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 2 nd 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 E&S program, and developer bond default

9. Then…. Looked at multiple site plan types reviewed and approved in FY 2007 Determined validity of time recorded Compared today’s 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%. Approach for Adjusting Fees

10. Reviewed Commercial and Residential building plan review, permit and inspections activities Compared today’s 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 Approach for Adjusting Fees

11. Recommendations: CategoryProposed Percent Increase Waivers and Inserts0% All Site Plans and Inspection Fees 39% Infill Lot100% All Commercial and Residential Alteration Permit Fees 27% New Residential Permit Fees50% 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) ArlingtonPrince William Loudoun*Montgomery Church$6,190$8,604$1,400$840+2. 35% Bond Amt $5,294$4,020 Office < 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 jurisdiction’s fee schedule.

13. Site Review Fee Comparisons (current fees) Residential Projects Fairfax (current) Fairfax (proposed) ArlingtonPrince 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$57,066Unavailable$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 jurisdiction’s schedule

14. Building Fee Comparisons (current fees) Building Type Fairfax Proposed ArlingtonAlexandriaLoudounPrince 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$1201% of est. cost $63$350 Source: Arlington County 2007 Survey

15. Questions and Answers