from 17 to
  4
• Assigned 4 positions to Strike Force Team (in
  addition to 5 positions specifically assigned to
  the Strike Force in FY 2009)
• Holding 35 merit positions vacant
• Reviewing all vacant positions and continuing to
  manage positions through attrition and evaluating
  re-assignments

7

• 2010 Proposed Fee Increases

8
Approach for Adjusting Fees

• First.
• Categorized LDS activities as either private
  good or public good as defined by ICMA
• Private Good
• Services with identifiable customers
• Solely benefits a specific customer such as plan
  review, bonding, permits and inspections
• Public Good
• Services that benefit the community as a whole
  such as enforcement of the grass ordinance,
  illegal land disturbing activities,
  administration of the ES program, and developer
  bond default

9
Approach for Adjusting Fees

• Then.
• Looked at multiple site plan types reviewed and
  approved in FY 2007
• Determined validity of time recorded
• Compared todays cost using hourly rate and time
  expended against actual fee charged to determine
  if cost of service was covered by fee
• Findings. Cost of providing services ranges from
  breaking even to losing as much as 200.

10
Approach for Adjusting Fees

• Reviewed Commercial and Residential building
  plan review, permit and inspections activities
• Compared todays cost using hourly rate and time
  expended against actual fee charged to determine
  if cost of service was covered by fee
• Findings. greater disparity exists between
  actual costs associated with residential plan
  review and inspections than commercial plan
  review and inspections

11
Recommendations
Category Proposed Percent Increase
Waivers and Inserts 0
All Site Plans and Inspection Fees 39
Infill Lot 100
All Commercial and Residential Alteration Permit Fees 27
New Residential Permit Fees 50
Note General inflation is expected to grow 22
from 2004 the time of the last fee increase to
2009 the anticipated effective date of the
current fee proposal.  This 22 masks the recent
increase in fuel costs which have increased much
more over the same period.
12
Site Review Fee Comparisons (current fees)
Non-Residential Projects Fairfax (current) Fairfax (proposed) Arlington Prince William Loudoun Montgomery
Church 6,190 8,604 1,400 8402.35 Bond Amt 5,294 4,020
Office lt 50,000 Sq, Ft. 15,610 21,698 6,240 25,585 5,313 18,532
Telecommunication Facility 13,250 18,418 1,400 31,864 5,427 50,230
Drive Thru Pharmacy 9,780 13,594 4,206 8,205 4,943 6,680
Source Fairfax County 2008 jurisdictional
survey. LDS calculated fee based on
jurisdictions fee schedule.
13
Site Review Fee Comparisons (current fees)
Residential Projects Fairfax (current) Fairfax (proposed) Arlington Prince William Loudoun Montgomery
S.F. Attached, (192 lots, 8.53 acres) 19,546 27,168 37,991 53,880 2,575 (.0075 x Bond Amt) 36,180
S.F. Attached Detached, (49/63 lots, 30.56 acres) 41,055 57,066 Unavailable 40,208 22,980
S.F. Detached (35 lots, 8 acres) 12,290 17,083 7,026 14,994 15,735
S.F. Detached (7 lots, 2.1 acres) 6,750 9,382 6,176 2,574 4,055
S.F. Detached (40 lots, 69.17 acres) 12,500 17,375 22,756 14,580 16,100
Source Fairfax 2008 jurisdictional survey. LDS
calculated fee based on jurisdictions schedule
14
Building Fee Comparisons (current fees)
Building Type Fairfax Fairfax Proposed Arlington Alexandria Loudoun Prince William Montgomery (Enterprise)
100,000 SF New Office 13,000 (assumes type I const) 17,000 90,400 88,200 77,700 17,000 236,220
200,000 SF New Condo 26,000 (assumes type I const) 34,000 180,700 151,200 141,000 34,000 236,220
50,000 SF Office Alt. 56,250 (assumes 45/sf) 56,250 32,300 7,500 22,500 15,180 58,000
3,000 Sq. Ft., SFD 295 (assumes ANSI Std home) 445 1,940 1,692 1,267 270 2,115
800 Sq. Ft., SFD Alteration 1.5 est. Cost 1.5 est. Cost 145 120 1 of est. cost 63 350
Source Arlington County 2007 Survey
15

• Questions and Answers