HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - City Fees Internal Audit - 3/24/2023
This report is intended for the internal use of the City of Glendale, and may not be provided to, used, or relied upon by any
third parties.
Proprietary & Confidential
FINAL REPORT
City of Glendale
CITY FEES INTERNAL AUDIT
March 24, 2023
Moss Adams LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 302-6500
City Fees Internal Audit
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
A. Objectives 1
B. Conclusions 1
Introduction 4
A. Introduction 4
B. Background 4
C. Methodology 4
D. Commendations 5
Findings and Recommendations 6
Appendix A: Policy Recommendations 23
Appendix B: Fee Cost Comparisons – Full Information 25
Appendix C: Fee Rate Comparisons – Summary 30
Appendix D: Building Permit Fees Peer Comparison 34
City Fees Internal Audit | 1
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Moss Adams LLP (Moss Adams) assessed the state of the City of Glendale’s (the City) fees,
including the extent to which the City’s fees aligned with similar peer fees in regard to pricing and
design. In addition, we assessed the extent to which City fee policies and practices align with best
practices. Due to the nature, scope, and objectives of this engagement, Moss Adams is not
presenting findings in the format that directly identifies the cause, criteria, condition, and effect for
every finding. While each element of a finding is incorporated, we did this to produce a more naturally
flowing narrative for the readers of this report. We also chose this format given the project’s emphasis
on peer comparisons and the applicability of those peer comparisons to multiple findings.
To conduct this assessment, we interviewed staff and reviewed documented policies, procedures, fee
schedules, other resources provided, and best practices established by industry groups such as the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). We also inventoried City fees and compared them
to the cities of Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale, comparing the number of fees by type
as well as the cost of key fees. The costs of fees were compared for a selection of 28 fees that were
frequently used, associated with a high level of revenue, and spread across the different fee
categories.
This engagement was performed in accordance with Standards for Consulting Services established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Accordingly, we provide no opinion,
attestation, or other form of assurance with respect to our work or the information upon which our
work is based. This engagement was also performed consistent with the guidance issued by the
Institute of Internal Auditor’s International Professional Practices Framework. This report was
developed based on information gained from our interviews and analyses of sample documentation.
The procedures we performed do not constitute an examination in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards or attestation standards.
The audit scope included City fees relating to building/safety/fire inspections, permitting, business
licensing, and penalty/late fees from 2020 to 2022. The objectives for this engagement were to:
• Assess the extent to which City fees align with similar peer fees, specifically in regard to fee
pricing and design
• Assess the extent to which City fee policies and practices align with best practices
Findings and recommendations are summarized below. Detailed findings and recommendations are
provided in Section III of this report.
City Fees Internal Audit | 2
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Fee Complexity and Interpretation Challenges
1.
Findings
The City has notably more fee types than its peers, particularly in regard to
building safety and fire department fees. Despite this higher number of fees, a
small percentage of fee types make up the vast majority of fees used and total
revenues from fees.
City fee complexity contributes to confusion by frontline staff responsible for
interpreting fees, increasing the risk that fees are applied inconsistently.
The City does not have formal priorities indicating that ease of interpretation
should influence fee design, but the City has recognized this complexity and
started to take action to address it.
Recommendations
1. The City should develop and adopt formal policies and procedures dictating
factors to be considered when establishing fees. These policies should
address how ease of fee collection and interpretation will be considered
when designing fees.
2. The City should formally update the design of fees to ensure that fees can
be consistently interpreted by City staff and the public.
3. The City should develop and adopt formal policies, procedures, and
guidance documents detailing how fees should be interpreted and applied.
These policies should designate the criteria to be used in decision-making
and where any exceptions (if applicable) may be made.
4. The City should develop and implement training for staff responsible for fee
interpretation. The training should address how fees should be interpreted,
the rationale for user charging, and the operation of the charge system.
Fee Costs
2.
Findings
The City’s fee rates generally align with comparable peer rates. However,
deviations can be found on a fee-by-fee basis, and many fees across
jurisdictions are not equivalent.
The City has not conducted a fee study since 2012 and currently lacks data on
the extent to which fees align with actual costs.
The City does not have a comprehensive policy framework for pricing fees.
The City has not consistently implemented its policy for interim fee adjustments,
further hindering cost alignment with fees.
Recommendations
5. The City should establish policies that identify factors considered when
pricing fees, establishing cost recovery goals for fees, and defining the
circumstances in which the City would subsidize a fee.
6. The City should establish policies that dictate how frequently fees will be
reviewed for comprehensive updates.
7. The City should establish the policies, procedures, and internal controls
necessary to create a consistently implemented methodology for interim
fee pricing changes between comprehensive updates.
8. The City should conduct a fee study that identifies the full costs of providing
key services and utilizes long-term forecasting to determine rates.
City Fees Internal Audit | 3
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Framework for Assessing Fee Efficacy
3.
Findings It is unclear whether fees align with organizational goals because the City does
not have a framework for evaluating and monitoring the performance of fees.
Recommendations
9. The City should develop and document formal goals for City fees. If
multiple goals are identified, the City should articulate how competing goals
should be prioritized.
10. The City should develop and implement a performance monitoring
framework for fees to ensure ongoing alignment with the City’s fee goals.
Performance measures should be communicated internally and externally.
Fees and the Public
4.
Findings
The City does not have a formalized process for providing information and
feedback opportunities to citizens and stakeholders prior to fee adoption. The
City also does not provide public information on fee subsidization.
Recommendations
11. The City should develop and adopt a formal framework for informing the
public and soliciting input on fees.
12. After the City reassesses its fees through a comprehensive fee study, it
should utilize this new cost data to create publicly available information on
the amount of subsidy involved in each fee.
City Fees Internal Audit | 4
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
INTRODUCTION
Moss Adams was contracted by the City to perform an internal audit of the Citywide fee-setting
process. This audit was focused on design and interpretation of fees, the alignment of City fees with
peers, and the alignment of City fee-setting practices with industry standards. This internal audit was
performed as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Annual Audit Plan developed by the City’s
Independent Internal Audit Program. Moss Adams conducted this engagement between November
2022 and February 2023.
Fees for services are an integral part of operations across a number of City departments, including
Building Safety, Engineering, Planning, Transportation, and Water Services. Through fees, these
departments recover some of the costs of services provided to residents, developers, and other
stakeholders. Fees are currently processed and recorded through the City’s Hansen system, though
the City is hoping to obtain a replacement system in the near future, as Hansen is no longer
supported. The last comprehensive analysis of City fees took place in 2012. Since then, fees have
been iteratively modified to reflect increasing costs, but have not been assessed in detail to determine
cost recovery or effectiveness.
The City engaged Moss Adams to perform a review of City fees relating to building inspections,
permitting, business licensing, and penalty/late fees. The review excludes development impact fees
and rates for special services (such as landfill, water/sewer, bulk trash, courts, civic center, rentals,
cemetery, etc.). This review was designed to assess the City’s fee-setting and adjustment processes
as well as to benchmark the existing fee schedule with peer municipalities to identify potential
opportunities for simplification or other adjustments.
In order to obtain an understanding of City fees, we conducted focus groups with City personnel,
analyzed City documents and data pertaining to fees, compared City fee activities to best practices,
and compared the City’s fees to peer cities. We performed the following detailed analyses:
• Fee Usage Analysis: We requested data from the City’s Hansen fee system, detailing (1) the
number of times each fee has been used and (2) the total revenue generated from these fees.
From this, we were able to determine the most commonly used fees and which fees generated
the most revenue.
• Best Practices Analysis: We assembled best practices on government fees from the GFOA, the
U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development. We then analyzed City fee practices from our document review, data analysis, and
focus groups, determining the extent to which City practices align with these best practices.
• Peer Comparison, Complexity Analysis: We obtained fee schedules from five peer cities
(Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale) and compared them to the City’s fees. We
analyzed the relative complexity of these fee schedules, focusing on the following aspects:
○ Each city’s total number of fees
City Fees Internal Audit | 5
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
○ Each city’s number of fees per department (e.g., building safety and fire department)
○ Each city’s number of fees in departmental sub-categories (e.g., building safety plan review
and fire department permits)
• Peer Comparison, Cost Analysis: We selected 28 commonly used City fees across all
departments and compared the structure and cost of these fees to those of peer cities. Where the
structure of peer fees aligned with those of the City, we analyzed the differences in cost between
the City and peers.
The purpose of this section is to highlight the hard work and continued efforts of City staff in
promoting high-quality fee-related activities throughout the organization. Throughout our engagement
with the City, staff were responsive to communications, eager to help, and forthcoming with
information. These actions illustrate an important, shared commitment to the continuous improvement
of City performance. This organizational strength will be invaluable when implementing the
recommendations contained in this report.
City Fees Internal Audit | 6
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information gathered from interviews and documents reviewed, as well as comparisons
to best practices, we prepared a comprehensive set of findings and recommendations, detailed
below. Our aim is to provide the City with actionable information on opportunities for improvement.
Our recommendations are intended to impact the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the City’s
fee-setting practices.
1. Findings The City has notably more fee types than its peers, particularly in regard
to building safety and fire department fees. Despite this higher number
of fees, a small percentage of fee types make up the vast majority of
fees used and total revenues from fees.
City fee complexity contributes to confusion by frontline staff
responsible for interpreting fees, increasing the risk that fees are
applied inconsistently.
The City does not have formal priorities indicating that ease of
interpretation should influence fee design, but the City has recognized
this complexity and started to take action to address it.
Recommendations 1. The City should develop and adopt formal policies and procedures
dictating factors to be considered when designing fees. These
policies should address how ease of fee collection and
interpretation will be considered when designing fees.
2. The City should formally update the design of fees to ensure that
fees can be consistently interpreted by City staff and the public.
3. The City should develop and adopt formal policies, procedures, and
guidance documents detailing how fees should be interpreted and
applied. These policies should designate the criteria to be used in
decision-making and where any exceptions (if applicable) may be
made.
4. The City should develop and implement training for staff
responsible for fee interpretation. The training should address how
fees should be interpreted, the rationale for user charging, and the
operation of the charge system.
The City has notably more fee types than its peers, particularly in regard to building safety
and fire department fees. The City has 539 fees in the City Fee Schedule, 28% higher than the peer
average of comparable fees of 421, and 42% higher if the City of Phoenix (which has 736 comparable
fees) is excluded from the peer comparisons. The City’s Building Official developed a simplified fee
schedule in coordination with departments, which if implemented would reduce the number of fees
from 539 to 338. This is included in the exhibit below for comparisons (See Exhibit A).
City Fees Internal Audit | 7
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Part of the difference between the City and its peers can be explained by the larger number of
building safety fees that the City has compared to its peers; the City has 225 fees of this type
compared to the peer city average of 108. In particular, the City has a much higher number of building
permit fee types than its peers (159 vs. 29). The City has notably more fire department-driven fees
than its peers as well, with the exception of the City of Phoenix. While the City has only slightly more
fire-specific fees than the peer average (138 vs.104), it has significantly more than the median
number of fees (42).
Exhibit A: Peer City Fee Count Comparisons
City Total Fees Building Safety Engineering Planning Transportation Fire Utility Services
Glendale
(Current)
539 226 55 61 27 138 32
Glendale
(Simplified)
338 105 32 61 16 92 32
Mesa 350 127 54 114 19 25 11
Peoria 212 25 100 54 23 10 N/A
Phoenix 736 157 67 160 8 344 N/A
Tempe 398 36 133 52 16 97 64
Scottsdale 408 195 62 72 N/A 42 37
Peer
Average
421 108 83 90 17 104 38
Peer Median 397 127 67 72 18 42 37
Despite this higher number of fees, a small percentage of fee types make up the vast majority
of fees used and total revenues from fees. Among the fees reviewed in this audit, the top 1% of
fees (a total of three fee types) made up 59% of total fee revenues from 2020 to 2022, and the top
10% of fees (a total of 48 fee types) made up 84% of total revenues of fees from 2020 to 2022.
Some fees are rarely used, with a relatively small number of fees being used often, and some
scarcely being used at all. Only 279 fees were used more than once between 2020 and 2022. This
means that of the 539 fees in the fee schedule, 48% were used either once or not at all, and 55%
were used five times or fewer in the last three years. These rarely used fees had a limited impact on
City revenues as well. Fees that were used five times or fewer (55% of fees) accounted for only 0.4%
of total fee revenue from 2020 to 2022.
City fee complexity contributes to confusion by frontline staff responsible for interpreting
fees, increasing the risk that fees are applied inconsistently. Staff indicated that fees can often
be ambiguous and overly complex, and that different fees from the fee schedule may be applied for
the same circumstances. Staff indicated that they attempt to apply fees in accordance with the fee
schedule but do not always follow the schedule strictly when the fee seems out of alignment with
City Fees Internal Audit | 8
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
reasonable costs, when the submitter raises complaints, or when the fee schedule is too ambiguous
to arrive at a clearly consistent interpretation. This inconsistent interpretation has the potential to
result in inequitable treatment of residents and businesses. It also may contribute to unnecessary fee
refunds, costing staff time and effort to process. With fee complexity impeding staff interpretations of
fees, it is likely also impacting the transparency of fees to the community.
In addition to a complex fee structure, challenges with fee interpretation may be driven by a
lack of clear staff guidance. The City does not have formal training, polices, procedures, or
guidance documents to help inform staff on how to interpret fees appropriately. Instead, staff indicate
that they rely on team conversations and institutional knowledge to understand which fees to apply
and resolve potential fee-related issues. Training can be used to help resolve ambiguities, support
consistent application of fees for similar projects, and answer key questions, such as whether the fee
schedule should be followed strictly and if, and when, staff discretion is allowable.
The City does not have formal priorities indicating that ease of interpretation should influence
fee design, but the City has recognized the complexity of their fee structure and started to
take action to address it. City staff indicated they have informal goals for fees to achieve cost
recovery and competitiveness, but the City does not have formal policies or procedures that inform
the design of fees. As noted above, the City’s Building Official developed a simplified fee schedule in
coordination with departments, which if approved by City Council and implemented, would reduce the
proposed number of fees from 539 to 338. Staff indicated that the current permitting software could
not be reprogrammed to reflect this simplified fee schedule; however, they are in the RFP process to
implement a new system along with a refined fee schedule.
The City should implement a series of policies, processes, and design reforms to create a fee
structure that is streamlined enough to be user-friendly and consistently interpreted by trained staff,
while remaining comprehensive enough to reflect the complexities of City activities and the cost
recovery needs of these activities. Each of the four following recommendations, targeted at different
aspects of City fees, will help to resolve the organizational difficulties associated with fee complexity.
Recommendation 1: Policies and Procedures – Factors for Fee Establishment
The City should develop and adopt formal policies and procedures dictating factors to be
considered when establishing fees. These policies should address how ease of fee collection
and interpretation will be considered when designing fees.
To establish fees that align with goals, the City must first develop goals and priorities for fees. The
City should develop and adopt formal policies and procedures delineating factors to be considered
when establishing and designing fees. These policies should address how the City will consider ease
of fee collection and interpretation when designing fees. Other factors that the City could consider
include goals relating to cost recovery, competitiveness with peer cities, how equitable fee impacts
are, reasonableness of fees relative to proposed project costs, or other goals that align with City
priorities. Industry standards recommend that organizations adopt formal policies regarding charges
and fees, and that these policies consider the specifics of how fees and charges will be levied.1
1 Government Finance Officers Association, (2014). GFOA Best Practices: Establishing Government Charges and Fees.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
City Fees Internal Audit | 9
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
By incorporating these considerations into a formal policy, the City can help ensure that fee
complexity and ease of interpretability is considered when fees are designed. This will in turn lead to
a more streamlined fee structure. Importantly, formalizing this knowledge within policy ensures that
the goals for fees are preserved as an organizational priority, instead of remaining informal
institutional knowledge that can change with staff turnover. A consolidated list of policy
recommendations and there purposes can be found in appendix A for easy reference.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Most of the 12 recommendations consider fees from establishing fees, what fees
are based on, subsidies, ease of use, interpretation, reporting, metrics and similar
factors. The next step will likely be a workshop with City Council to explain the
current state of the fees, and issues with interpreting fees. The conclusion of the
workshop would be for direction on staff recommendations and guidance.
Recommendation 2: Fee Design Update
The City should formally update the design of fees to ensure that fees can be consistently
interpreted by City staff and the public.
After designing policies establishing fee priorities, the City should update the design of City fees in
alignment with those priorities to ensure that fees can be consistently interpreted by City staff and the
public. The City should balance the complexity that is necessary to capture City activities and cost
recovery with the simplicity necessary for fees to be user-friendly and consistently interpretable. The
City’s initial efforts to simplify fees represent a positive step in the right direction towards this end.
Because improved usability of City fees is a goal of this redesign, input from staff and public
stakeholders should be utilized in the redesign process (see the Fees and the Public section).
City Fees Internal Audit | 10
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Previous studies and fee updates have suggested simplification of the fee
schedule. More recently staff and public stakeholders have reviewed and
redesigned the fee schedule at the request of City Council (three Council
Members participated), which lead to a much shorter schedule. This
recommendation was deferred until a new software system was adopted.
The RFP process has just begun, so this is the appropriate time to revisit this
with Council.
Recommendation 3: Policies and Procedures – Fee Interpretation and
Application
The City should develop and adopt formal policies, procedures, and guidance documents
detailing how fees should be interpreted and applied. These policies should designate the
criteria to be used in decision-making and where any exceptions (if applicable) may be made.
The City should also create formal tools to help ensure consistent interpretation and application of
fees. For example, the City should develop and adopt documented policies, procedures, and
guidance detailing how fees should be interpreted and applied. These guidelines should designate
the criteria to be used in decision-making and where any exceptions (if applicable) may be made.
Exceptions could include instances where fees as designed do not align with the scale of the project,
or wherein the project does not neatly fall into established fee categories
This enhanced guidance can reduce inconsistency by creating uniform interpretation and application
methodologies for staff. Inconsistency occurs when staff interpret (or would interpret) the same
situation in two different ways. Formal guidance creates a shared set of principles for interpreting
ambiguity, reducing the likelihood of interpreting an ambiguous situation in different ways and
applying different fees.
City Fees Internal Audit | 11
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree, the majority of projects fit the in the predefined fee structure, but how to
handle the few that do not is difficult.
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan This policy would be part of the larger Fee Workshop with City Council. Staff
would seek direction on staff recommendations and guidance.
Recommendation 4: Staff Training
The City should develop and implement training for staff responsible for fee interpretation.
The training should address how fees should be interpreted, the rationale for user charging,
and the operation of the charge system.
Finally, the City should develop and implement training for staff responsible for fee interpretation,
ensuring that frontline staff can effectively and consistently apply the revised fee schedule. The
training should address how fees should be interpreted, the rationale for user charging, and the
operation of the charge system.
Frontline staff are the ones who ultimately produce the tangible benefits created by the above three
structural improvements to fee complexity. Investing in this professional development increases the
ability of staff to successfully implement these efforts to streamline fees and increase consistency.
Additionally, industry standards recommend training staff on the rationale for user charging and the
operation of the charging system, helping staff to have a broader understanding of how their
responsibilities relate to larger City operations and strategy.2
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Permitting Supervisor
Target Completion
Date April 1, 2023
Action Plan The Monday morning weekly meeting for permitting and processing staff
members has restarted after a short hiatus to address submittal, fee, and permit
process training.
2 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
City Fees Internal Audit | 12
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
2. Findings The City’s fee rates generally align with comparable peer rates.
However, deviations can be found on a fee-by-fee basis, and many fees
across jurisdictions are not equivalent.
The City has not conducted a fee study since 2012 and currently lacks
data on the extent to which fees align with actual costs.
The City does not have a comprehensive policy framework for pricing
fees.
The City has not consistently implemented its policy for interim fee
adjustments, further hindering cost alignment with fees.
Recommendations 5. The City should establish policies that identify factors considered
when pricing fees, establishing cost recovery goals for fees, and
defining the circumstances in which the City would subsidize a fee.
6. The City should establish policies that dictate how frequently fees
will be reviewed for comprehensive updates.
7. The City should establish the policies, procedures, and internal
controls necessary to create a consistently implemented
methodology for interim fee pricing changes between
comprehensive updates.
8. The City should conduct a fee study that identifies the full costs of
providing key services and utilizes long-term forecasting to
determine rates.
Among the 28 fees reviewed in this audit, the City’s fee rates generally align with comparable
peer rates; however, deviations can be found on a fee-by-fee basis, and many fees across
jurisdictions are not equivalent (see Appendix B through Appendix D). Building permit fees, the
fees associated with the highest fee revenue from 2020–2022, are very similar to peers. The only
significant deviations from building permit peer averages are lower City fees for projects valued below
$10,000, as well 5% to 10% lower City fees for building valuations between $350,000 and $3,500,000
(see Appendix D).
In contrast, the City’s Water Meter fees are notably lower than peer cities. With the exception of eight-
inch meters, these City fees range from 22% to 75% of comparable peer fee averages (see
Exhibit B).
Exhibit B: Water Meter Fee Comparisons
Meter Size Glendale Peer Average Peer Average – Glendale Glendale % of Peer Average
5/8 inch N/A $680 NA NA
3/4 inch $127 $700 ($457) 22%
City Fees Internal Audit | 13
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Meter Size Glendale Peer Average Peer Average –
Glendale
Glendale % of
Peer Average
1 inch $222 $794 ($451) 33%
1.5 inch $507 $1,051 ($612) 45%
2 inch $634 $1,203 ($689) 48%
3 inch $1,901 $3,625 ($4,036) 32%
4 inch $2,789 $4,527 ($3,600) 44%
6 inch $5,070 $5,331 ($1,720) 75%
8 inch $9,686 N/A $1,436 117%
More differences on a fee-by-fee basis are provided in Appendix B, C, and D, which demonstrate how
28 City fees compare to peers. It is important to note that there were many fees in each jurisdiction
that were not comparable.
The City has not conducted a fee study since 2012 and currently lacks data on the extent to
which fees align with actual costs. The 2012 study, which serves as the basis for current fees, was
conducted with two objectives: recovering full costs and aligning fees with peers. Given that the study
was over 10 years ago; organizational and service changes have likely rendered its cost calculations
obsolete. The study did not include any long-term forecasting when determining rates, instead
calculating full costs based on the current costs of delivering service during the assessed year.
The City does not maintain cost data that would allow it to determine the extent to which fee revenues
align with actual costs. While City policy mandates adjustments to costs annually using the
International Code Council Building Valuation Schedule (ICCBVS) and the Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), City staff responsible for applying fees report that fees regularly
appear out of alignment with actual costs.
The City does not have a policy that dictates when comprehensive fee studies should be performed
or what factors should be considered when pricing fees. Without such policies in place, there is not a
clear impetus for the City to complete these comprehensive updates to ensure that fees achieve cost
recovery goals, nor is there appropriate guidance for how fees should be priced after such updates
are performed.
The City has not implemented its existing policy for adjusting fees consistently, further
hindering cost alignment with fees. City code states that the Community Development Fee
Schedule and building permit fees “shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council on an annual
basis,” but the Council has not reviewed these fees since 2019. Additionally, the City code states that
Community Development Fee Schedule “shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the CPI-U
(Consumer Price Index Urban Consumers) inflationary index.” While this language does not explicitly
state the fee must be increased directly according to the CPI-U, the CPI-U has not been used
consistently to update fees, especially during the pandemic as was common among municipalities.
City Fees Internal Audit | 14
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Not all fees have been updated uniformly using the CPI-U, and the specific CPI-U figures used to
update fees have not always been annual inflation metrics.3
Industry standards recommend establishing clear frameworks for fee-setting through
comprehensive policies and procedures.4 These best practices indicate that policies should define
cost recovery goals and identify factors to be considered when pricing fees.5 Industry standards also
recommend that cities review and update charges periodically based on factors that affect costs and
use long-term forecasting to help ensure that fees anticipate future costs in providing services.6
Recommendation 5: Policies and Procedures – Pricing Fees
The City should establish policies that identify factors considered when pricing fees,
establishing cost recovery goals for fees, and defining the circumstances in which the City
would subsidize a fee.
The City should develop and adopt formal policies and procedures identifying the factors considered
when pricing fees. These pricing policies should align with the policies around establishing and
designing fees (see Finding 1, Recommendation 1) and should reflect the goals of City fees (see
Finding 1, Recommendation 3). These pricing policies should establish cost recovery goals for fees,
explaining the circumstances that influence whether a fee is set at or below 100% of full cost, such as
comparability with peer cities. Defining the factors that influence fee pricing is the first step to
ensuring fees support City goals and recover adequate costs.
3 Because City policy dictates annual adjustments, an annual inflation metric must be used to update fees. To accurately reflect
inflation, this annual metric must be from the same month each year, otherwise inflation from some months is double-counted
and inflation from other months is not counted at all.
4 Government Finance Officers Association, (2014). GFOA Best Practices: Establishing Government Charges and Fees.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
5 Government Finance Officers Association, (2014). GFOA Best Practices: Establishing Government Charges and Fees.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
6 Government Finance Officers Association, (2014). GFOA Best Practices: Establishing Government Charges and Fees.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, (2008). Federal User Fees: A Design Guide. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
Government Finance Officers Association, (2021). GFOA Best Practices: Measuring the Full Cost of Government Service.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
Government Finance Officers Association, (2022). GFOA Best Practices: Long-Term Financial Planning. Chicago, IL: GFOA.
City Fees Internal Audit | 15
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan As stated in recommendation 5, this would be part of the discussion at the City
Council Workshop on Fees. Depending on which factor is weighed the heaviest,
between cost recovery (depending on what is included in cost recovery),
competitor city rates, and other factors, the range of possible rates could be
extreme.
Recommendation 6: Policies and Procedures – Comprehensive Updates
The City should establish policies that dictate how frequently fees will be reviewed for
comprehensive updates.
The City should develop and adopt formal policies and procedures that dictate how frequently fees
will be reassessed through comprehensive fee studies. The City should weigh the costs and benefits
of these fee studies when determining this cadence. More frequent comprehensive updates ensure
that fee prices align with the City’s cost recovery goals, but these studies bear a cost to perform. Less
frequent comprehensive updates risk fees becoming increasingly detached from actual costs but may
cost less than a more frequent cadence of updates. Cities often complete comprehensive fee studies
every five years, or when a significant change has occurred.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Workshop with City Council. A full study is planned (if budget is approved) for
FY23-24, and its results be used to highlight the need for more frequent studies.
Recommendation 7: Policies, Procedures, and Controls: Interim Pricing
Updates
The City should establish the policies, procedures, and internal controls necessary to create a
consistently implemented methodology for interim fee pricing changes between
comprehensive updates.
Currently, City code mandates annual review and interim updates using CPI-U and ICC Building
Valuation Data. The City should determine if these methodologies for interim adjustments are
City Fees Internal Audit | 16
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
adequate, and if not, the City should revise its policies to formalize the basis for fee updates between
comprehensive fee studies.
Once these policies are in place, the City should create the necessary procedures and controls to
ensure that these interim updates are consistently implemented. If CPI-U or other inflation measures
are used for these updates, these procedures should describe precisely how and when inflation is
calculated. If there are circumstances wherein it would be beneficial to not perform these updates for
certain fees at certain times, these circumstances should be detailed within these procedures.
Internal controls should ensure that these policies and procedures are implemented regularly.
Formalizing the interim pricing update process ensures that these updates are performed
methodically and purposefully. These updates should be regular and systematic.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement Agree on creating policy for review and update of fees between comprehensive
studies.
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion
Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Workshop with Council. Use current policy to annually provide a review of fees
relative to CPIU and ICCBVS, Council will make determination if interim increase
is needed and the magnitude of the increase. Larger periodic studies and/or
updates will need to be based on cost recovery rate, competitive city rates, and
similar, as noted in previous recommendation.
Recommendation 8: Fee Study
The City should conduct a fee study that identifies the full costs of providing key services and
utilizes long-term forecasting to determine rates.
Once the City has established the above policies and procedures for updating fees, it should conduct
a comprehensive fee study to determine the full costs of providing key services and potentially apply
a simplified fee structure. This fee study should use both current and 5-year forecasted costs to
calculate the anticipated full costs of service, increasing the likelihood that fees recover appropriate
funds over time.
This fee study will provide the City with important data on the costs of providing key services, which
can then be used by City staff, guided by its pricing policies, to design and price fees appropriately.
By adjusting fees, departments will be better able to recover costs and remain financially sustainable.
Staff and council can then provide regular updates to these new fees in accordance with the City’s
interim fee pricing policy.
City Fees Internal Audit | 17
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Budget was requested to complete a cost of services study in FY23-24
3. Findings It is unclear whether fees align with organizational goals because the
City does not have a framework for evaluating and monitoring the
performance of fees.
Recommendations 9. The City should develop and document formal goals for City fees. If
multiple goals are identified, the City should articulate how
competing goals should be prioritized.
10. The City should develop and implement a performance monitoring
framework for fees to ensure ongoing alignment with the City’s fee
goals. Performance measures should be communicated internally
and externally.
The City does not have a framework for assessing the efficacy of fees, making it unclear
whether fees align with organizational goals. Industry best practices recommend adopting
processes for assessing the extent to which fees achieve strategic goals.7 Without a framework that
defines the objectives of fees and measures the performance of fees in achieving these objectives, it
is unclear whether the fees, as currently designed, support City goals.
Lacking a performance monitoring framework can result in major challenges in the following domains:
• Informed Decision-Making: Without clear goals and evaluative criteria, the City cannot
objectively determine how effectively City fees are functioning. Without this information, decisions
are based on subjective measures and anecdotal evidence. This makes it difficult for department
and City leaders to ensure a coherent, comprehensive, and consistent understanding of fee
performance over time.
• Accountability and Organizational Learning: Without clear performance monitoring structures
and processes, the City is missing key tools it can use to cultivate accountability or identify areas
for organizational learning and improvement.
7 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
Government Finance Officers Association, (2018). GFOA Best Practices: Performance Measures. Chicago, IL: GFOA.
City Fees Internal Audit | 18
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
• External and Internal Communication: Data can help the City better tell its story to residents,
staff, and City leaders. Without clear goals and measures, the City cannot objectively
communicate the effectiveness of City fees as currently designed.
Although there are currently no explicit goals for fees established in City policy, there are
three potential goals that have been informally expressed. Internal memos and the City’s 2006
fee study detail aspirations to have fees align with peers. Staff indicated in interviews that cost
recovery and competitiveness are priorities for the design of fees. A goal of sufficient cost recovery
can also be inferred from the City code that mandates annual adjustments to the fee schedule in
accordance with the CPI-U and the ICCBVS. Additionally, staff expressed desires for a third goal:
ease of interpretation.
Recommendation 9: Defining Goals
The City should develop and document formal goals for City fees. If multiple goals are
identified, the City should articulate how competing goals should be prioritized.
The City should establish clear goals for fees, including goals relating to cost recovery,
competitiveness, and ease of interpretation as applicable. These goals should be formally established
in policy. If multiple goals are identified that may be in conflict, this policy should articulate how these
competing goals should be prioritized so that the City consistently balances these goals relative to
each other.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion
Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan This is similar to Goal 5, and would be part of the Council Workshop on Fees.
City Fees Internal Audit | 19
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Recommendation 10: Performance Monitoring
The City should develop and implement a performance monitoring framework for fees to
ensure ongoing alignment with the City’s fee goals. Performance measures should be
communicated internally and externally.
The City should develop and implement a performance monitoring framework for fees to ensure
alignment with explicit goals. Performance monitoring has two key components: (1) performance
measurement and (2) cycles of continuous quality improvement. The right performance measures will
depend on the goals selected in recommendation 9. For example, if cost recovery is a goal, a
performance measure could take the form of the percentage of fees that achieve at least 95% cost
recovery, or the percentage of total costs from fees that are recovered. Performance measures
relating to competitiveness could take the form of the percentage of key fees that exceed peer fees,
or what percentage higher or lower key fees are compared to peer cities. Lastly, a performance
measure relating to ease of fee interpretation could be the percentage of responses indicating they
are easy to interpret in a staff survey.
Performance measurement consists of processes wherein organizations develop and collect data that
can be used to assess the achievement of strategic goals. The City must decide what data it can
collect, or currently collects, that it can use to assess the extent fees are achieving their objective(s).
Per industry best practices, the City should use service user feedback as one source of performance
data.8 Using multiple sources of performance data, the City should define a set of clear performance
measures that align with fee policy goals. The City must then commit to collecting and analyzing this
data on a regular basis.
Continuous quality improvement consists of cyclical processes wherein organizations collect,
analyze, and utilize performance measurement data to strategically guide organizational
improvements. The performance of fees, as assessed through the City’s performance measures,
provides unbiased evidence for the extent to which organizational strategies for fee-setting are
successful. When the performance goals of fees are not achieved, the City should develop new
strategies to improve the pricing and/or structure of fees. The City should then utilize a new cycle of
continuous quality improvement to assess the efficacy of these new strategies.
Throughout these cycles of continuous quality improvement, the City should publish information on
the performance of City fees. Communicating performance data externally can help stakeholders and
residents better understand the services they receive and why the City may need to increase its fees
or change its fee structure. Communicating City fee performance data internally can help staff and
leaders better understand the goals of City fees and the strategies that the City uses to achieve
goals. If fees are not achieving their objectives, these internal communications can support change
management, helping staff to understand the justification for new strategies that may impact their
work. These communications should be carefully tailored for their audiences; external audiences and
internal audiences may not need the same information.
8 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
City Fees Internal Audit | 20
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Once the goals are created, metrics can be established to illustrate how closely
the actual annual collections are to the prescribed goals. Can be presented with
annual fee update to Council.
4. Findings The City does not have a formalized process for providing information
and feedback opportunities to citizens and stakeholders prior to fee
adoption. The City also does not provide public information on fee
subsidization.
Recommendations 11. The City should develop and adopt a formal framework for
informing the public and soliciting input on fees.
12. After the City reassesses its fees through a comprehensive fee
study, it should utilize this new cost data to create publicly available
information on the amount of subsidy involved in each fee.
The City does not currently have a framework for public information and feedback around
fees. The only formal requirements for public engagement are state statutory requirements that
require the adoption of fees at a public meeting, and the City acts in accordance with this statute. In
practice, however, the City has also held meetings with the Home Builders Association of Central
Arizona and other stakeholder organizations. Additionally, there are regular quarterly meetings
between engineering staff and utility providers.
The City also does not provide residents and stakeholders with information on the degree to which
certain fees are subsidized by the City. This may be due to the City lacking the necessary cost data to
determine the level of subsidy included in a given fee. However, there is no evidence that such data
was provided to stakeholders after the 2012 fee study when this cost data would have been available.
Industry standards recommend establishing a meaningful interchange of fee-related information with
the public. Multiple opportunities for resident and stakeholder feedback should be provided, especially
when new rates are introduced or existing rates are changed.9 These feedback opportunities should
9 Government Finance Officers Association, (2014). GFOA Best Practices: Establishing Government Charges and Fees.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, (2008). Federal User Fees: A Design Guide. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
City Fees Internal Audit | 21
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
be scheduled early enough to actually influence the fee-setting process, and governments should
collect feedback on the public perception of this feedback process.10 For fees in which full cost
recovery is not the goal, there should be publicly available information on the level of subsidy
provided.11
Recommendation 11: Public Communication Framework
The City should develop and adopt a framework for informing the public and soliciting input
on fees.
The City should develop and adopt a framework for informing the public and soliciting input on fees.
This framework should formalize both the necessary activities involved in fee-related outreach and
the circumstances in which this outreach should occur. This framework should align with the best
practices listed above, providing feedback opportunities early enough to be meaningful, especially
when fees are added or changed. This framework should include guidance on how to survey
stakeholders on their perceptions of the feedback process. By providing information to the public
proactively, the City can alleviate public perception risks and gather valuable information on how fees
are perceived by residents, providing clues about potential improvements.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Work with comprehensive study consultant to establish best practices for
stakeholder involvement, and present to Council.
Recommendation 12: Publicly Available Fee Information
The City should utilize new cost data to create publicly available information on the amount of
subsidy involved in each fee.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
10 Government Finance Officers Association, (2018). GFOA Best Practices: Public Engagement in the Budget Process.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
11 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1998). User Charging for Government Services: Best Practice
Guidelines and Case Studies. Danvers, MA: OECD.
City Fees Internal Audit | 22
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
After the City reassesses its fees through a comprehensive fee study (see Finding 2,
Recommendation 4), it should utilize this new cost data to create publicly available information on the
amount of subsidy involved in each fee. Typically, fee studies include the recommended fee and level
of cost recovery, so this information should be simple for the City to provide. Over time, the City may
reevaluate its strategic priorities for certain fees, changing their degree of subsidization. The City
should establish formal procedures for ensuring that, if this level of subsidization changes, the public
information on fees reflects these changes.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management
Agreement Agree
Owner Development Services, Director
Target Completion
Date June 30, 2024
Action Plan Depending on guidance from Council on cost recovery and potential subsidies,
staff can share actual collections/subsidies at the annual Council Update on Fees.
City Fees Internal Audit | 23
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
APPENDIX A: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table consolidates the policy recommendations from this engagement, along with their
purpose, for easy staff reference.
Relevant Policy Recommendation Policy Purpose
Recommendation 1 – Factors for Fee
Establishment
The City should develop and adopt formal
policies and procedures dictating factors to be
considered when establishing fees. These
policies should address how ease of fee
collection and interpretation will be considered
when designing fees.
The purpose of these policies and procedures is
to set the organizational purposes for fees. By
establishing formal policies that dictate the
factors to be considered when developing fees,
the City can ensure that fee design serves
organizational goals and can be assessed
relative to those goals. This policy emphasizes
the importance of considering the ease of fee
collection and interpretation to ensure that fees
can be easily understood by staff and the
public.
Recommendation 3 – Fee Interpretation and
Application
The City should develop and adopt formal
policies, procedures, and guidance documents
detailing how fees should be interpreted and
applied. These policies should designate the
criteria to be used in decision-making and
where any exceptions (if applicable) may be
made.
The purpose of these policies and procedures is
to assist staff in the interpretation of fees. In the
absence of clear policies and procedures staff
must rely on institutional knowledge and
organizational norms to determine the
appropriate fees to apply. By establishing clear
policies and procedures the City can help
ensure that fees are applied consistently and in
alignment with City priorities.
Recommendation 5 – Pricing Fees
The City should establish policies that identify
factors considered when pricing fees,
establishing cost recovery goals for fees, and
defining the circumstances in which the City
would subsidize a fee.
The purpose of these policies and procedures is
to establish the priorities for pricing fees.
Without such a policy, city staff may price fees
based on competing informal priorities,
preventing the City from ensuring that fee
pricing decisions consistently serve
organizational goals.
Recommendation 6 – Comprehensive
Updates
The City should establish policies that dictate
how frequently fees will be reviewed for
comprehensive updates.
The purpose of these policies and procedures is
to establish a basis for the regular review of
fees, helping to ensure that there is an impetus
for the reconsideration of fees. In the absence
of a stated rate of comprehensive updates, fees
may be maintained with minimal changes even
when they no longer align with organizational
needs.
City Fees Internal Audit | 24
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Recommendation 7 – Interim Pricing
Updates
The City should establish the policies,
procedures, and internal controls necessary to
create a consistently implemented methodology
for interim fee pricing changes between
comprehensive updates.
The purpose of these policies and procedures is
to establish a consistent process for fee
updates outside of comprehensive updates.
While comprehensive updates are occasionally
needed to reset fees, more regular minor
updates can be used to maintain fees in
alignment with increases in cost. By
establishing related policies, procedures, and
internal controls, the City can help ensure that
such fee updates occur consistently and
effectively.
City Fees Internal Audit | 25
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
APPENDIX B: FEE COST COMPARISONS – FULL INFORMATION
Appendix A and Appendix B detail the results of the cost comparison analysis. Appendix A includes the information from each peer jurisdiction, and
Appendix B summarizes the peer comparisons. In instances where fees across jurisdictions were not comparable, the relevant cell is marked “N/A.”
We selected fees from across each major category for comparisons (building safety, engineering, fire, planning, transportation, and utility service),
prioritizing those fees that were used most frequently and/or comprised the highest total dollar amounts compared to other fees from 2020 to 2022.
Fee Type Glendale Mesa Peoria Phoenix Tempe Scottsdale
Building Safety Fees
Plan Review Fees 75% of building
permit fees
Plan review included
in permit fee.
Plan review due to
changes are
assessed at $120
per staff hour.
65% of building
permit fee
$150 general hourly
rate for plan review
services.
Plan review included
in permit fee.
N/A N/A
Expedited Building
Review
3 x plan review fee
=
3 x 75% of permit
fee
Expedited premium:
100% of total permit
fee
Super-expedited
premium: 200% of
total permit fee
200% of permit fee 3 x basic plan
review fee.
N/A 2 x review fee
amount
Additional 20% if a
third review is
required.
Solar Permitting Permit: $305.66
Permit with electrical
clearance: $420.01
N/A $100 or $160,
depending on
specifics of project
Residential:
Option A: Over the
counter review:
$600 – plan review
and three
inspections
Option B: Over the
counter review $450
Single family
$374.00
$153 residential
$305 commercial
City Fees Internal Audit | 26
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Glendale Mesa Peoria Phoenix Tempe Scottsdale
– plan review and
two inspections
Option C: No plan
review – $375 –
administrative fee
and two inspections
Option D: Over the
counter review $300
– plan review and
one inspection
Option E: No plan
review: $225 –
administrative fee
and one inspection
Inspection Fee $114.35 Inspections included
in building permit
fees.
Any additional
inspections are
billed at $120 per
inspection trip.
$100/hour
$150/hour outside of
normal business
hours.
Inspections included
in building permits.
$150
Inspections are
included with all
permit fees.
$140 per Hour.
Inspections are
included with all
permit fees.
$165
Record Retention
Fee
1% of permit N/A $54 + cost billed by
county recorder
$37.50 per permit N/A Fees vary based on
specific submittal.
$40 + first set: $18
per sheet +
additional set: $5
per sheet +
standard 8.5x11
size: $17
Electric Permit,
Base Permit Fee
$29.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
City Fees Internal Audit | 27
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Glendale Mesa Peoria Phoenix Tempe Scottsdale
Electric Clearance $114.35 per request N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Electric Permit,
Miscellaneous
$23.04 EA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Plumbing, Base
Permit Fee
$59.01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Plumbing Permit,
Atmospheric Type
Vacuum Breaker
$15.58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Engineering Fees
Dry Utility, Base
Permit Fee
$221.79 EA N/A $25 + 3.5% of
project estimate
N/A N/A $205
Grading and
Drainage Permit,
Paving (on-site)
$0.51 SY N/A $25 + 3.5% of
project estimate
N/A N/A Asphaltic concrete:
$0.83/SY
Overlay or top
course of
multicourse paving:
$0.29/SY
Engineering First
Plan Review
$358.88 per sheet Engineering plan
review is included in
development
services (i.e.,
building safety,
planning) plan
review
$360/plan sheet $180/sheet for small
plan review
$405–$540/sheet for
other plan reviews,
depending on
specifics of project
General $150/hour
rate for plan review
services not listed
$625.17, inclusive
per sheet/discipline
Residential – $900
per sheet
City Fees Internal Audit | 28
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Glendale Mesa Peoria Phoenix Tempe Scottsdale
Fire Fees
Plan Review
Application Fee
$47.23 N/A N/A N/A N/A $115
Minimum Plan
Review Fee
$158.63/hr N/A $100/hr No minimum. $450
minimum for most
after hours or
weekend work.
$80.45/hr $115
Fire Service Mains First 200 FT:
$339.99
Each additional 200
FT, or fraction
thereof: $237.99
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Planning Fees
Design Review –
Major
$1,751.89 +
$112.14 per acre
$1,800 $0 with a site plan
$750 without a site
plan
$750 waiver
Single-family design
review: $150 per
hour, minimum $75
N/A N/A
Landscaping
Construction
Drawings Review
$358.88 per sheet $390/sheet $160/sheet Major review: $405
per sheet
Minor review: $150
N/A N/A
Zoning
Administrative
Review
$534.77 $648 $750 No uniform fee.
Varies based on
circumstance.
$502 N/A
City Fees Internal Audit | 29
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Glendale Mesa Peoria Phoenix Tempe Scottsdale
Transportation Fees
Barricaded Lane
Restriction:
Arterial Street
$147.57 per lane,
per day, up to 1/2
mile
$75 per day N/A N/A N/A N/A
Barricaded Lane
Restrictions:
Sidewalk Closure
$88.53 per day $20 per day N/A $48 per 100 square
yard or fraction
thereof
N/A $0.23/square foot
Plan Review,
Traffic Control
$47.21 per submittal $50 per review $150 N/A N/A N/A
Traffic Engineering
Plan Review: First
Plan Review
$358.88 per sheet $50 per sheet and
review
$150 N/A N/A N/A
Utility Services Fees
Water Meter, 1 inch
to 3/4 Inch Fitting
Fee
$60.19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Utility Services
Fees, Hydrant
Install/Relocate
Fee
$1693.55 Deposit $1,295 $2,320 N/A $850 deposit
$70 Relocate
$35 Installation
$15.70 Service
Charge
3/4" Meter
$154 Service
Charge 3" Meter
N/A
City Fees Internal Audit | 30
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
APPENDIX C: FEE RATE COMPARISONS – SUMMARY
The following table summarizes peer comparisons for peer fee rates. See Appendix A for additional information.
Fee Type Fee Rate
% Relative to Peer Average (F or Peers with
Comparable Fees)
Peers with Fees Higher T han Glendale
Peers with Fees Similar to Glendale
Peers with Fees Lower T han Glendale
Peers with E quivalent P eer Fee T hat I s not
Comparable
Peers without Clear E quivalent Fee
Glendale Fees Generally Higher T han Peers
Fire Minimum Plan
Review Fee
$158.63/
hour
61% higher 0 0 3 1 1
Traffic Engineering
Plan Review: First
Plan Review
$358.88
per sheet
259% higher 0 0 2 0 3
Utility Services
Fees, Hydrant
Install/Relocate
Fee
$1693.55
deposit
14% higher 1 0 2 0 2
Glendale Fees Generally Lower T han Peers
Building Safety
Inspection Fee
$114.35 15% lower 3 1 1 0 0
Engineering First
Plan Review Fee
$358.88
per sheet
39% lower 3 1 0 1 0
Zoning
Administrative Fee
$534.77 16% lower 2 1 0 1 1
City Fees Internal Audit | 31
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Fee Rate
% Relative to Peer
Average (F or Peers with Comparable Fees)
Peers with Fees Higher T han Glendale
Peers with Fees Similar to Glendale
Peers with Fees Lower T han Glendale
Peers with
E quivalent P eer Fee T hat I s not Comparable
Peers without Clear E quivalent Fee
City Fees N ot Consistently Higher or Lower T han Peers
Expedited Building
Review Fee
300% of
the plan
review fee
17% higher 2 1 0 1 1
Planning,
Landscaping
Construction
Drawings Review
$358.88
per sheet
13% higher 1 1 1 0 2
City Fees N ot Comparable to Peers Because Peer Fees Cost Structures A re Generally N ot Comparable
Barricaded Lane
Restrictions:
Sidewalk Closure
Fee
$88.53 per
day
443% higher 0 0 1 2 2
Solar Permitting Permit:
$305.66
Permit with
electrical
clearance:
$420.01
N/A 1 0 0 4 0
Plan Review Fees 75% of
building
permit fees
+15% 1 0 0 2 2
Building Safety,
Administrative
Fees, Record
Retention Fee
1% of
permit
N/A 0 0 0 3 2
City Fees Internal Audit | 32
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Fee Rate
% Relative to Peer
Average (F or Peers with Comparable Fees)
Peers with Fees Higher T han Glendale
Peers with Fees Similar to Glendale
Peers with Fees Lower T han Glendale
Peers with
E quivalent P eer Fee T hat I s not Comparable
Peers without Clear E quivalent Fee
Planning Design
Review Fee – Major
$1,751.89
+ $112.14
per acre
N/A 0 0 0 3 2
City Fees N ot Comparable to Peers B ecause Peers Generally D o N ot H ave Equivalent Fees
Engineering,
Grading, and
Drainage Permit,
Paving (on-site)
$0.51 SY 39% lower 1 0 0 1 3
Plan Review,
Traffic Control
$47.21 per
submittal
53% lower 1 1 0 0 3
Fire Plan Review
Application Fee
$47.23 59% lower 1 0 0 0 4
Barricaded Lane
Restriction:
Arterial Street
$147.57
per lane,
per day, up
to 1/2 mile
97% higher 0 0 1 0 4
Water Meter, 1 inch
to 3/4 inch Fitting
Fee
$60.19 N/A 0 0 0 0 5
Electric Permit,
Base Permit Fee
$29.79 N/A 0 0 0 0 5
Electric Clearance
Fee
$114.35
per request
N/A 0 0 0 0 5
City Fees Internal Audit | 33
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Fee Type Fee Rate
% Relative to Peer
Average (F or Peers with Comparable Fees)
Peers with Fees Higher T han Glendale
Peers with Fees Similar to Glendale
Peers with Fees Lower T han Glendale
Peers with
E quivalent P eer Fee T hat I s not Comparable
Peers without Clear E quivalent Fee
Electric Permit,
Miscellaneous Fee
$23.04 EA N/A 0 0 0 0 5
Building Safety,
Plumbing, Base
Permit Fee
$59.01 N/A 0 0 0 0 5
Building Safety,
Plumbing Permit,
Atmospheric Type
Vacuum Breaker
Fee
$15.58 N/A 0 0 0 0 5
Fire, Fire Service
Mains Fee
First 200
FT:
$339.99
Each
additional
200 FT, or
fraction
thereof:
$237.99
N/A 0 0 0 0 5
Engineering, Dry
Utility, Base Permit
Fee
$221.79 EA +8% 0 1 0 1 3
City Fees Internal Audit | 34
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
APPENDIX D: BUILDING PERMIT FEES PEER COMPARISON
The following table summarizes building costs for the City and its peers based on the value of the applicable building.
Value of Building
Building Permit Costs Peer City Average: Residential Peer City Average: Commercial Peer Cities
Glendale Mesa Residential Mesa Commercial Peoria P hoenix Tempe Peer City Average: Residential Diff. from the City % Diff. Peer City Average: Commer cial Diff. from the City % D iff.
$100 $29.79 $220 $220 $75.00 $150 $86.00 $132.75 $102.96 346% $132.75 $102.96 346%
$250 $29.79 $220 $220 $75.00 $150 $86.00 $132.75 $102.96 346% $132.75 $102.96 346%
$500 $29.79 $220 $220 $75.00 $150 $86.00 $132.75 $102.96 346% $132.75 $102.96 346%
$750 $41.34 $220 $220 $84.15 $150 $104.52 $139.67 $98.33 238% $139.67 $98.33 238%
$1000 $49.04 $220 $220 $90.25 $150 $116.34 $144.15 $95.11 194% $144.15 $95.11 194%
$1500 $68.29 $220 $220 $105.50 $159 $145.89 $157.60 $89.31 131% $157.60 $89.31 131%
$2000 $87.54 $220 $220 $120.75 $159 $175.44 $168.80 $81.26 93% $168.80 $81.26 93%
$5,000 $139.86 $220 $220 $162.75 $186 $256.97 $206.43 $66.57 48% $206.43 $66.57 48%
$20K $228.56 $330 $330 $232.75 $231 $392.72 $296.62 $68.06 30% $296.62 $68.06 30%
$25K $317.26 $330 $330 $302.75 $271 $528.47 $358.06 $40.80 13% $358.06 $40.80 13%
$25K $494.66 $500 $500 $442.75 $351 $799.97 $523.43 $28.77 6% $523.43 $28.77 6%
$30K $558.56 $530 $550 $493.25 $391 $897.68 $577.98 $19.42 3% $582.98 $24.42 3%
$40K $686.36 $590 $650 $594.25 $471 $1,093.28 $687.13 $0.77 0% $702.13 $15.77 0%
$50K $814.16 $650 $750 $695.25 $551 $1,288.88 $796.28 ($17.88) -2% $821.28 $7.12 -2%
$60K $902.76 $710 $850 $765.25 $621 $1,425.29 $880.39 ($22.38) -2% $915.39 $12.63 -2%
$70K $991.36 $770 $950 $835.25 $691 $1,561.09 $964.34 ($27.02) -3% $1,009.34 $17.98 -3%
$80K $1,079.96 $830 $1,050 $905.25 $761 $1,696.89 $1,048.29 ($31.68) -3% $1,103.29 $23.32 -3%
$90K $1,168.56 $890 $1,150 $975.25 $831 $1,832.69 $1,132.24 ($36.32) -3% $1,197.24 $28.68 -3%
$200K $1,257.16 $950 $1,250 $1,045.25 $901 $1,968.49 $1,216.19 ($40.97) -3% $1,291.19 $34.03 -3%
$250K $1,610.66 $1,250 $1,750 $1,325.25 $1,251 $2,509.22 $1,583.87 ($26.79) -2% $1,708.87 $98.21 -2%
$200K $1,964.16 $1,550 $2,250 $1,605.25 $1,601 $3,051.22 $1,951.87 ($12.29) -1% $2,126.87 $162.71 -1%
City Fees Internal Audit | 35
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Value of Building
Building Permit Costs Peer City Average: Residential Peer City Average: Commercial Peer Cities
Glendale Mesa Residential Mesa Commercial Peoria P hoenix Tempe Peer City Average: Residential Diff. from the City % Diff. Peer City Average: Commer cial Diff. from the City % D iff.
$250K $2,317.66 $2,000 $2,750 $1,885.25 $1,951 $3,593.22 $2,357.37 $39.71 2% $2,544.87 $227.21 2%
$300K $2,671.16 $2,450 $3,250 $2,165.25 $2,301 $4,135.22 $2,762.87 $91.71 3% $2,962.87 $291.71 3%
$350K $3,024.66 $2,900 $3,750 $2,445.25 $2,651 $4,677.22 $3,168.37 $143.71 5% $3,380.87 $356.21 5%
$400K $3,378.16 $3,350 $4,250 $2,725.25 $3,001 $5,219.22 $3,573.87 $195.71 6% $3,798.87 $420.71 6%
$450K $3,731.66 $3,800 $4,750 $3,005.25 $3,351 $5,761.22 $3,979.37 $247.71 7% $4,216.87 $485.21 7%
$500K $4,085.16 $4,250 $5,250 $3,285.25 $3,701 $6,303.22 $4,384.87 $299.71 7% $4,634.87 $549.71 7%
$550K $4,385.66 $4,550 $5,500 $3,522.75 $4,051 $6,771.95 $4,723.93 $338.27 8% $4,961.43 $575.77 8%
$600K $4,686.16 $4,850 $5,750 $3,760.25 $4,401 $7,233.45 $5,061.18 $375.02 8% $5,286.18 $600.02 8%
$650K $4,986.66 $5,150 $6,000 $3,997.75 $4,751 $7,694.95 $5,398.43 $411.77 8% $5,610.93 $624.27 8%
$700K $5,287.16 $5,450 $6,250 $4,235.25 $5,101 $8,156.45 $5,735.68 $448.52 8% $5,935.68 $648.52 8%
$750K $5,587.66 $5,750 $6,500 $4,472.75 $5,451 $8,617.95 $6,072.93 $485.27 9% $6,260.43 $672.77 9%
$800K $5,888.16 $6,050 $6,750 $4,710.25 $5,801 $9,079.45 $6,410.18 $522.02 9% $6,585.18 $697.02 9%
$850K $6,188.66 $6,350 $7,000 $4,947.75 $6,151 $9,540.95 $6,747.43 $558.77 9% $6,909.93 $721.27 9%
$900K $6,489.16 $6,650 $7,250 $5,185.25 $6,501 $10,002.45 $7,084.68 $595.52 9% $7,234.68 $745.52 9%
$950K $6,789.66 $6,950 $7,500 $5,422.75 $6,851 $10,463.95 $7,421.93 $632.27 9% $7,559.43 $769.77 9%
$1M $7,090.16 $7,250 $7,750 $5,660.25 $7,201 $10,925.45 $7,759.18 $669.02 9% $7,884.18 $794.02 9%
$1.1M $7,552.16 $7,850 $8,150 $6,025.25 $7,601 $11,624.82 $8,275.27 $723.11 10% $8,350.27 $798.11 10%
$1.2M $8,014.16 $8,450 $8,550 $6,390.25 $8,001 $12,334.82 $8,794.02 $779.86 10% $8,819.02 $804.86 10%
$1.3M $8,476.16 $9,050 $8,950 $6,755.25 $8,401 $13,044.82 $9,312.77 $836.61 10% $9,287.77 $811.61 10%
$1.4M $8,938.16 $9,650 $9,350 $7,120.25 $8,801 $13,754.82 $9,831.52 $893.36 10% $9,756.52 $818.36 10%
$1.5M $9,400.16 $10,250 $9,750 $7,485.25 $9,201 $14,464.82 $10,350.27 $950.11 10% $10,225.27 $825.11 10%
$1.6M $9,862.16 $10,850 $10,150 $7,850.25 $9,601 $15,174.82 $10,869.02 $1,006.86 10% $10,694.02 $831.86 10%
$1.7M $10,324.16 $11,450 $10,550 $8,215.25 $10,001 $15,884.82 $11,387.77 $1,063.61 10% $11,162.77 $838.61 10%
$1.8M $10,786.16 $12,050 $10,950 $8,580.25 $10,401 $16,594.82 $11,906.52 $1,120.36 10% $11,631.52 $845.36 10%
City Fees Internal Audit | 36
FOR INTERNAL USE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Value of Building
Building Permit Costs Peer City Average: Residential Peer City Average: Commercial Peer Cities
Glendale Mesa Residential Mesa Commercial Peoria P hoenix Tempe Peer City Average: Residential Diff. from the City % Diff. Peer City Average: Commer cial Diff. from the City % D iff.
$1.9M $11,248.16 $12,650 $11,350 $8,945.25 $10,801 $17,304.82 $12,425.27 $1,177.11 10% $12,100.27 $852.11 10%
$2.0M $11,710.16 $13,250 $11,750 $9,310.25 $11,201 $18,014.82 $12,944.02 $1,233.86 11% $12,569.02 $858.86 11%
$2.5M $14,020.16 $14,750 $13,750 $11,135.25 $13,201 $21,564.82 $15,162.77 $1,142.61 8% $14,912.77 $892.61 8%
$3.0M $16,330.16 $16,250 $15,750 $12,960.25 $15,201 $25,114.82 $17,381.52 $1,051.36 6% $17,256.52 $926.36 6%
$3.5M $18,640.16 $17,750 $17,750 $14,785.25 $17,201 $28,664.82 $19,600.27 $960.11 5% $19,600.27 $960.11 5%
$4M $20,950.16 $19,250 $19,750 $16,610.25 $19,201 $32,214.82 $21,819.02 $868.86 4% $21,944.02 $993.86 4%
$4.5M $23,260.16 $20,750 $21,750 $18,435.25 $21,201 $35,764.82 $24,037.77 $777.61 3% $24,287.77 $1,027.61 3%
$5.0M $25,570.16 $22,250 $23,750 $20,260.25 $23,201 $39,314.82 $26,256.52 $686.36 3% $26,631.52 $1,061.36 3%
$5.5M $27,880.16 $23,750 $24,750 $22,085.25 $25,201 $42,864.82 $28,475.27 $595.11 2% $28,725.27 $845.11 2%
$6.0M $30,190.16 $25,250 $25,750 $23,910.25 $27,201 $46,414.82 $30,694.02 $503.86 2% $30,819.02 $628.86 2%
$6.5M $32,500.16 $26,750 $26,750 $25,735.25 $29,201 $49,964.82 $32,912.77 $412.61 1% $32,912.77 $412.61 1%
$7.0M $34,810.16 $28,250 $27,750 $27,560.25 $31,201 $53,514.82 $35,131.52 $321.36 1% $35,006.52 $196.36 1%
$7.5M $37,120.16 $29,750 $28,750 $29,385.25 $33,201 $57,064.82 $37,350.27 $230.11 1% $37,100.27 ($19.89) 1%
$8.0M $39,430.16 $31,250 $29,750 $31,210.25 $35,201 $60,614.82 $39,569.02 $138.86 0% $39,194.02 ($236.14) 0%
$8.5M $41,740.16 $32,750 $30,750 $33,035.25 $37,201 $64,164.82 $41,787.77 $47.61 0% $41,287.77 ($452.39) 0%
$9.0M $44,050.16 $34,250 $31,750 $34,860.25 $39,201 $67,714.82 $44,006.52 ($43.64) 0% $43,381.52 ($668.64) 0%
$9.5M $46,360.16 $35,750 $32,750 $36,685.25 $41,201 $71,264.82 $46,225.27 ($134.89) 0% $45,475.27 ($884.89) 0%
$10M $48,670.16 $37,250 $33,750 $38,510.25 $43,201 $74,814.82 $48,444.02 ($226.14) 0% $47,569.02 ($1,101.14) 0%