Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />MEMO R, A, N DUM' <br />DATE: March 29, 1988 <br />TO: Craig A,, Waldron, <br />FROM: Rick J'opike Lin <br />ICQV <br />SUBJECT: Z oniong, Fee Analysis <br />The foll,lolwi,ng tables provide a qu ick analysis of zoning related <br />fieles , Table 1, "is an, attempt to analyze the. results of a plann ing <br />fee, survey con,iducitied by the c ii of Coon RaDids in February of <br />19880 .38 clommunit" <br />ed <br />ies, riiesponidi to the survey. <br />it is difficult tio draw conclusions about fees because <br />communities structure their filees diffierentlyi., I have taken an <br />d I (ji <br />extremely conservative view in Tablie I to attempt to compute <br />avieragle es In moist cases actual fees collected would • <br />h ig,heir Evein with this conservative approacht Roseville's fees <br />ar'le below average, <br />Table 2 siholwsi two alternative fee schedules and what revenue <br />would be, generated, assuming that the number and type of <br />appliLcations would be similar to those 'Ion 1987 (except as noted). <br />Finally, there are fees, which we, don't have whiri we could start <br />charging which could generate additional revenue (i.e. comp plan <br />amendment,, shoreline,,,, and PUD) Table 2 also shows what revenue <br />ru-ilght, be, generated if we added these, fees. <br />