HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 02-10-2026; 2 - Presentation of Fee Study for Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
Action Agenda
Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Presentation of Fee Study for Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections,
and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
DEPARTMENT: County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Attachment A. Orange County Kirk Vaughn, (919) 245-2153
Comprehensive User
Fee Study
Attachment B. Fee Study Report
Presentation
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation reviewing the fees and cost recovery for the programs in
Emergency Services, Planning & Inspections, and Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
Recreation (DEAPR) by MGT Consulting.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the strain of inflation has had a significant impact on the
County's annual operating budget. For many fee-based activities particularly, the County had two
(2) options through the budget. First, the budget could either absorb those cost increases and
increase the tax impact of providing these services. Alternatively, the County could pass on fee
increases to the users of these programs through fee increases. As a result, the County Manager
authorized the Budget Office to conduct a fee study of major fee generating departments. The
Budget Office conducted a request for proposals (RFP) and selected MGT Consulting to provide
a detailed model of the cost drivers for three (3) County departments.
The consultant worked closely with staff in Planning & Inspections, DEAPR, and Emergency
Services. MGT collected data around the costs of operating programs, the fee level and volume
of collections, the organization of the departments and the indirect costs of supporting each
department. The costs were then aligned to different fees to determine the total cost of each fee
activity and each fee division overall. In the attached MGT report, the total cost to the County of
operating fee based programs in these three departments is $21 .7 million dollars. The County
generates fees in these programs of $7.6 million or 35% of the cost of the programs. This leaves
$14.1 million in County subsidy to operate these programs. This unique methodology of analyzing
the total cost of the fee is different than the typical County or departmental review of fee
operations. Typically, the budget document reviews cost recovery at the division or cost center
level. Which totals all costs and revenues in the division. This review does not include any costs
outside of the division, including indirect support costs or supervisory costs of department
administration. Due to this difference of calculation, the percentages in this report will be different
and lower than are normally detailed in the annual budget document. The MGT report also puts
the County fee schedule in context of selected peer comparisons.
2
While the MGT report provides a financial picture of the fee-based programs, there are qualitative
factors that play a role in setting fee schedules. The County should assess aligning fee programs
with the priorities of the strategic plan and consider the impact of fee costs on demand and
accessibility of fee based programs on the users of those programs. The attached PowerPoint
presentation provides a framework of the various qualitative features that go into setting fees and
cost recovery targets. Staff requests feedback from the Board on the importance of different
factors in setting rates. Following this presentation and Board discussion, the County Manager
will use the priorities expressed to recommend fee changes for the FY 2026-27 Budget.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with discussion of the
Fee Study.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports:
• MISSION STATEMENT — Orange County is a visionary leader in providing governmental
services valued by our community, beyond those required by law, in an equitable,
sustainable, innovative and efficient way.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive the Fee Study report
and presentation from staff and provide feedback that will be utilized to propose fees in the
upcoming Manager's Recommended Budget.
t 4
a �
Attachment A
M CIT P
S
t
1 tl�l
JAN
Q
�t.1 � x 'j.•t!?L•ta•
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Orange County, North Carolina
JANUARY 29, 2026
MGT.us
4
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY
JANUARY 29,2026
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................2
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................4
ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS ..............................................................................................8
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 13
APPENDIX A - USER FEE STUDY RESULTS................................................................ 14
APPENDIX B - PEER COMPARISON SURVEY.............................................................24
MCAT
5
Executive Summary
Introduction
MGT is pleased to present the government of Orange County, NC with this summary of findings
for the recently completed user fee study.
The County contracted with MGT to perform a comprehensive user fee study for most County
departments. The study was conducted by MGT in collaboration with those County departments,
fiscal leads, management, and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to gratefully
acknowledge all the staff and managers who participated in this project for their efforts and
cooperation. This report presents the findings of the study.
Study Scope and Objectives
The study included a review of fee-for-service activities for the following departments:
♦ Emergency Services
♦ Environment,Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation (DEAPR)
♦ Planning and Inspections
The study was performed under the general direction of the Budget Director, County Manager's
Office, the Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation, the
Director of the Department of Emergency Services,and the Director of the Department of Planning
and Inspections, along with the participation of key staff members from each department. The
primary goals of the study were to:
♦ Determine Orange County's costs to provide specific fee-related services.
Determine whether there are opportunities to consolidate and simplify the fee structure
or implement new fees as appropriate.
♦ Identify service areas where Orange County might adjust fees to better reflect the full cost
of services or to subsidize fees with general fund revenue to reflect other economic or
policy considerations.
Provide comparative data for what similar counties and other agencies are charging for
similar services.
The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides Orange
County with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee
adjustments and the resulting impact on County revenues.
MCIT
6
Summary of Findings
User Fee Financial Overview
The study's primary objective was to provide County decision-makers with the analysis needed
to make informed user fee pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of each service for
which a user fee is charged and presents current subsidy levels for user fee activities.
At 100% cost recovery, fees attached to a particular service would cover all labor and indirect
costs associated with providing that service. If a fee is set below 100% cost recovery,the cost to
provide the service would be subsidized through other funding sources such as the General Fund.
The exhibit below shows the annual costs and revenues for County user fees included in this
analysis. MGT based the annual cost on the full cost for each fee analyzed multiplied by the
annual volume statistics provided. Similarly, current revenues are based upon the current set fee
multiplied by the annual volume statistics. Exhibit 1 below displays this information at the
Department or Division level. Information on a per fee basis is displayed in Appendix 1 of this
report.
As requested, specific fee categories were broken out for both Planning and Inspections and
Emergency Services.
Exhibit 1: User Fee Study Results
Current Cost and •
DepartmentCurrent Re 4
Full Cost of User Fee venue %roCurrent Subsidy
User Fee
Emergency Services
EMS $ 16,013,368 $ 4,523,767 28% $ 11,489,601 72%
Fire Marshal $ 371,965 $ 74,765 20% $ 297,200 80%
Sub Total $ 16,385,333 $ 4,598,532 28% $ 11,786,801 72%
DEAPR $ 1,299,321 $ 419,645 32% $ 879,676 68%
Planning and Inspections
Current Planning $ 1,078,336 $ 332,627 31% $ 745,709 69%
Erosion Control $ 897,300 $ 1,242,105 138% $ (344,805) -38%
Inspections $ 2,011,503 $ 1,003,529 50% $ 1,007,974 50%
Sub Total $ 3,987,139 $ 2,578,261 65% $ 1,408,878 35%
Grand Total: $ 21,671,793 $ 7,596,438 35% $ 14,075,355 65%
The results in each column include the following:
Column A, Full Cost of User Fee Services — This column represents the actual cost for
each department to provide user fee services based on annual volume statistics. In total,
this study identified approximately $21.7 million in costs to provide user fee services. It
is this amount that was the focus of this study and represents the total potential for user
fee-related revenues for the County.
♦ Column B, Current Revenue —This column shows what the County is currently recovering
in revenue for these same services based on average volumes. Based on current fees,the
County receives fee-related cost recovery revenue of approximately $7.6 million which is
MCIT PAGE 2
7
an overall 35% cost recovery level. The cost recovery details of individual fees can be
found in Appendix A of this report.
♦ Column C, Current Subsidy — This column shows the difference between what it costs
the County to provide services versus what is being recovered in revenue for these same
services. Current fees recover 35% of full cost, leaving 65%, or approximately $14.1
million, as unrecovered cost. This difference is being subsidized by other funding sources
such as the General Fund. This subsidy represents an opportunity for an updated and
more focused cost recovery effort by the County for fee-related services.
MCOT PAGE
8
Methodology
Following is a summary of the methodology employed to conduct this study.
User Fee Introduction
User fees are charged in a variety of ways, including:
♦ Flat (or fixed)fees - The fee is always the same, regardless of the size or complexity of
the service provided.
♦ Per square foot or linear foot - The fee is calculated based on the size of the project
under review.
Hourly (or time-and-materials) - County staff track time and materials expenses; fees
are calculated to recover actual costs. Hourly rates for different fees might vary
depending upon the hourly rates of the staff completing tasks associated with that fee.
♦ Actual cost - This fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to County, or time
and materials of staff.
Percentage of permit fees - The fee is calculated as a percentage of the original permit
fee.
♦ Other increments - Fees are calculated based on increments, such as the number of
sheets or the number of set-ups /take-downs.
User Fee Study Methodology
There are several steps involved in estimating the full cost of an activity attached to a user fee:
1. Data collection
2. Computing hourly rates
3. Obtaining estimates of time spent on fee-related activities
4. Estimating user fees at full cost recovery and projecting changes in revenue
There are also legal, economic, and policy factors that must be considered when making cost
recovery recommendations.
Data Collection
MGT coordinated with County departments to obtain information necessary to complete this
study, including the following:
♦ Schedules of current user fees, including dollar amounts and annual volumes for each
fee.
♦ FY 2025 revenue and expenditure information for each department.
♦ Data about currently occupied positions, salaries, benefits, and FTEs.
♦ Department organizational charts.
♦ Cost allocation plans.
MGT then met with each department to learn about the following:
♦ Desired changes to existing fee schedules, including new fees to be added or existing
fees to combine or delete.
Any positions that are vacant and are planned to be filled.
The time spent by staff in each department providing each service.
MCIT PAGE 4
9
Hourly Rates
A cost-of-service study is comprised of two basic elements:
♦ Hourly rates of staff providing a given service.
♦ Time spent providing the service.
The product of the hourly rate calculation multiplied by the time spent yields the cost of providing
the service.
The hourly rate methodology used in this study builds indirect costs into County staff hourly salary
and benefit rates to arrive at fully burdened hourly rates. Fully burdened hourly rates are a
mechanism used to calculate the total cost of providing services. Total cost is generally
recognized as the sum of the direct cost together with a proportionate share of allowable indirect
costs. The proper identification of all costs (e.g., labor, operating expenses, department
administration and countywide support) as "direct" or"indirect" is crucial to the determination of
the total cost of providing services.
Direct costs are typically defined as those that can be identified with a specific service or activity.
These include the labor of people working directly on the service associated with the fee, as well
as any materials or supplies used to provide the service. Indirect costs are those that support
more than one program area and are not easily associated with specific activities. Examples of
indirect costs are:
♦ Salaries for departmental administrative and support staff.
♦ Training and education time.
Public counter and telephone time.
♦ Some service and supply costs.
♦ Countywide overhead costs from outside of the department, as identified in County's
cost allocation plan.
MGT's hourly rate calculation methodology includes the following:
♦ Personnel Services Analysis - Each staff classification within the department or division
is analyzed in the study. The first burden factor includes compensated absences such as
vacation/holidays/sick leave days taken in a year's time. Staff classifications are then
categorized as either direct (operational) or indirect (administrative or supervisory) labor.
In some cases, a classification will have both direct and indirect duties. The total indirect
portion of staff cost is incorporated into hourly overhead rates.
♦ Indirect Cost Rate - A ratio of indirect cost to direct labor (salaries plus benefits) is
established based on three elements of indirect cost:
o Indirect Labor - Includes compensated absences, administrative and supervisory
staff costs.
o Other Operating Expenses - Other operating expenses are either directly associated
with a fee for service activity or are included as an indirect or overhead cost. Some
examples of operating expenses that are directly allocated to a particular fee for
service are professional services expenses or supplies that are used specifically for
that fee for service. Most other operating expenses are classified as indirect costs
and are allocated across all fees for service as overhead.
o External Indirect Allocations - This represents the prorated portion of countywide
overhead from the County's cost allocation plan that is allocated across all fees for
service as overhead.
♦ Fully Burdened Hourly Rates -This incorporates all the elements that comprise the hourly
rates used in the cost analysis.
MCIT PAGE 5
10
o Each direct or operational position is listed,together with the average annual salary
and benefits or actual salary and benefits.
o The hourly salary and benefit rate is calculated by adding the annual salary and
benefits for an employee and dividing by available hours. The model assumes a
standard work year of 2,080 available hours, although this might not apply to all
employees, depending on paid time off accrual rates.
o The overhead rate is derived by multiplying the internal and external indirect cost
rates by the salary and benefit hourly rates.
The total hourly rate combines the hourly salary and benefit rate and overhead rate. This is the
fully burdened hourly rate for each staff member or position. MGT prepared indirect overhead
rates and corresponding hourly rate calculations using FY 2025 actual expenditures.
Time Spent
The next step in the process required identifying staff time spent directly on each user fee activity.
Each staff person involved in user fee services estimated the time necessary to complete tasks
associated with those services. Annual volume statistics were also gathered to develop total
annual workload information.
Fee Calculations and Revenue Projections
Given this information, MGT calculated the cost of providing each service, both on a per-unit and
annual basis (per-unit cost multiplied by annual volume equals total annual cost). As mentioned
above, costs were calculated by multiplying per-unit time estimates by the hourly labor rates;
additional operating expenses directly associated with certain services were also included.
Finally, if other departments or divisions provided support for certain user fee activities,this time
was accounted for and added into the analysis as a crossover support activity. Full costs are then
compared to current revenues collected, and subsidies (or over-recoveries) identified.
User fee summaries by department can be seen in the next section of this report.
Legal, Economic, and Policy Considerations
Calculating the true cost of providing services is a critical step in the process of establishing user
fees and corresponding cost recovery levels.Although it is an important factor,other factors must
also be given consideration. County decision makers must also consider the effects that
establishing fees for services will have on the individuals purchasing those services, as well as
the community.
The following legal, economic, and policy issues help illustrate these considerations.
♦ Community benefit - The County might wish to subsidize some user fees to reflect policy
considerations which supersede cost recovery. For example, many Community Services
fees have very moderate cost recovery levels. Some programs are provided free of charge
or for a minimal fee regardless of cost.Youth and senior programs tend to have the lowest
cost recovery levels. Miscellaneous classes tend to have a moderate cost recovery level
and adult sports programs typically have a higher cost recovery level.
The chart below provides a classification method for determining the community benefit
versus individual benefit of each program. Generally, as the classification moves up the
pyramid,the greater the cost recovery through user fees.
MCIT PAGE 6
11
Individual 80-100%Cost
Recovery
Benefit
Individual and 20—s°'Cot
Recovery
Public Benefit
0—20%Cost
Community Benefit Recovery
♦ Private benefit - If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, we recommend the fee be
set at, or close to, 100% full cost recovery.
♦ Service driver - In conjunction with the first point above,the issue of who is the service
recipient versus the service driver should also be considered.
♦ Understanding demand - There are other considerations that might inform
recommendations for fees not subject to cost recovery limitations. For example,elasticity
of demand is a factor in pricing certain municipal services; increasing the price of some
services could result in a reduction in the quantity demanded for other services, and vice
versa.
Competition - Certain services might be provided by neighboring communities or the
private sector. Demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else might be
available at lower prices. Furthermore, if Orange County's fees are too low, demand for
services produced by private-sector competitors could decrease.
♦ Incentives - Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service.
Policy considerations - In North Carolina law there are provisions that limit certain
government user fees to amounts that are reasonable and tied to the cost of providing
services.
MCIT PAGE 7
12
Analysis Highlights
User Fee Studies
This study evaluated fee-related services in three Orange County departments:
♦ Emergency Services
♦ Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation
♦ Planning and Inspections.
For each,we built cost models that tie staff time, operating costs, and overhead to specific fee-
bearing activities and then compared those full costs to current and recommended fee levels.
Across all three departments,the services analyzed primarily benefit the individual user,which
makes them appropriate for user fee funding. At the same time, several program areas,
particularly in DEAPR and Emergency Services, also deliver broad community benefit,which
justifies intentional subsidy from the General Fund. The recommended fee structure reflects
both realities.
In general, development review and inspection activities are targeted for higher cost recovery
because they are directly triggered by private construction or land use decisions. Recreation and
EMS services, by contrast, are set below full cost recovery to maintain affordability, respect
limits on third party reimbursement, and align with County policy priorities. The narrative below
summarizes key results by department. The fee-by-fee detail and peer comparison survey
results are presented in Appendices A and B.
Emergency Services
Orange County Emergency Services is responsible for the coordination and delivery of 911
communications, Emergency Medical Services, Fire Marshal and life safety functions, and
emergency management across the County. The department operates around the clock with a
mission to protect lives and property through preparedness, response, and prevention activities.
For this study,the Emergency Services user fee work was divided into two models: Fire
Inspections and Emergency Medical Services. The Fire Inspections model covers activities
performed by the Fire Marshal and life safety staff, including plan review for fire protection
systems,fire code inspections of new and existing occupancies, and related permits. These
services primarily benefit property owners and businesses by helping them meet regulatory
requirements and maintain safe facilities. The model shows an annual cost of about $372,000
for these fee-based fire prevention activities. Current fees generate roughly $74,800 per year in
revenue, or only 20% cost recovery, leaving an annual subsidy of about $297,200.
At the beginning of the project, MGT discussed with management the potential to refine the Fire
Inspections fee schedule to better meet the needs of the Fire Marshall and align with current
practices. The recommended fee schedule introduces and refines several permit and inspection
fees. Given the low recovery rate mentioned above, 20%,the County has an opportunity to
increase its fees as Council sees fit. While it is not uncommon to see fire inspection fees
charged at 100% cost recovery, it is reasonable to consider this service in some ways public
facing, which would justify some level of subsidy from the general fund.
Much of this subsidy is covered by the City of Hillsborough, which has an $80,000 annual
contract to pay Emergency Services for fire inspection services. Emergency Services also has
not been charging the Orange County School District for inspecting schools. MGT noted that
staff recommend changing that internal policy to maintain equity between the school districts.
MCIT PAGE 8
13
The EMS model focuses on ambulance transport services, including advanced life support and
basic life support responses and associated mileage. Using call volume,transport mix, payer
mix, and cost allocation data,the model estimates that EMS transport and mileage services
cost approximately $16 million per year. At current ALS and BLS base rates and mileage charge,
projected revenue is approximately $4.5 million annually,which equates to roughly 28% cost
recovery and a remaining subsidy of about $11 million. Please note that our model uses
conservative volume estimates; actual revenue and recovery rates may be higher.
This gap is driven by external constraints. Federal and state reimbursement schedules,
commercial insurance contracts, and limited collection rates for self-pay accounts place a
ceiling on what EMS can realistically recover through user fees. Full cost recovery for EMS is not
feasible under current reimbursement policy and would be inconsistent with the County's public
safety goals. The recommended rates move EMS closer to regional norms, improve cost
recovery within those constraints, and still rely on County contributions and other funding
sources to support most EMS operating costs.
Peer Comparison Analysis
MGT collected peer data from several agencies to compare the County's current fees against
others. Based on the information gathered, EMS rates charged by Orange County are generally
lower than those charged by peers, with the exception of Advanced Life Support-2 (Emergency)
and Advanced Life Support-2 (Non-Transport). When comparing payment collection
mechanisms, MGT found that most peers use a third-party billing system,while Orange County
handles billing in-house. Orange County also offers hardship assistance, while none of the peer
agencies reviewed provided such assistance. Please see Exhibit B for the complete listing of
peers and fees MGT collected data for.
Special Event Coverage Fees
As part of the user fee study, Emergency Services computed hourly rates for use in Special
Event Coverage fees. These are intended to help cover the cost of providing staff and
equipment at events like concerts. The hourly rates are presented in Exhibits 2 and 3. The
County sets the rate for all parties in the County to provide this service. The County does not
provide this service itself, due to lack of staff capacity. As such,this fee would initially benefit
other providers, primarily South Orange Rescue Squad. If the rates are set too low and other
providers no longer offer this service,then the County would need to hire additional staff to
provide this service itself. Setting the rate at the amount required for the County to provide this
service is useful as a cost avoidance measure.
Exhibit 2:Special Event Fees, Per Hour
Special Event Coverage Fees
Standby Position Current Fee(Per Hour) Proposed Fee (Per Hour)
Additional EMT $40.00 $45.00
Ambulance with 1 Paramedic and 1 EMT $120.00 $220.00
Ambulance with 2 EMTs $110.00 $210.00
Clerical Staff $20.00 $30.00
EM Senior Officer $40.00 $60.00
EMS Command Staff $60.00 $60.00
EMS Physician $85.00 $85.00
Paramedic $60.00 $60.00
Telecommunicator $40.00 $50.00
MCIT PAGE 9
14
Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation
The Department of Environment,Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation is responsible for
conserving and managing the County's "green infrastructure," including natural areas, parks and
recreation facilities, water resources, and agricultural and cultural resource lands. DEAPR also
delivers environmental education, athletics, and recreation programming that supports physical
health, stewardship, and community connection.
The user fee study for DEAPR focused on fee-supported recreation and program activities,
including youth and adult athletics, classes, camps, preschool and after school programs,
special events, and select administrative charges such as alcohol permits. The model indicates
that these fee-based services cost approximately$1.30 million per year to provide. Current fees
generate about $419,600 in annual revenue, which results in a cost recovery rate of
approximately 32% and an annual subsidy of about $879,700.
For the Parks & Recreation Division (Division), MGT will make one recommendation regarding
fee recovery related to the alcohol permit. The remainder of the analysis below is designed to
provide decision-makers with an informed basis for determining the appropriate suggested cost
recovery levels for each program.
Based on the analysis performed,youth athletics, clinics and classes are currently recovering
approximately 46% of costs while adult athletics, clinics, and classes are recovering
approximately 10% of costs. This means that the County is currently subsidizing adult activities
more than youth activities on a percentage basis. The subsidy of these programs in dollars is
approximately $150,000 and $186,000 for youth and adult activities, respectively. This does not
include recreation classes that are provided by the Division, which is currently recovering
approximately 15% of costs, or a subsidy of$134,000.
After school, preschool, and summer camps are recovering on average 40% of total costs. MGT
would also like to highlight the administration of alcohol permits currently costs the Department
approximately $242 to process per permit, while the current fee is $30. The County should
strongly consider setting the fee for alcohol permits to $240 to recover approximately 100% of
County costs associated with the permitting process. This recommendation falls in line with
other permitting type fees as described in the Planning and Inspections section below.
Through conservations with the Division,there are several agreements or adjustments made
within the fee schedule which are partially attributable to the lower cost recovery of certain
activities. Some of these agreements include the following:
♦ A lease agreement with Orange Tennis Club to pay the County 25% of real rental costs
for tennis courts and light usage.
♦ No fee, daily or monthly, for drop in programming at the Central Recreation Center. This
includes badminton, basketball, and pickleball.
♦ A lease agreement with Hillsborough Youth Athletic League to pay the County 25% of the
real rental costs for ballfields and light usage.
♦ Youth participants enrolled in the Orange County Schools with a copy of their reduced or
free lunch certificate received a 25% fee reduction for participation in certain
programming. But this fee reduction is not available for afterschool, summer camp and
preschool.
♦ DSS covers up to $250 of the cost for children in various DSS programs through the
Youth Enhancement Fund. The County absorbs the expense of these children without
adding any revenue to the department.
MCIT PAGE 10
15
As noted in the Legal, Economic, and Policy Considerations section above, community benefit
and individual and public benefit activities typically follow within the 0%to 20% and 20%to 80%
recovery levels, respectively. These percentages are not hard-set rules but instead serve as
general guidance when making policy decisions regarding cost recovery. DEAPR, and
specifically the Parks and Recreation division, have activities that fall between each of the
different levels of the cost recovery pyramid. Guidance for cost recovery levels for Parks and
Recreation is not as clearly defined as it is for departments such as Planning and Inspections.
The County Commissioners should evaluate each program individually and the Division
wholistically to determine an allowable subsidy range for each program and the Division.
Budgetary factors must be considered as subsidizing Parks and Recreation programs more
than current levels could strain the County's general fund, but the Commissioners could
consider prioritizing subsidy level efforts to youth sports at the cost of reducing subsidies for
other programs such as adult sports, recreation classes, drop-in fees, and certain special
events.
Peer Comparison Analysis
For the Parks and Recreation comparison analysis, MGT collected information from several
peer agencies, parks and recreation departments or divisions. The fees compared mainly
focused on rentals, but MGT did gather information for some other services, such as youth and
adult athletes and youth summer camps.
For youth athletics,the County is similar to the peer average, being only$6 more than the peers.
For adult athletics however,the County is $115 less per team than the peer average with the
County's current rate of$350 and the average being $465.
For rental rates,the County appears to be in the middle of most offerings. The peer group has
several different methods of charging fees such as hourly, daily, flat rate, or a combination of
methods. No specific method is the "correct" method, and MGT generally suggest agencies not
change its methods of charging fees unless its current system does not meet the needs of the
agency. Please see Exhibit B for the complete listing of peers and fees MGT collected data for.
Planning and Inspections
The Planning and Inspections Department serves residents by implementing adopted land use,
environmental, and building policies through a system of development regulations. The
department manages current planning and zoning, building permitting and inspections, erosion
control and stormwater review, floodplain management, and related development services to
support stable, high-quality growth while protecting the environment.
The user fee analysis covered the full range of development review and inspection services,
including zoning and subdivision applications, special use and rezoning requests, site plan and
engineering review, and residential and non-residential building permits and inspections. The
model estimates that fees related to Planning and Inspections services cost approximately$4
million per year. Current fees recover approximately $2.6 million, or 65%of these costs, leaving
an annual general fund subsidy of about $1.4 million for services that primarily benefit private
development activity.
Two factors are relevant when considering cost recovery and revenues. First, planning market
activity can be highly cyclical, meaning that departments activity is not consistent over time. In
some years, like FY25, planning market activity was lower than average. A fee schedule may
need to be set to cover the cost in an average year, one that considers fluctuations in activity
over time.
MCIT PAGE 11
16
Second, many Erosion Control fees are paid upfront and pay for work that is performed by staff
over the course of several years. The County started many large Erosion Control Projects in FY
2025, which means that the excess revenue generated by the fees will be used to cover staff
time in future fiscal years.
Like the Emergency Services Department, MGT discussed with management potential changes
to the fee schedule that could refine its structure to better match workload drivers. Based on
these conversations, Department management do see potential for revisions, such as adjusting
fees to better match workload drivers, such as aligning permit costs with the project type and
complexity, rather than a flat fee.
From a policy standpoint,this shift moves development review closer to a "growth pays for
growth" model. Private projects that generate the work are expected to cover the full cost of
those services, which in turn reduces the extent to which general taxpayers subsidize private
construction and land use decisions.
During the study,the County expressed a desire to streamline the Planning and Inspections fee
schedule by either removing or reclassifying fee groupings and descriptions. MGT has reviewed
the fee structure and believes the best opportunity to combine or reduce the number of fee
listings is within the Building Miscellaneous and Trades permits section.
Once recovery levels and recommendations are in place, County staff should look for services
being charged at the same price point and should discuss whether those services should
remain individualized or if they can be grouped together. For example, schedule I in the Building
section has four fees that are all charged at the same rate (currently$125). The fees within that
section could be grouped into one line item with a new all-encompassing description.
Peer Comparison Analysis
As with the other sections of this study, MGT collected peer data from several other agencies.
Based on the information gathered,the County's fees generally fall within the middle of the
peers reviewed for subdivision review, zoning compliance, and map amendments. The County's
Erosion Control Plan Review is the main outlier when compared to peer agencies. The County's
fee is much higher than the selected peers. Please see Exhibit B for the complete listing of
peers and fees MGT collected data for.
MCIT PAGE 12
17
Recommendations
MGT's recommendations for Orange County are grounded in the cost-of-service analysis
completed for DEAPR, Planning and Inspections, and Emergency Services and are designed to
be practical and implementable. The overarching objective is to align the County's fee structure
and fee levels with the cost and beneficiaries of service,while honoring policy choices around
accessibility, equity, and public safety.
♦ Orange County should build on its investment in this detailed user fee study by treating
the cost models as living tools rather than one-time exercises. Whether maintained by
County staff or updated periodically with outside support,the models for DEAPR,
Planning and Inspections, and Emergency Services should be refreshed and reused to
evaluate new fees,test policy scenarios, and support future budget decisions. Once the
County has a clear picture of full cost, it is important to keep that picture current as
service design, staffing, and demand evolve.
♦ Orange County should repeat this level of detailed fee analysis at least every three, but
not more than every five,years, with minor schedule and rate adjustments in the
intervening years. This cadence will allow the Board to recalibrate cost recovery targets
as conditions change, including development activity, recreation participation, EMS call
volumes, and broader fiscal pressures, while avoiding large, disruptive adjustments that
can result from long gaps between studies.
♦ Orange County should incorporate an annual inflationary adjustment into its ongoing fee
management practices, particularly once it adopts explicit cost recovery targets by
program area. Applying a standard index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or
another locally relevant indicator, during each annual budget cycle will help keep fees
aligned with underlying labor, benefit, and operating cost trends. This is especially
important for departments like Planning and Inspections, where the policy direction is to
move development review toward full cost recovery, and for DEAPR and EMS,where
fees are intentionally set below full cost but should still keep reasonable pace with rising
costs.
MCAT PAGE 13
18
Appendix A — User Fee Study Results
The following pages show user fee study results by department.
Emergency Services—Emergency Medical Services
Orange County,North Carolina
Emergency Services Department
Current Conditions Ann Lia I Tota 19
1 ALS-1 Non-Transport S 150 1 S 843 1746
2 AL3-2 Non-Transport $ 225 '475 $ 893 25% S 1.317,044 S 49,848 S 1,267,196
3 AL3-1 Emergency S 897 5,779 S 5,467 16% S 7,773,918 S 2,475,189 S 5,298,729
4 ALS-2 Emergency S 1,299 299 S 1,922 68% S 402,215 S 172,965 S 229,250
5 1 BLS Emergency $ 755A4 1 4,847 1 $ 2,158 1 35%1 $ 6,520,191 1 $ 1,698,187 1 $ 4,822,003
fi IMileage 1 S 16.01 1 340,096 1 $ 22.16 1 72 S 2,827,255 1 S 127,577 I S 2,699,677
Total User Fees I $ 16,013,368 $ 4,523,767 1 S 11,484,601
of Full Cast 1 28% 72%
Foototes
6e The total oast for Mileage is included in total casts for smlces 1-5 and is rrot part of the formula that sums Total User Fees.
MCIT PAGE 14
19
Emergency Services-Fire Marshal Division
Orange
Emergency Services Department-Fire Marshal Division
Current Conditions Annual Totals
0 M Revenue Subsidy
1 1 FIRE MARSHAL
2 Fire Inspections(by facility type)
3 Assembly $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
4 Business $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
5 Church/Assembly $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
6 Daycare facility $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
7 Educational,private $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
8 Foster Care Home $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
9 lHazardous $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
10 Industrial $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
11 Institutional $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
12 Mercantile $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $
13 Residential(Common Areas) $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
14 Storage $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
15 Fire Inspections(by square footage)
16 Up to 999 sf $ 30 76 $ 102 29% $ 7,781 $ 2,280 $ 5,501
17 1,000 to 2,499 sf $ 45 188 $ 314 14% $ 60,680 $ 8,460 $ 52,220
18 2,500 to 10,000 sf $ 100 173 $ 419 24% $ 90,967 $ 17,300 $ 73,667
19 10,001 to 25,000 sf $ 140 65 $ 524 27% $ 34,060 $ 9,100 $ 24,960
20 25,001 to 50,000 sf $ 180 25 $ 629 29% $ 15,720 $ 4,500 $ 11,220
21 50,001 to 75,000 sf $ 225 5 $ 734 31% $ 3,668 $ 1,125 $ 2,543
22 75,001 to 100,000 sf $ 300 1 7 $ 1,048 29% $ 7,336 $ 2,100 $ 5,236
23 100,001 to 200,000 sf $ 425 5 $ 1,467 29% $ 7,336 $ 2,125 $ 5,211
24 200,001 to 300,000 sf $ 475 - $ 1,677 28% $ 40,244 $ - $ 40,244
25 1300,001 to 400,000 sf $ 525 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
26 400,001 to 500,000 sf $ 600 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
27 500,001 to 600,000 sf $ 675 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
28 600,001 to 700,000 sf $ 750 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
29 700,001 to 800,000 sf $ 825 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
30 800,001 to 900,000 sf $ 900 - $ - 0%1$ - $ - $
31 900,001 to 1,000,000 sf $ 975 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
32 1,000,000 sf and greater $ 1,200 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ -
33 Re-Inspection Fee
34 1 at Re-Inspection $ 50 140 $ 314 16% $ 63,824 $ 7,000 $ 56,824
35 2nd Re-Inspection $ 100 136 $ 105 95% $ 14,253 $ 13,600 $ 653
36 3rd Re-Inspection $ 200 10 $ 52 382% $ 524 $ 2,000 $ (1,476)
37 Mandatory and Optional Permit Fees
38 Aerosol products I$ 50 - I$ 210 1 24% $ - $ - $ -
39 Amusement Buildings $ 150 - $ 210 72%
40 Aviation Facilities $ 50 - $ 210 241 $ - $ - $
41 Battery Systems $ 50 1$ 210 1 24% $ - $ - $ -
MC-VT PAGE 15
20
42 Blocked Exit $ 250 2 $ 314 80% $ 629 $ 500 $ 129
43 Carbon Dioxide Systems used in beverage dispensing applications $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
44 Carnivals&Fairs $ 150 - $ 210 72% $ - $ - $ -
45 Cellulose nitrate film $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
46 lCombustible Dust $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
47 Combustible Fibers $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
48 Compressed Gas $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
49 Covered Mall Bldg $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
50 Cryogenic Fluids $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
51 Cutting&Welding $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
52 Dry Cleaning $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
53 Exhibit/Trade Show $ 150 - $ 210 72% $ - $ - $ -
54 Explosives/Blasting $ 350 3 $ 210 167% $ 629 $ 1,050 $ (421)
55 30 day Renewal for Explosives/Blasting $ 50 2 $ 210 24% $ 419 $ 100 $ 319
56 Flammable/Combustible $ 50 7 $ 210 24% $ 1,467 $ 350 $ 1,117
57 Floor Finishing $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
58 Fruit and crop ripening $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
59 Fumigation/Thermal Fog $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
60 Hazardous Materials $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
61 High-Piled Storage $ 50 12 $ 210 24% $ 2,515 $ 600 $ 1,915
62 1 Hot work operations $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
63 1 Industrial Ovens $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $
64 Liquid Fuel Vehicle in Building $ 100 - $ 210 48% $ - $ - $ -
65 LP Gas $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
66 Lumber yards and woodworking plants $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
67 Magnesium $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
68 Motor Fuel dispensing activities $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
69 Mulch Pile $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
70 Nuisance Fire Alarms $ 100 - $ 419 24% $ - $ - $ -
71 lOpen Burning $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
72 Open Flame/Candles $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $
73 Open Flame/Torches $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
74 Organic Coatings $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
75 Out of Service Clean Agent Suppression System $ 250 - $ 210 119% $ - $ - $ -
76 Followup visit non compliant $ 500 - $ 210 239% $ - $ - $ -
77 Out of Service Exit/Emergency Light $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
78 Out of Service Fire Alarm System $ 250 - $ 210 119% $ - $ - $ -
79 Followup visit non compliant $ 500 - $ 210 239% $ - $ - $
80 lOut of Service Kitchen Suppression $ 500 - $ 210 239% $ - $ - $ -
81 Out of Service Sprinkler System $ 250 - $ 210 119% $ - $ - $ -
82 Followup visit non compliant $ 500 - $ 210 239% $ - $ - $ -
83 Places of Assembly $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
84 Private Fire Hydrant $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
85 Public Education&Orange County Facilities $ - - $ 210 0%1$ - $ - $ -
86 Pyrotechnics/Fireworks(per location) $ 1751 3 $ 210 83% $ 629 $ 525 $ 104
87 Pyroxylin Plastics $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
88 Refrigeration Equipment $ 50 - $ 210 24% $
89 Repair Garage/FCL Disp. $ 50 - $ 210 24% $ - $ - $ -
MGVT PAGE 16
21
90 Rooftop Heliports S 50 S 210 24% $ S S
91 Scra p Ti re Sto rag e $ 50 $ 210 24% $ S $
92 Spraying/Dipping S 50 $ 419 12% $ $ S
93 Stop Work Order Fine S 250 4 S 210 119% S 838 S 1,000 S 162
94 Tank Install 1 Removal S 200 3 $ 838 24% S 2,515 $ 600 $ 1,915
95 Tank Install f Removal per additional tank S 25 S 210 12% S - $ - S
96 Tem porary Tents l Canopy per S 50 9 S 210 24% $ 1,886 S 450 $ 1,436
97 Tire-Rebuilding Plants S 50 S 210 24% S $ S
98 Waste Handling S 50 $ 210 24% S $ 5
99 Woad Products S 50 S 210 24% S $ S
100 Fa i I u re to obta i n p roper perm it $ - S 210 0% S $ S
101 1st Violation $ 750 - $ 210 358% $
1,02 2nd Violation $ 1,500 S 210 716% S S S
103 3rd and Subsequent Violations $ 2„500 $ 2.10 1193% S $ S
104 Required Constmction Remit Fees
105 ABC Permit Inspections S - 6 $ 314 0% $ 1,886 S $ 1,886
106 Alternative Fire Extinguishing Systems S 150 S 210 72% S S $ -
107 AutaFire.Extinguishing System S 0 11 $ 419 0% $ 4,611 S 0 S 4,611
108 BatterySystems $ 150 S 210 72% $ - $ $ -
109 Compressed Gas $ 150 S 210 72% S - S S
110 Cryogenic Fluids $ 150 - $ 210 72% $ - $ - $ -
111 Fire Alarm/Oetect.Install S 0 18 S 419 0% S 7,546 S 0 S -
112 Fire Extinguisher Class S 20 $ 419 5% S $ S
113 Fire Pump S 500 S 419 119% S $ S
114 Fit Testing S 50 $ 210 24% S S S
115 Flammable/Combustible S 175 $ 210 93% S S $
116 Gates and barricades acrossfreapparatus access roads S 150 $ 210 72% $ $ $
117 Hazardous Materials $ 50 $ 629 8% $ $ S
118 Hazardous Materials Mitigation $ - S 210 0% S S S
119 Industrial Ovens $ 150 $ 210 72% $ $ $
120 Life Safety Plan Review S 200 $ 419 48% $ S S
121 LP Gas S 50 S 210 24% $ $ $
122 Private Fire Hydrant S 150 S 210 72% S $ S
123 Spraying/Dipping S 150 S 210 72'% $ $ S
124 Standpipe Systems $ 200 $ 210 95% S $ $
125 Tents/Membranes $ 100 $ 210 48% S S S
126 Add itionaITent $ 25 - $ - 0% $127,14 n Fee-Related Activities S 1 S 303,562 0% S 303,562 S S 303,5-62
TotaI User Fees S 371,965 S 74,765 S 297200
1%of Full Cost 1 20% 80%
MC-PT PAGE 17
22
Environment,Agriculture,Parks,and Recreation—Parks and Recreation Division
Orange
Department , Recreation
Current Conditions Annual Totals
• p,_ Sum
1 Local Landmark Program $ 100 - $ - 0% $ - $ - $
2 Youth Athletics/Clinics/Classes $ 65 1,914 $ 140 46% $ 274,766 $ 124,410 $ 150,356
3 Adult Athletics/Clinics/Classes $ 113 190 $ 1,090 10% $ 207,036 $ 21,500 $ 185,536
4 Recreation-Classes $ 50 391 $ 341 15% $ 133,199 $ 19,550 $ 113,649
5 Recreation-Summer Camps $ 75 2,058 $ 160 47% $ 341,013 $ 154,350 $ 186,663
6 Recreation-Afterschool $ 160 313 $ 487 33% $ 152,438 $ 50,080 $ 102,358
7 Recreation-Preschool $ 190 249 $ 482 39% $ 120,042 $ 47,310 $ 72,732
Special events/equipment purchase for adult and youth athletics,
8 instructional and recreational classes,summer camps and afterschool $ - - $ - 0% $ - $ - $
9 Recreation-Special Events $ 15 153 $ 455 3% $ 69,616 $ 2,295 $ 67,321
10 Admin-Alcohol Permit $ 30 5 $ 242 12% $ 1,212 $ 150 $ 1,062
Total User Fees 1 $ 1,299,321 $ 419,645 $ 879,676
°i°of Full Cost 32% 68%
MCOT PAGE 18
23
Planning and Inspections
Orange County,North Carolina
Planning and Inspections Department
Current Conditions Annual Totals
1
1 CURRENT PLANNING FEES
2 Comprehensive Plan
3 Text Amendment S 550 1 5 7,373 7% S 7,373 5 550 5 6,823
4 Future Land Use Map Amendment S 550 1 $ 7,966 7% $ 7,966 $ 550 $ 7,416
5 Unified Development Ordinance
6 Text Amendments $ 550 1 $ 13,324 4% $ 13,324 $ 550 $ 12,774
7 Zoning Atlas Amendment-Rezoning
8 Rezone to Conventional District-Residential $ 550 1 $ 6,398 9% $ 6,398 $ 550 $ 5,848
9 Rezone to Conventional District-Nonresidential-BASE $ Z250 1 $ 5,500 41% $ 5,500 $ 2,250 $ 3,250
Rezone to Conventional District-Nonresidential(an additional 5100.00
10 per acre of proposed disturbed area) $ 2,000 1 S 2,107 95% $ 2,107 $ 2,000 $ 107
11 Rezoneto Conditional District-BASE $ 2,000 5 $ 15,140 13% $ 75,698 $ 10,000 $ 65,698
Rezone to Conditional District(an additional$100.00 per acre of
12 proposed disturbed area staff review fee) $ 2,000 5 $ 886 225% $ 4,438 $ 10,000 $ (5,562)
13 Zoning Fees.Telecommunication Towers
Zoning Compliance Permits for Administratively Approved New Towers-
14 BASE $ 1,000 5 $ 2,347 43% $ 11,734 $ 5,000 $ 6,734
Zoning Compliance Permits for Administratively Approved New Towers
15 (plus$100.00 per acre of the proposed) $ 200 5 $ 322 62% $ 1,612 $ 1,000 $ 612
16 Telecommunication Antenna Collocation/Eligible Facilities Request $ 200 - $ 97 206% -
Zoning Permit Review Fee-Telecommunication
17 Tower Class A $ 2,500 - $ - 0% -
18 Zoning Permit Review Fee-Telecommunication Tower SUP $ 1,500 1 $ 5,113 29% $ 5,113 $ 1,500 $ 3,613
19 Consultant Fee $ - 30 $ 282 0% $ 8,456 $ - $ 8,456
2D Co-Location Fee $ 100 30 S 262 35% 5 8,456 $ 3,000 $ 5,456
21 Board of Adjustmeat
22 Appeal of Interpretation and Variance-residential S 400 4 $ 5,844 7% $ 23,377 $ 1,600 $ 21,777
23 Appeal of Interpretation and Variance-non-residential $ 600 2 S 7,013 9% S 14,027 $ 1,200 $ 12,827
24 Special Use Permits $ 600 3 $ 11,415 5% $ 34,244 $ 1,800 $ 32,444
25 Subdivision
26 Concept Plan-BASE $ 150 45 $ 1,830 8% $ BZ331 $ 6,750 $ 75,581
27 Concept Plan(plus$25.00 per lot) $ 300 45 S 112 269% $ 5,022 $ 13,500 $ (8,478)
28 Final Plat-BASE S 200 45 S 2,540 6% S 114,293 S 9,000 S 105,293
29 Final Plat(plus 525.00 per lot) $ 300 45 S 434 69% S 19,551 S 13,500 S 6,051
30 Re-approval $ 250 4 $ 1,232 20% $ 4,927 S 1,000 $ 3,927
31 Exempt Plat $ 50 75 S 284 18% $ 21,311 $ 3,750 $ 17,.561
32 Major Subdivision
33 Concept Plan-BASE 5 600 4 S 2,247 27% S 8,968 S 2,400 $ 6,588
34 Concept Plan-Per lot $ 1,000 4 $ 161 619% $ 646 $ 4,000 $ (3,354)
35 Preliminary-BASE $ 400 4 $ 3,438 12% $ 13,750 $ 1,600 $ 12,150
36 Preliminary-Per lot 5 1,000 4 S 161 619% S 646 S 4,000 S (3,354)
37 Final-BASE S 500 4 S 5,747 9% 5 22,990 S 2,000 5 20,990
38 Final-Per lot S 500 4 $ 223 224% $ 893 $ 2,000 $ (1,107)
39 Re-approval $ 500 4 S 1.,255 40% $ 5,020 $ 2,000 $ 3,020
4D Modification of approved subdivision-preliminary or final plat S 500 2 S 1,348 37% 5 2,696 S 1,000 S 1,696
MCIT PAGE 19
24
Current Conditions Annual Totals
41 Zoning Compliance Permits and Site Plan Approvals
Zoning Compliance Permits for single family I duplex residential
42 structure(s) $ 55 2200 $ 199 26% $ 437,625 $ 121,000 $ 316,825
Residential site plan associated with Conditional District approval-
43 BASE $ 600 4 $ 1,313 46% $ 5,253 $ 2,400 $ 2,853
Residential site plan associated with Conditional District approval-
44 Per dwelling $ Z500 4 $ 223 1120% $ 693 $ 10,000 $ (91107)
45 Nonresidential uses-BASE S 1,000 15 S 2,470 40% S 37,D43 S 15,000 S 22,043
46 Nonresidential uses-Per acre $ 2,000 15 $ 192 1040% S 2885 $ 30,000 $ (27,115)
47 Home Occupation Plan Review $ 200 15 $ 1,D99 18% S 16,482 $ 3,000 $ 13,482
48 EDD Site Plan-BASE $ 1,000 2 $ Z619 38% $ 5,238 $ 2,000 $ 3,238
49 EDD Site Plan-Per acre $ 2,000 2 $ 228 87B% S 456 S 4,000 S (3,544)
50 Sign permit application-BASE $ 50 25 $ 563 9% $ 14,063 S 1,250 $ 12,813
51 Sign permit application-Per sq.ft. $ 64 25 $ 81 79% $ 2p18 $ 1,600 $ 418
Major Modification to approved site plan(new construction,engineering
modifications to the site
52 plan,stormwater revisions,.etc.)-BASE 5 500 2 $ 1,287 39% S 2575 S 1,000 S 1,575
Major Modification to approved site plan(new construction,engineering
modifications to the site
53 plan,stormwater revisions,etc.)-Per acre S 2,000 2 S 605 331% S 1,210 S 4,000 S (2,790)
Minor Modification to approved site plan(changes in use,
54 site improvement without building additions) S 250 2 S 351 71% S 702 S 500 S 202
Administrative approvals, including one-year extensions to
55 approved site plans S 250 12 S 529 47% S 6,344 S 3,000 S 3,344
56 Miscellaneous.
57 Re-inspection Fee for failed inspection-Residential $ 50 - $ 295 17% -
5B Re-Inspection Fee for failed inspection-NorrRes Went!al $ 150 S 295 51% S S S
59 Review of Traffic Impact study associated with project $ 250 S 295 85% S S S
60 Private Road Right-of-way request $ 125 3 $ 1,291 10% S 3,874 $ 375 $ 3,499
Abandonment of rights-of-way/release of easements per abandonment
61 or release(includes advertising) $ 375 3 $ 1,009 37% $ 3,028 $ 1,125 $ 1,903
62 Payment-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication
63 Community Park S 5,064 S 201 2514% S S S -
64 District Park $ 5,460 - $ 201 2711% -
65 IHire outside consultants $ - - $ 201 0% -
66 Other
67 2030 Comprehensive Plan-B&W 25 S - 0% S S S
68 2030 Comprehensive Plan-Color $ 125 - $ - 0% -
69 Unified Development ordinance(UDO)-B&W $ 40 - $ - 0% -
70 Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)-Color 5 200 S D% S S S
71 Copy of Map 8.5x11 $ 3 - $ - D% -
72 Copy of Map 6.5 x 11-addl copy $ 2 - $ - 0% -
73 Copy of Map 11x17 S 5 $ D% S S S
74 Copy of Map 11x17-addl copy $ 3 - $ - D% -
75 Copy of Map1Bx24 $ 10 - $ - D% -
76 Copy of Map 24x32 $ 15 $ D% $ $ $
77 Copy of Map 3Dx40 S 25 S D% S S S
78 Custom Map 24x32(Using Existing Data),Zoning Report $ 30 - $ - D%
79 Technology Fee $ 0 D% -
80 Zoning Verification Letter $ 360 12 S 2 287916% S 4,320 S (1,441) S 1
81 Zoning Compliance Permits for administrativelyapproved new towers S 1,000 - S - D%
MC-PT PAGE 20
25
82 EROSION CONTROL/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
B3 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Review and Inspection Fees
84 Buffer Authorization Certificate(BAC) $ 250 4 $ 595 42% $ 2,379 $ 1,000 $ 1,379
B5 Floodplain Development Permit(FDP) S 250 1 S 1,353 18% S 1,353 S 250 S 1,103
66 Floodplain No Rise Certificate Review S 250 4 $ 933 27% $ 3,734 $ 1,000 $ $734
B7 Residential and NorrResidential development-Per acre<10 ac $ 900 137 $ 459 196% $ 62,661 $ 123,300 $ (60,439)
B8 Residential and Nor-Residential development-Per acre >10 ac<25 S 31300 23 S 547 603% S 12,587 S 75;900 S (63,313)
89 Residential and Non-Residential development-Per acre x 25 ac S 7,800 5 $ 539 1446% $ 2,696 $ 39,000 S (36,304)
90 Erosion Control Plan Revisions-BASE $ 450 6 $ 539 83% $ 3,236 $ 2,700 $ 536
91 Erosion Control Plan Revisions-Per acre S 450 6 S 191 236% S 1,146 S 2,700 S (1,554)
92 Skimmer Basin Sediment, Trap, and/or Diversion DitchReview $ 600 4 $ 111 543% $ 442 $ 2,400 $ (11958)
93 Land Disturbing(Grading)Permits
94 Subdivisions and/or Common Plan of Development SFRs<1 acre lots S 100 1,372 S 477 21% S 654,425 S 137,200 S 517,225
95 Less than 10 acres-BASE $ 600 51 $ 517 116% $ 26,377 $ 30,600 S (4,223)
96 Less than 10 acres-Per acre $ 1,800 137 $ 176 1025% $ 24,055 $ 246,600 $ (222,545)
97 Greater than 10 acres but less than 25 acres S 12,OOO 23 S 609 19711A S 14,006 S 276,000 S (261,994)
98 Greater than 25 acres S 45,000 5 $ 596 7556% $ 2,978 $ 225,000 $ (222,022)
99 Land Disturbance Permit(LDP)Renewal $ - 4 $ 355 0% $ 1,418 $ - $ 1,418
100 Express EC&SW plan Review S 2 S 1,092 D% S 2,184 S S 2,1 B4
101 Plan Re-Review Fee for>1 disapproval 2nd subsequent disapprovals $ 2,100 10 $ 515 408% $ 5,147 S 21,000 S (15,853)
102 Unscheduled Site Re-Ins pectionfor Single Family House(SFH) $ 250 4 $ 310 61% $ 1,238 $ 1,000 $ 238
103 Unscheduled Site Re-Ins pectionfor Subdivision,Commercial,Industrial S 500 8 S 486 103% S 3,B91 S 4,000 S (1 D9)
104 Unpermitted Land Disturbance,Single Family House(SFH) $ 500 2 $ 486 103% $ 973 $ 1,000 $ (27)
105 Unpermitted Land Disturbance:Subdivision,Commercial,lndustrial $ 1,000 1 $ 486 206% $ 486 $ 1,000 S (514)
106 Private Roads $ 155 1 $ 567 26% $ 587 $ 155 $ 432
107 Storm water Management Plans S 1,000 14 S 82B 121% S 11,597 S 14,000 S (2,403)
106 Storm water Management Plan Review(LID) $ 500 18 $ 426 117% S 7,674 $ 9,000 $ (1,326)
109 Re-Inspection of Stormwater Control Measure (SCM)associated w S 250 4 $ 964 26% $ 3,655 $ 1,000 $ 2,855
110 Inspection of Stormwater Control Measure(SCM)associated with a Nati S 250 2 S 1,141 22% S 2,281 S 500 S 1,781
111 Recurring Near Inspection of Stormwater Control Measure(SCM) $ 750 8 $ 1,768 42% $ 14,141 $ 6,000 $ 8,141
112 Appeal of Land Disturbing(Grading)Permit $ - 1 $ 1,183 0% $ 1,183 $ - $ 1,163
113 Surface Water Identification(SWID)field work. S 300 58 S 362 63% S 20,982 S 17,400 S 3,562
114 Stop Work Order/Notice of Violation for Single Family House(SFH) $ 500 1 $ 1,276 39% $ 1,278 $ 500 $ 778
115 Stop Work. Order/Notice of Violation for Subdivision,Commercial, $ 1,000 1 $ 1,276 78% $ 1,278 $ 1,000 $ 278
116 Re-Application Fee S 200 2 S 84 23B% S 168 S 400 S (232)
117 Watershed Boundary Amendment $ 250 2 $ 2,330 ll%l 4,660 $ 500 $ 4,160
116 ENGINEERING(PART OF CP)
119 Plan Review S 500 S 322 155% S S S
120 Utility Construction Observation $ 600 1 $ - 0% -
121 Land Disturbance Permit(LDP)Renewal $ 1 4 $ 17 3% $ 67 $ 2 $ 65
122 Express EC&SW plan Review S 10,000 2 S 1,306 765% S 2,613 S 20,000 S (17,367)
123 Technology Fee $ 0 165 $ - 0% $ - $ 5 $ (5)
124 INSPECTION BUILDING FEES
125 Permit Charge Fee S B3 139 S 12 6B7% S 1,669 S 11,466 S (9,799)
126 Change of Contractor Fee S 30 115 $ 12 250% $ 1,381 $ 3,450 S (2,069)
127 Credit Card use fee $ - 3,023 $ - 0% $ - -
12B Plans Review-Amendment Fee S 150 101 S - 0% S S 15,150 S (15,150)
129 Schedule A
130 New Residential(1&2 family) S - 180 $ 529 0% $ 95,204 $ 8 S 95,196
131 Residential Plan Review $ 180 712 $ 647 28% $ 461,003 $ 126,160 $ 332,843
MCIT PAGE 21
26
132 Schedule B
133 Residential renovation/addition $ 406 - $ 737 0% $ 299,265 $ 133 $ 299,132
134 Schedule C
135 Mob11elModular Homes S - - $ 350 D% -
136 Singlewide $ 315 26 $ 599 53% $ 15,569 $ 8,190 $ 7,379
137 Doublewide S 365 13 S 599 61% S 7,784 S 4,745 S 3,039
138 Triplewide $ 465 - $ 350 133% -
139 Schedule D
140 New Commercial-per square foot S 1,268 52 S 602 0% S 31,281 S 14 S 31,267
141 Commercial Plan Review $ 175 562 $ 242 0% $ 140,584 $ 22 S 140,563
142 (Additional 15%Town of Hillsborough) $ - 129 $ 343 D% $ 44,278 $ - $ 44,278
143 Commercial Renovations and Alterations S 1B5 32 S 526 35% S 16,631 S 5,920 S 10,911
144 Schedule E
145 Miscellaneous Bldg Inspectians
146 Moving Building-Commercial S 165 7 S 321 5B% S 2,348 S 1,355 S 994
147 Moving Building-Residential $ 125 7 $ 321 39% $ 2,348 S 915 S 1,433
14B Building Demolition-Commercial S 125 2 S 247 51% S 1,481 S 750 S 731
149 Building Demolition-Residential S 125 28 $ 247 51% $ 6,910 $ 3,500 $ 3,410
150 Change of Occupancy/Use $ 125 7 $ 247 51% $ 1,607 $ 915 $ 892
151 Swimming Pools-Commercial S 125 S 312 40% S S S
152 SwimmingPools-Residential S 125 33 $ 321 39% $ 10,585 $ 4,125 $ 6,460
153 WoodstovelFireplace-Cow mercial $ 60 - $ 312 19% -
154 WoodstovelFireplace-residential S 60 S 312 19% S S S
155 Prefabricated residential Utility Bldgs. $ 125 7 $ 321 39% $ 2,245 $ 875 $ 1,370
156 Sign Permits $ 125 10 $ 334 37% $ 3,342 $ 1,250 $ 2,092
157 Schedule F
158 TemporarySery S 60 150 $ 118 51% $ 17,672 S 9,000 $ 8,672
159 TemporarySery $ 60 150 $ 118 51% $ 17,672 $ 9m $ 8,672
160 Gasoline Pumps S 60 16 S 118 51% S 1,885 S 960 S 925
161 Miscellaneous Inspections $ 125 633 $ 118 106%1 S 74,577 $ 79,125 S (4,548)
162 Miscellaneous Inspections $ 125 633 $ 118 106%1 S 74,577 $ 79,125 $ (4,548)
163 Schedule G
164 Electrical Service Changes $ - - $ 2,428 0% -
165 Single Phase $ 155 - $ 17 866% -
166 Three phase S 215 - S 17 1230% S S S
167 Schedule H
168 Electrical Service $ - 763 $ 235 D% $ 179,214 $ - $ 179,214
169 >400A Single Phase S 250 338 S 244 103% S 82,419 S 84,500 S (2,DB1)
170 a400A Three Phase $ 320 88 $ 244 131% $ 21,458 S 28,160 $ (6,702)
171 600A-1200A Single Phase $ 560 305 $ 244 230% $ 74,372 $ 170,800 $ (96,428)
172 600A-1200A Three Phase S 640 BD S 244 262% S 19,508 S 51,200 S (31,692)
173 Over 1200A $ 2,100 33 $ 279 63% $ 9,201 S 5,775 $ 3,426
174 Schedule 1
175 Water Heater Installation Single Phase S 125 375 S 57 220% S 21,267 S 46,875 S (25,608)
176 Water Heater Installation Three Phase S 125 188 $ 57 220% $ 10,662 $ 23,500 $ (12,838)
177 Miscellaneous Inspections Single Phase $ 125 375 $ 57 220% $ 21,267 $ 46,875 $ (25,608)
178 Miscellaneous Inspections Three Phase $ 125 188 $ 57 220% $ 10,662 $ 23,500 $ (12,638)
179 Schedule J
180 Residential Mechanical S - 540 S 69 0% 5 48,292 S S 48,292
181 Installation ea addt'I system $ 60 72 $ 98 61% $ 7,084 $ 4,320 $ 2,764
182 Replacement of one system $ 185 72 $ 98 188% $ 7,084 $ 13,320 $ (6,236)
183 Miscellaneous Inspections S 125 36 S 98 127% S 3,542 S 4,500 S (958)
MOOT PAGE 22
27
1 B4 Schedule K
185 Non-residerkialf Commercial
186 Commercial Cooling $ 185 5 $ 35 529% $ 175 $ 925 $ (750)
187 Commercial Heating S 185 6 S 35 529% S 210 S 1,110 S (900)
188 Commercial Heat/Cool $ 185 60 $ 1,287 14% $ 77,217 $ 11,100 $ 66,117
189 Commercial Ventilation/Exhaust $ 185 - $ 77 239% -
190 Commercial Cooking(one) S 185 2 S 1,287 14% 5 2,006 S 2BB S 1,717
191 Refunds $ 50 21 $ 98 -31% $ 2,099 $ (643) $ 2,741
192 Issue Certificate of Occupancy $ 20 21 $ 77 26% $ 1,656 $ 428 $ 1,228
193 Permit Renewal S 60 21 S 87 69% S 1,874 S 1,2B5 S 589
194 Day Care Permits(existing building new occupancy) $ 125 21 $ 98 126% $ 2,099 $ 2,677 $ (579)
195 Sprinkler system $ 245 21 $ 86 284% 1,848 $ 5,248 $ (3,400)
196 Temporary Electrical Final Inspection S 125 166 S 86 145% S 14;324 S 20,750 S (6,426)
197 Fire Alarm system $ 245 21 $ 86 284% $ 1,B4B $ 5,248 $ (3,400)
198 lArchive research(per project) $ 25 21 $ 317 6% $ 6,800 $ 535 $ 6,264
199 Grease trap installation S 125 21 S 86 145% S 1,848 S 2,677 S (B29)
200 Critical event permit fee waiver(2) $ - 21 $ 77 0% $ 1,656 $ - $ 1,656
201 Reinspection fee(no charge for 1st rejection for project. All subsequent $ 125 593 $ 77 162% $ 45,855 $ 74,125 $ (28,270)
202 Reinspection fee(no charge for 1st rejection for project. All subsequent $ 125 21 $ 77 162% $ 1,656 S 2,677 $ (1,021)
203 Application Fee $ 55 21 $ - 0% $ - $ 1,178 $ (1,178)
2D4 Technology Fee S D 2,7B7 S 0% S S B4 S (B4)
205 Work started with no permits $ - 21 $ - 0% -
206 Temporary Certificate of Compliance application fee $ 110 21 $ - 0%1$ - I$ 2,356 I$ (2,356)
207 Non Fee-Related Activities S 1 S 1 0%1 S I S S -
Total User Fees $ 3,987,139 1 $ 2,578,261 $ 1,408,878
%of Full Cost 1 65% 35%
MC-PT PAGE 23
28
Appendix B - Peer Comparison Survey
The following pages show the results of the peer comparison survey.
Emergency Services-Emergency Medical Services
Activity Orange
I Current Fee Charge
Durham
Emergency Services Fee Schedule
Comparison
Basic Life Support(Emergency) $ 755.49 $ 863.44 $ 582.81 $ 1,194.00 $ 863.00 Fee not listed $ 630.07 $ 510.861$ 1,449.22 1$ 870.49 1$ 863.00
Advanced Life Support-1 Emergency $ 897.16 $ 1,025.30 $ 692.09 $ 1,194.00 $ 1,025.00 Fee not listed $ 748.21 $ 606.66 $ 1,449.22 $ 962.93 $ 1,025.00
Advanced Life Support-1 Non-Transport) $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 No fee listed $ 250.00 Fee not listed $ 90.00 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 156.67 $ 150.00
Advanced Life Support-2(Emergency) $ 1,298.50 $ 1,484.00 $ 1,001.70 $ 1,194.00 $ 1,484.00 Fee not listed $ 1,082.94 $ 878.05 $ 1,449.22 $ 1,224.84 $ 1,194.00
Advanced Life Support-2(Non-Transport) $ 225.00 S 150.00 $ 150.00 No fee listed $ 250.00 Fee not listed $ 90.00 S 100.00 $ 200.00 S 156.67 $ 150.00
Mileage $ 16.01 Per mile $ 18.30 $ 12.35 $ 29.00 $ 18.00 Fee not listed $ 13.33 $ 16.24 $ 17.88 $ 17.87 $ 17.88
Standby Coverage $ 120.00 Per hour(3 hour $ 200.00 $ 100.00 $ 401.00 $ 250.00 Fee not listed Fee not listed $ 125.00 Fee not listed $ 215.20 $ 200.00
minimum)
BLS Non-Transport Fee not listed $ 150.00 $ 150.00 No fee listed $ 250.00 Fee not listed $ 75.00 $ 50.00 $ 150.00 $ 137.50 $ 150.00
The use of procedural charges,e.g.,defib, Fee structure not Fee structure not Fee structure not Fee structure not Fee structure not Has dedicated fees Fee structure not Fee structure not Fee structure not Fee structure
oxygen,blood products used/listed used/listed Fee structure not useused/listed used/listed used/listed for procedural used/listed used/listed used/listed not used/listed
charges($20-$125)
Payor Mix&Collection Mechanism:Third party Third-Party Billing Third-Parry Billing Third-Parry Billing via Third-Party Billing Third-Party Billing Third-Party Billing Third-Party Billing Third-Party Billing Third-Party Third-Parry
billing vs.in-house? In-House Billing (EMSIMC) (EMSIMC) Controlled Nonprofit (EMSIMC) (EMSIMC) (EMSIMC) (EMSIMC) (EMSIMC) Billing Billing
Agency(Medic 911)
Payor Mix&Collection Mechanism:Assistance Assistance No Assistance No Assistance Assistance Available No Assistance No Assistance No Assistance No Assistance No Assistance No Assistance No Assistance
/Hardship program Offered
Payor Mix&Collection Mechanism: Subscription Subscription Some No
Subscription Service No Subscription No Subscription No Subscription No Subscription No Subscription No Subscription No Subscription Available Available Subscriptions Subscription
Special Event Standby-
Ambulance w/2 EMS Varying Hourly Varying Hourly
EMS Standby Fee(ALS Varying Rates&Flat Rate
Special event coverage fees Hourly Rates Providers:$200.00/hr Unit and two personnel): Pricing for Specific Hourly Rates Hourly Rates Hourly Rates Hourly Rates Rates based on Rates based on
PY P ) 9 P Y Y Y Y
Special Event Standby- Resource Resource
Medic Truck(QRV)w/1 $100.00/hr Events Offering Offering
EMS Provider:$100.00/hr
MCAT PAGE 24
29
Emergency Services-Fire Marshal Division
Activity Orange County Alamance County Catawba County Mecklenburg County
Durham
Current FeeFire&Life Safety DIvWon
Fee Schedule Comparison
Fre Inspections
0-999 sq ft $ 30.00 $ 80.00 $ 8000 Varies 6y $construction cost 30.00 $ 1OO.OD $ 50.00 Not published $ 35.00 $ 6250 $ 65.00
1,000-2,499 sq ft $ 45.00 $ 80.00 $ 60.00 Varies by $canstruction cosk 45.00 $ 150.60 $ 50.00 Not published $ 70.00 $ 79.17 $ 75.00
SBO(up to 5,000 sq. S50(up to 5,000 sq.
2,500-9,999 sq ft $ 100.00 ft.),$126(5,061 to $ 120.00 Varies by S 100.60 $ 150.60 ft.),$150(5,061 to Not published S 139.06 $ 115.57 $ 110.00
10,000 sq,ft.) construction cost 1D,DOO sq.ft)
$150(up to 25,060
10,600-49;999 sq ft S 140.00 S 165.00 S 165.00 Varies by S 200.00 S 200.00 sq.ft.),$O.011 sq, ryot published $ 250.00 $ 186.67 S 260.60
construction cost ft.(25,001 sq.ft.and
up)
50,006+sq ft S 225.00 S 205.00 S 205.00 Varies by
construction cost S 306.00 $ 300.00 $0.01/sq.ft. Not published 5477-$977 S 247.60 $ 25250
Other inspections
Temporary tents/membrane structures $75(1001-2000 sq. $6(operational); 5210(construction
(>600 sf) S 50.00 ft) $ 50.00 $ 135.66 $ 150.00 Not listed 5100(construction) Not listed permit to erect>600 $ 111.67 $ 135.00
sq.ft.)
Pyrotechnics I fireworks exhibition(per S 175.00 S 150.00 S 150.00 S 200.00 S 175.00 Not listed S 150.00 S 75.00 S 210.00 S 158.57 S 150.00
event or location)
Blasting/explosives S 350.00 $225(3D day S 150.00 S 20D.DD "DO(30-day Not listed S1 06(72hr)or 5250 Not listed Not listed S 215.00 S 200.00
blasting) blasting) (90-day)
$0.015 per sq. $150(1-1Dk sq.ft.)
Fire alarm&detect!on(construction) ft.gross floor $156(1-36k sq.ft. S 50.00 S 200.00 then 50.0151sq.ft. Not listed S50+S2/device Not listed SO.02/sf S 137.50 S 150.00
area for each new) >10k
system
Automatic fire extinguishing/sprinkler 5150(sprinkler 52 S150(1-10k sq.ft.) 550+SWnoale
(construction) S 245.00 risers) S 75.00 S 200.00 then$0.015/sq.ft. Not listed head Not listed $0.021sf S 143.75 $ 150.00
>10k
Hazardous materials facility(construction
I permit) S 50.06 Not listed S 50.00 $ 200.00 S 150.00 Not listed $ 100.00 Not listed S 210.00 S 142.00 $ 150.00
Open burning S 50.00 Not listed Not listed S 106.00 S 156.00 Not listed Not listed Not listed S 216.60 S 153.33 S 150.00
Footnates
Harnett County:Inspection fee data shown is for plan reviews.
Wake County:Inspection fee data was not available,so fees levied by the City of Raleigh were used as a proxy.
MC-PT PAGE 25
30
Environment,Agriculture,Parks,and Recreation
(OverYouth � Adult � Youth Youth Gym Athletic Fields Athletic Fields c Athletic Fields Tennis I Tenn!s I Special Wedding Rental� Farmer's
Basketball Basketball Court Tournament "lal Event� PicnicShelter �CGroup Parks Open Amphitheale Large Shelter Event Agency Athletics Athletics Summer AfterschGoi 5PL
(Sports) (Sports) Camps Programs Rentals Rentals Tournaments Lighting Court Rental Rental with Vending Fee Vending amping SpacePermit r Use at park 500 people) Pavilion
Lights
$65 per $350 per$75 per $160 per Resident: Resident: Resident: S35/hcur $101hour $151hour $100fday $251booth Resident-Half $30 per $201hr,or Half Day/ c 4 hours: Nonprofit: $300 Resident-
child teamweek/child month/child 55o/hour $4o/hour 850/hour per day Day:530 group of S75/day Per Hour. -Resident: $265 Half Day:
Non- Non-Resident: Non- Resident-AII 6-30 $50for 1 S75 Business: 520
Resident: $60/hour Resident: Day:S45 hour or -Non- $500 Resident-AII
Orange 875/hour S75/hour Noo-Resident- 8150for 4 Resident: Day:835
County Half Day:S35 hours SBO Nor,
DEAPR Noo-Resident- All Day: a4 hours: Resident-
All Day:$50 $2,500 -Resident: Half Day:
5100 535
-Non- Nor,
Resident: Resident-All
8110 Da.:550
NIA NIA Resident: Resident: No Resident: No court No court No Food Resident:$30 $10F15 NIA NIA Resident: Resident/N 5250-$500 NIA-refer to
W for 510/hr or tournament- 5201hr or rentals listed rentals listed in tournament vendors per 4 hours per night 530 per 4 onprofit: depending on Picnic
Alamance every 2 S50/day specific $501day in available available s listed allowed Nor,Resident: hours S2,000 first facility Shelter fees
County Parks hours Non-Resident: pricing for Non-Resident: facilities facilities online with permit,S40 per 4 hours Non- day as comp to
and Non- S75/hr or athletic field S3o/hr or but fees not Resident: Non- the Farmer's
Recreations Resident: S75/day rentals 575/day, listed $40per 4 ResidentlC Market
$60 for online online hours orporate: Pavilion
every 2 53,000 first
hours da
Varies by$475 per S132 per 1188/year Resident: Turf Fields: Baseball Turf Fields(wl Resident: Resident:S6/hr No vending Rao Center Mon-Thurs: 820 per NIA Residents: Moo-Thurs: Varies by Mon-Thurs N/A-refer to
sport team week S60/hr -Resident: Tournaments lights): S3/hr Nor,Resident: fees online Events: -Resident:530-night -Mon- -Resident: venue,day (Min 4hours): Picnic
Noo- $46/hr (DBAP): -Resident: Non- S11/hr for Events a5 %o/day Thurs: $80/day of week, -Resident: Shelter fees
Resident: -Non- $1,3001day WAr Resident: tournament hours:$25 -Nor,Resident: $201hr -Non- and $50/hr as comp to
575Ihr Resident: -Non- 58/hr s Events-5 $45-545/day -Fri-Sun& Resident: customer -Non, the Farmer's
S55/hr No Resident: hours:S35 Fri-Sun& Holidays: S95/day type. Resident: Market
tournaments S751hr Holidays: $251hr Fri-Sun& S65/hr Pavilion
Grass/All listed online Other -Resident:S55- Holidays: Pricing
Other Fields: for other Grass Fields special $105/day Nor, -Resident: breakdown Fri-Sun&
-Resident: athletic (w/lights): eventfees -Nor,Resident: Residents: 5105/day in Holidays(Min
Durham $20/hr fields -Resident: vary by $70-5120/day -Mon- -Non- comment. 6 hours):
Parks and -Non $40/hr vendorand Thurs: Resident: -Resident:
Recreation Resident: -Nor, eventtype 5251hr $120/day S601hr
$25/hr Resident: -Fri-Sun& -Nor,
S551hr Holidays: Resident:
830/hr 575/hr
DBAP Field
Lighting:
Resident:
5251hr
-Nor,
Resident:
5301hr
MCOT PAGE 26
31
Adeft youth Y' Gy. Athletic F Ids At letic F Athletic F�eld.-� k. C Rt GroupOpen
Agency Athletics Athletics� Summer � Afl.,,.h-I � eutal. Rentals Tournarneds Lighti Rental with Vending Fee� Vending Picnic Shelter camping Space Perm! rUsa at k r
re
(Sports) (Sports) Camps rograms Court Rental 500 people) Pa:ilion
S4D $400 per S9D per $140 per Nonprofit: Rentals wlo No Resident: Resident:S35 Tennis court S50/day per S50/day per-Resident,Non-S1 per Resident: N1A -Resident, Festival Large/Multi- NIA-refer to
team week month 8230(14 Field Prep, tournament- S25/hr (1-4 hrs),850 fees plus field/facilit fieldtfacility Profit:$45(14 person 8100(1-0 Non Profit: Parkcan be Purpose Picnic
hours) Lights&Site specific Non-Resident: (>4 hours) lighting if y hrs),S75 over 4 per night,hours) 570(1-4 reserved Room Rental: Shelter fees
-$50 per Supervision: pricing $501hr Non- requested: hrs $25 -$25 each hrs),$130 for special -Resident/ as comp to
additional -Residents: available that Resident:S70-Resident: -Non-Resident, minimu additional over 4hrs events- Nonprofit: the Farmer's
hour $4D(up to 4 differs from (1-4 hrs), $175 Non-Profit:$90 m hour(per -Non- pricing TBD$150(1-4 hrs);Market
hrs)or standard $100(>4 -Non-Resident: (1-4 hrs),$150 side) Resident, S25 per Pavilion
For Profit: $551day Athletic Field hours) S350 over 4 hrs Non Profit: additional hr
S460(1-4 -Non- Rentals -For Now 8140(1-4 up to D hrs
hours) Residents:SBO Profit:Double Resident: hrs),5260 maximum;
Fayetteville- -5100 per (up to 4 hrs)or non-profit fees $2D0(1-4 over 4 hrs $200 deposit
Cumberland additional $110/day hours) -For Profit:
Parks and hour -550 each Double non- Small/Mediu
Recreation Rentals w/ additional profit fees on Room
Field Prep, hour(per Rental:
Lights,etc: side) -
-Residents: Resident/Non
$1951day profit:$75(1-
-Non- 4 hrs);S25 per
Residents: additional hr
8390/day up to B hrs
maximum;
5200 deposit
S5D $400 per S1 DD per S45 per Resident: S40-S65 per 2 Range from $40 per field Tennis Tennis Courts: S20D per 5200 per Full Day Rental NIA- NIA 52,000/day Full Day Special Residents NIA-refer to
team week week $63/hr hours,or$125 $125 per field per day Courts: -$5 per person event event Fees vary by Offered Rental Event (Guilford): Picnic
Non- per day per day to -$5 per per 1.5 hrs locationlcapac by Fees: (Large): 5125/hr Shelter fees
Resident: 57BD per day person per ity: Guilford -Resident: -Rental Non- as comp to
563/hr for the entire 1.5 hrs Indoor -Resident:850-County 5150 Fee:52,DDD Residents: the Farmer's
complex Basketball $175 -Nor, forthe 5150/hr Market
Greensboro Indoor Courts: -Non-Resident: Resident: whole park Entire Carden: Pavilion
Parks and Basketball -Resident: $75-$200 5200 -Permit S2,0001day
Recreation Courts: 540/hr per Fee:$125-
-Resident: court S2DD
$40/hr per -Non-Resident: (varies by
court S55/hrper event type)
-Non court
Resident:
$551hrper
court
MCOT PAGE 27
32
Tenor.sl
Youth Gym AthiLtic Fields Athletic Fields-Atriletlo Fields- Tennis I Basketball Court Tournament Specia[Evervt� Croup Parks Open Amphitheate Large Shelter�Special Everd F..rmees
Summer Afterschod Basketball Picnic Sheller (Over 500 Wedding Rental 'ket
Camps Programs Rentals Rentals i Tournaments Lighting Court Rental Rental with Vending Fee Vending Campin Space Perm it r use at park Pavilion
lop al) Youth Lights 9 people)
it ,_
$95 5600 per Multiple S50/weak Resident: Natural Grass Sportsplex Grass& Tennis Tennis Courts: S501day S501day Fees vary by Resident:Fees not No Resident: Eased on Resident: N/A-refer to
team offerings at 8100/hr Field: Tournaments Synthetic Courts- -Resident day of week S75- listedonline amphitheat -Mon- total 5450-5550 Picnic
several Non- -Resident: :53,000/day- Fields: -Resident: $5/hr per court and shelter 826/nigh eravailable Thurs:S62 headcount Non-Resident: Shelter fees
prices Resident: S17/hr $7,550/day Resident: $5/hr per -Non,Resident: size: t among the -FriSvn& - $600-$750 as comp to
$100/hr -Non- $25/hr court $5/hr per court -Resident.$21- Nur- county's Holidays: Application the Farmers
Resident: Nor-Resident: -Non- $103 Resident: facilities $163 Fee:8300- Market
$24/hr S3511hr Resident -Nan-Resident: $1¢ and venues Non- 5500 Pavilion
S511hrper S3i-5738 $331nigh Resident: -Trade
Synthetic Field: Sportsplex court t -Mon- Permits:
-Resident: Fields: Thurs:892 579.61 per
Mechlenhurg S42/1hr -Resident: -Fri-Sun& permit
County Parks
-N n- S301hr Holidays: -Event
and Resident: -Non- $226 Main
Recreation $65/hr Resident Permit:
$4511hr $250
Sportsplex outdoor
Rentals: assembly
-Resident: permit
S50/hr required for
(i ncrea sing to 1000+
$60/hr) people
-Non-
Resident:
$76/hr
(increasing to
$51 $450 Multiple W60/year $85/hr 840/hr Walnut Creek S25/hr Tennis Tennis Courts: S50/day 8501day Small Shelters: NIA $40/hr S60/hr 815-539/hr N/A Resident: NIA-refer to
offerings at Athletic Courts:S5lhr $5/hr per court S1O/hr $1501hr Picnic
several Complex:VO- per court Medium Varies by Nan-Resident Shelterfees
prices 830/day per -Same far No additional Shelters,81 21hr shelter/ 5200/hr as comp to
team residents and fees for lighting facility, the Farmer's
non-residents on tennis Market
Buffalo Road courts;manual Pavilion
Athletic Park: Outdoor pushbutton
-Field Rental: Basketball with timer for
Raleigh $150/day Courts: lights
- 5401hr
Parks, Multipurpose -Samefor
Recreations Field&Track residents and
&Cultural 81751day non-residents
Resources
-5 Fields:
$950
(weekend,
excludes
multipurpose
field
MCOT PAGF 28
33
Planning and Inspections
Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee Alamance County Buncombe County Catawba County Chapel Hill(city) Chatham County Durham
Department
Non-
Development
Development
Trade Permits(MEP) Not listed on Electrical: Electrical:$120 $80 per Based on Electric:$60 Electric:$100- Electrical:$115 Electric:$200 $75/trade $75/trade Electrical: Electrical: $75 Calculated
shared fee $0.25/Amp up to 200 instance Commercial ($75 for new 150($150 for Mechanical: Mechanical: ($100 MIN) ($100 MIN) $156(100- $156(100- (Single Fee based on
schedule Mechanical:$90 amps;$180 $160 Multiple Fees(Not service) new service) $70-100 based $100-135 200amp),$187 200amp),$187 for ALL project cost
Plumbling:$90 exceeding 200 Trades Specified) Mechanical:$60- Mechanical: on service based on (400amp) (400amp) Trades) for EACH
amps 75 per service, $60-100($3000 Plumbing:$10- service Mechanical: Mechanical: trade
Mechanical: $275 MAX MAX) 100($50 MIN) Plumbing:$15- $50-125 based $0.058/sf($98 $0-1500:$75
Dependent on Plumbing:$60 Plumbing:$60 150($75 MIN) on service MIN,$3000 $75001 M:
service, ($275 MAX) ($3000 MAX) Plumbing:$170 MAX) $6314
typically by Plumbing: $1 M+:$6314
BTU $7.90/fixture +0.15%of
Plumbing:$90- ($187 MIN) each added
120 1 $M to project
Subdivision Review Minor-Concept: Minor(Up to 14 Minor(Up to 14 Minor(4-10 Minor(4-10 Minor:$65 Minor:$65 Minor:$1050+ Minor:$1050+ Minor(<5 Minor(<5 lots): Minor:$624(2- Minor:$624(2- Preliminary
$150+$25/lot lots):$160+$40/lot lots):$160+ lots):$100+ lots):$100+ Major:$200+ Major:$200+ +68/lot +68/lot lots):$250 $250 6lots) 6lots) Preliminary Review:
Minor-Final:$200 Major(More than 14 $40/lot $10/lot $10/101 $5/lot $5/lot Major:$9465+ Major:$9465+ Major:$500 Major:$500+ Major:$1248+ Major:$1248+ Review: $1000
+$25/lot lots):$200+$50/lot Major(More Major(11 or Major(11 or 331/lot 331/lot +$50/lot $50/lot $52/new lot $52/new lot $1000 Final Review:
than 14 lots): More):$200+ More):$200+ Final $600
Major- $200+$50/lot $15/lot $15/lot Review:
Preliminary:$400 $600
+$50/lot
Major-Concept:
$600+$50/lot
Major-Final:$500
+$25/lot
Zoning Compliance Residential:$55 Not Separate Permit, Not Separate Zoning Zoning By building Type By building $1330+ $1330+ $50 $500 Zoning Zoning $50 $50
Permit New Towers: Handled through Permit, Determination Determination $25-$50 Type $16/100SF $16/100SF Verification Verification
$1000 Building Permit Handled Letter Letter $50-$200 Letter: Letter:
$35:Zoning Letter through $35 $35 $26/address $26/address
Building Permit
$35:Zoning
Letter
Map Amendment $550 Not required in most Not required in $500 $500 $720 $720 $1390+ $1390+ $750+ $750+ $3562:<5acres $3562:<5acres $1,000 $1,000
area most area $68/acre $68/acre $25/acre $25/acre $4602:5+ $4602:5+
Some areas might Some areas acres acres
require might require
Erosion Control Plan $450+ $119 per Acre $119 per Acre 0.25-1 acre: 0.25-1 acre: <1acre:$50 <1 acre:$50 $450+ $450+ $250/acre $250/acre <2000SF:No <2000SF:No Lesser of: $250/acre
Review $450/acre $100 $100 (permit only) (permit only) $450/acre $450/acre plan req. plan req. $100/lot
1+acre:$525 1+acre:$525 1+acre:$200+ 1+acre:$200+ 20000SF- 20000SF- OR
Per Acre, Per Acre, $150/acre $150/acre 1 acre:$100 1 acre:$100 $250/acre
Prorated Prorated 1+acre: 1+acre:
$125/acre $125/acre
MGVT PAGE 29
34
Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee Alamance County Buncombe County Catawba County Chapel Hill(city) Chatham County Durham
Department
Non-
Development
Development
Land Disturbance Residential:$500 $119 per Acre $119 per Acre Stormwater& Stormwater& <lacre:$50 <1 acre:$50 Small:$200 Small:$200 $250/acre $250/acre <12000SF:No <12000SF:No $250/acre $250/acre
Permit Commerical: Erosion Control Erosion Control 1+acre:$200+ 1+acre:$200+ Large:$600 Large:$600 plan or permit plan or permit
$1,000 Plan Review Plan Review $150/acre(this $150/acre(this req. req.
Fees Cover Fees Cover requires a plan requires a plan 12-20000SF: 12-20000SF:
Permit Permit review) review) $275 $275
1-10 acres: 1-10 acres:
$525/acre $525/acre
10+acres: 10+acres:
$800/acre $800/acre
Stormwater Plan $500 $739(Includes $739(Includes <1 acre:$525 <1 acre:$525 $200+$150 per $200+$150 $0(0-199 sf)up Not Specified, $125/acre $125/acre 21780SF-1 acre:21780SF-1 acre: $50 $250/acre
Review Permit+Plan Permit+Plan 1+Acre:$525 1+Acre:$525 add'lacre per add'lacre to$241.62 Calculation $225 $225
Review) Review) Per Acre, Per Acre, (5000-6000 sf), Dependent on 1+acre: 1+acre:
Prorate Prorate then increase development- $325/acre $325/acre
$40.27 per type and Fee
1000 sf Distribution
MCOT PAGE
35
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Fee Study Report
DEAPR, Planning & Inspections, Emergency Services
February 10, 2026
Worksession
36
Fee StudyBackground
Need to Review Fees
• County Management sought to have a comprehensive review of fees due to the impact of
rapid cost of inflation after Covid.
- County Budget had to either accept higher county subsidy - higher tax burden or set higher fees - pushing more
costs to direct users.
• County released an RFP for an external review of fees by end of 2024, and selected MGT
consulting to perform total cost accounting of performing fee generating services.
- Staff reviewed three departments, rather than all fee generating services.
• County departments provided detailed accounting of all relevant costs and revenues and met
biweekly with consultant to iron out a detailed model.
ORANGE COUNTY
2 NORTH CAROLINA
37
Fee StudyBackground
Full Cost of User Fees Services
• MGT Model is based on determining the full cost of user fees, a distinct way of estimating cost
that has not been used by county departments or by county budget office.
• Collects the following information from departments:
- Schedule of all fees and annual volumes for each fee
- FY 2025 Revenue and Expenditure data
- Personnel costs and organizational chart of the department
- Cost Allocation Plan — value of the support provided by other departments such as HR, IT, and Finance.
• Allocates all costs to each fee (or to non-fee activity) by time allocation provided by
departments.
• Compares the total cost to provide the activity to the current revenue generated by the fee,
which generates a cost recovery percentage.
• The total cost recovery percentage of all studied fees is 35%, which means general fund
revenue is subsidizing 65% of the cost to run these programs, or $14.1 M.
ORANGE COUNTY
3 NORTH CAROLINA
38
Fee StudyBackground
Different Cost Recovery Models
11 Cost of User Fee L Budget Cost Recovery L Q�irect Cost Recovery
• Shows all costs associated • Cost recovery figures as • Cost recovery estimate
with fee activity, allocated by communicated in the budget sometimes considered by fee
each fee. process, summarized at the generating departments.
• Includes department division level. • Considers only the supplies,
expenditures, staff salaries • Includes all costs in that seasonal staff, and contract
who directly work on the fee, division, including direct staff, personnel costs to operating a
indirect costs of supervisors division leadership, and class or collect a fee.
and costs in other operational costs. Does not consider the cost of
departments. • Will not include costs of staff time, administration, or
• Removes costs for staff time department leadership in any indirect costs.
that are not associated with a other divisions, or support
fee. costs of other departments.
• Full Cost is not the typical way the county has considered cost recovery for fee programs, and so the cost
recovery percentage will be different, and often much lower than reported otherwise.
• To set a policy target for each unit, county will need to translate back into Budget Cost Recover i.
ORANGE COUNTY
4 NORTH CAROLINA
39
Fee StudyBackground
Qualitative Factors for Subsidizing Fees
MGT Model has provided the required cost to achieve 100% cost recovery in program areas, but
the County needs to consider other factors to set policy. Presentation will include staff
considerations on the following factors that could recommend subsidizing fees:
• Community Benefit — Some types of fee activity are broadly expected to have significant county subsidy,
like classes for youth and seniors.
• Demand Impact — A high fee may diminish demand for a county service, resulting in lower utilization and
lower fee recovery for staff time.
• User Impact — A high fee may cause an unwanted hardship for the fee user, that could lead to decisions
that are unwanted by the county.
• Peer Comparison — The MGT report includes peer comparisons to five other similar county or municipal
governments.
• Strategic Alignment — A fee activity that is prioritized through the Board of County Commissioner's
Strategic Plan could be subsidized to encourage usage.
• Targeted Subsidy — In addition to subsidizing the fee for all users, the county can further subsidize some
specific users for fees to ensure program is available to those with the highest need.
ORANGE COUNTY
5 NORTH CAROLINA
40
Fee StudyBackground
Qualitative Factors for Increasing Fees and Reducing Subsidy
While there are policy reasons to subsidize county fee programs, there are policy reasons why it
is harmful to overly subsidize county programming:
• Cost to Taxpayer — All costs that are subsidized by county are ultimately charged back to county
residents through Property and Sales Tax, regardless of whether they could use the service.
• Opportunity Cost of Subsidy —Any funding that is used to subsidize a program could instead be used to
improve that program or fund a different county program that is of higher strategic priority.
• Unanticipated Uses —Any fee that is set too low could have unanticipated uses or users. Out-of-County
users could use county services if we are priced below our peers. Users of subsidized programs may not
necessarily be highest need county residents.
• Discourage Use — Fees can be set to actively discourage or limit types of use. Most frequently this is
used to discourage multiple submissions or re-inspections.
ORANGE COUNTY
6 NORTH CAROLINA
41
Fee StudyBackground
Other Tools for improving Fee activities
• While this report only considers improving revenue to improve cost recovery, county staff are
also reviewing expenditure efficiencies.
• Budget staff will compare Budget Cost Recovery to peer agencies, to determine if county cost
recovery is out of line with peers.
• Departments will be working with Strategic Planning Manager to create Department Strategic
Plans to ensure work aligns with county wide strategic plan in implementing fee-based
programs.
• Some efficiencies can occur due to improved staff workflow and use of technology.
• Policy changes with respect to streamlining or simplifying development processes and
approvals would need to be considered by the Board.
• Fees that are not mandated, not Board priorities, and cannot make adequate cost recovery
can be considered for de-prioritization.
ORANGE COUNTY
7 NORTH CAROLINA
42
Fee Study Review
Goals for this presentation
• Present to the Board findings of MGT consultant, including full cost of
providing service and peer comparisons.
• Discuss qualitative factors that can dictate different fee recovery policies.
• Understand Board priorities and feedback to staff recommendations in this
presentation.
• County Manager will use this feedback to set new recovery targets and
recommend fee changes in Manager's Recommended Budget.
ORANGE COUNTY
8 NORTH CAROLINA
43
Fee Study Review — Current Planning
Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County
31 % $745,709
Fee Services Provided:
Text and Future Land Use Map Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, to Unified Development
Ordinance. Rezonings, and Subdivisions.
Fees are relatively low volume but require significant staff time and county cost.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
• Peer Comparison: County is generally within the middle of peers, though this is fee-dependent.
• Demand Impact: while demand is impacted by market forces, high fees and high costs to developers to
satisfy process requirements dampens demand for rezoning and major subdivisions.
• For example: Peer with highest fees, Town of Chapel Hill, has the worst budgeted cost recovery.
• Strategic Alignment: Housing for All Obj. 5 — Review County ordinances, policies, agreements, and the
regulatory processes to streamline practices, and increase opportunities and reduce barriers to construct
housing.
ORANGE COUNTY
9 NORTH CAROLINA
44
Fee Study Review — Current Planning
Staff Recommendations
• Fees can be increased incrementally but would not significantly impact recovery rate.
• Some increases could also be a burden to homeowners trying to improve their properties
• Staff will review efficiency of managing current processes.
• Board could change (increase or decrease) requirements for applications and associated materials. What
applications require Planning Board and/or BOCC reviews?
• Fewer public hearings will reduce staff time and development costs and can satisfy strategic plan
objectives. Staff can administratively confirm alignment with UDO or specific approval requirements
once Board approves when and whether rezoning or subdivision should occur.
• Can be changes to UDO standards of review
• Can be changes to what is needed for a zoning case's public hearing requirements
• Approval of new Comprehensive Land Use Plan could alleviate some of the staff time commitment by
decreasing volume of hearing items and ensuring statements of consistency are more in line with
contemporary board priorities, as reflected in the Strategic Plan.
ORANGE COUNTY
10 NORTH CAROLINA
45
Fee Study Review — Erosion Control
Fee Recovery %* Net Cost to County*
138% ($344,805)
Fee Services Provided:
Reviews, approves, inspects, administers and enforces Federal, State and County Erosion and
Sedimentation Control requirements throughout the County (including Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Mebane and
Hillsborough). It also regulates stream buffers and development activity within the 100-year floodplain
throughout Orange County's Planning Jurisdiction.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
• Peer Comparison: County is above peers.
• Fees for large subdivisions and industrial projects cover multiple years of staff work.
- *In FY 25 staff received fees that will count towards staff time that will occur in FY 26 and FY 27.
• Demand Impact: high fees and high costs to developers to provide erosion control dampens demand for
subdivisions and economic development projects.
ORANGE COUNTY
11 NORTH CAROLINA
46
Fee Study —Review Inspections
Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County
50% $1 ,007,974
Fee Services Provided:
The building inspections division receives, processes, and issues building construction permits. This division verifies
compliance with the mandated NC State Building Code by conducting inspections during construction of building, structures,
mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. County provides services for Town of Hillsborough and Unincorporated Orange
County.
Volume in FY 25 was notably low and FY 26 is already outperforming historic norms in terms of permit volume and revenue.
Positions that were held vacant and defunded in FY 25 were included in the MGT model.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
• Demand Impact: while demand is impacted by market forces, high fees and high costs for new development can reduce
demand.
• Strategic Alignment: Housing for All Obj. 5 — Review County ordinances, policies, agreements, and the regulatory
processes to streamline practices, and increase opportunities and reduce barriers to construct housing.
• Cost to Taxpayer: lower subsidy levels mean that taxpayers across the county are subsidizing inspections for construction
in only parts of the county.
• Opportunity Cost of Subsidy: State law requires a certain timeframe of responsiveness, funding that is-subsidizing program
could be used to increase staff and meet responsiveness requirements. ORAN�L-- ti--,.�JNT
12 NORTH CAROLINA
47
Fee Study —Review Inspections
Staff Recommendations
Demand in FY 2025 was low, but management held positions vacant to reduce expenditures. Department
expressed strain to personnel to meet all deadlines.
• Going forward, department will need to set a target recovery level based on the expectation of a
historically average year of demand and set staffing levels sufficient to meet state deadlines.
• Budget Office conducting peer review of budgeted recovery levels of peer departments, first review
shows department's FY 26 budgeted recovery was within peer standards but need to do deeper review to
ensure apples-to-apples comparison. Some larger peers, Buncombe and Durham City/County have
achieved 100% cost recovery or greater. Town of Chapel Hill has the worst recovery rate.
• Planning office staff have identified that the schedule is overly complicated for users to navigate and will
propose a new fee framework for the board to approve at a future board meeting.
• Staff recommends increasing fees for large residential, commercial, and non-essential features (i.e.
pools) but continue to subsidize small residential to maintain county strategic priorities.
• Request Board input on weighing different factors, Manager will set policy recovery target in Budget
based on board deliberation.
ORANGE COUNTY
13 NORTH CAROLINA
48
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County
32% $879,676
Fee Services Provided:
Recreation Division provides classes, athletic leagues for children and adults, as well as summer camps, preschool and
afterschool. While there are no restrictions on who can apply to utilize DEAPR services, the location of services are most
convenient to residents in Hillsborough and the unincorporated parts of the county.
Fee Recovery By Category:
• % Net Costto County
Youth Athletics 46% $150,356
Adult Athletics 10% $185,536
Recreation — Classes 15% $113,649
Summer Camps 47% $186,663
Afterschool 33% $102,358
Preschool 39% $72,732
Alcohol Permits 12% T $1 ,062 _ _ .'y
14 NORTH CAR[7LINA
49
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County
32% $879,676
Considerations for Fee Recovery
• Peer Comparison: At top of peer range for youth athletics, below peers at adult athletics.
• Community Benefit: County provides a low-cost option for recreation and classes to benefit the members of the
community who cannot afford other private recreation options.
• Strategic Alignment: Healthy Community Obj. 8 — Invest in services and programs that improve the health and quality of
life of the community (e.g., recreation and public open spaces, arts, etc.)
• Unanticipated Uses: Orange County's recreation fee schedule does not make any adjustments for out-of-county use,
and is first-come, first-serve, so services may not be used by those with greatest financial need.
• Opportunity Cost of Subsidy: County funds that are subsidizing certain recreation services could be used to expand
services instead. For example, the general fund subsidy that is currently applied to adult programming could be shifted
to expand youth programming.
• Targeted Subsidy: County has several subsidy mechanisms for certain programs or users. Detailed on upcoming slide.
ORANGE COUNTY
15 NORTH CAROLINA
50
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Targeted Subsidy Arrangements FT M70
All peers in the peer review utilize different targeted subsidy arrangements, as does the county. Targeted
subsidies can ensure that those who can't afford private services can take advantage of the county
services.
• However, administering a targeted subsidy adds administrative costs that add to the total cost of
programs. Typical subsidy programs also require income verification, which can feel invasive to users.
• County has two primary subsidy programs:
• DSS covers up to $250 per child that are receiving benefits from DSS out of its Youth Enhancement
Fund. DSS provides the administrative support to track the usage of the program.
• DEAPR uses free or reduced lunch certificates from OCS to provide 25% discount to classes and
programming. Does not apply to afterschool, summer camp or preschool.
• Separately, a prior Board removed the fee for both youth and adult drop-in programming at Central
Recreation Center. This includes badminton, basketball and pickleball. Staff are required to supervise
these drop-in periods, so 633 hours of staff time have no reimbursement. Fees could be established for
adults, for youth, or both.
ORANGE COUNTY
16 NORTH CAROLINA
51
Slide 16
TMO Is this adult drop in or does it include youth as well?
Travis Myren,2026-02-04T16:29:36.099
KVO 0 It includes all drop in, there is no fee at all right now, but we could bring back a fee for all orjust a fee for adults
Kirk Vaughn,2026-02-04T16:49:07.053
52
Fee Study Review — DEAPR Recreation
Staff Recommendations
• Charge full cost for Alcohol Permits.
• Fees and cost recovery for Youth Athletics, Summer Camp and Preschool within reasonable
expectations. Afterschool slightly lower.
• Staff can review expanding targeted subsidies to ensure better accessibility for lower income users,
either by expanding existing subsidy programs or exploring peer models.
• Cost Recovery for Adult Athletics and Classes is notably insufficient.
• Increase league costs to peer levels. Could cause some sports to have insufficient teams for
leagues.
• Review staff time efficiency in managing these programs.
• Review offerings for sufficient interest, determine if offerings are redundant with Aging and local
municipal recreation organizations.
• Board could reconsider having a nominal drop-in fee for Central Rec usage or target free usage of
Central Rec to specific users i.e. youth, low-income.
ORANGE COUNTY
17 NORTH CAROLINA
53
Fee Study Review — Fire Marshal
Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County*
20% $217,200
Fee Services Provided:
The Fire & Life Safety Division provides plans for new construction and enforces the North Carolina fire code. County
provides services for Town of Hillsborough and Unincorporated Orange County.
*The Town of Hillsborough provides $80,000 in funding for the county to provide services in the town, and to inspect Town
facilities for free.
Volume in FY 25 was notably low and FY 26 is already outperforming in terms of revenue.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
• Peer Comparison: County is at low end of peer comparisons.
• Demand Impact: while demand is impacted by market forces, high fees and high costs for new development can
reduce demand.
• Strategic Alignment: Healthy Community Obj. 7 — Provide sustainable, equitable, and high-quality community safety and
emergency services to meet the community's evolving needs.
• Cost to Taxpayer: lower subsidy levels mean that taxpayers across the county are subsidizing fire inspections for
construction in only parts of the county.
ORANGE COUNTY
18 NORTH CAROLINA
54
Fee Study Review — Fire Marshal
Staff Recommendations
Budget Office conducting peer review of budgeted recovery levels of peer departments. Not all peers
break out Fire Marshall in public budget documents. There was some notable variances of recovery rates
in other counties. Alamance budgeted minimal cost recovery, while Mecklenburg budgeted 100%+ cost
recovery. Wide variance on how other entities viewed cost recovery for this service.
• Staff recommends increasing fees for 1St and 2nd reinspection to add more cost to failed inspections.
• Request Board input on weighing different factors, Manager will set policy recovery target in Budget
based on Board deliberation.
• Staff previously did not charge Orange County Schools, based on difficulty of receiving payment. Budget
staff confirmed that CHCCS was charged by towns. Should this practice be reversed to maintain equity
between the districts? MGT model assumes revenue is received from OCS going forward.
ORANGE COUNTY
19 NORTH CAROLINA
55
Fee Study Review — Emergency Medical Services
Fee Recovery % Net Cost to County
28% $11 ,498,601
Fee Services Provided:
The Emergency Medical Services Division provides 24/7 ambulance transport and life services support. County provides
services for the whole county. EMS cost recovery is limited by Federal and state reimbursement schedules, commercial
insurance contracts, and limited collection rates for self-pay.
Considerations for Fee Recovery
• Peer Comparison: County is at low end of peer comparisons. County uses 175% of Medicaid reimbursement rates as a
standard for its ALS/BLS billing, which updates automatically each year.
• Community Benefit: County provides an essential service to ensure resident well-being at life-critical events.
• User Impact: Despite current cost recovery, current ALS/BLS fees are very significant, especially for uninsured
residents.
• Strategic Alignment: Healthy Community Obj. 7 — Provide sustainable, equitable, and high-quality community safety and
emergency services to meet the community's evolving needs.
• Opportunity Cost of Subsidy: Funding that is used to subsidize EMS services could instead invest in increased staffing,
improving response times and health outcomes.
• Targeted Subsidy: County provides hardship assistance through a waiver administered through D„S
��� NGE COUNTY
20 Federal law prohibits an automatic discount for self pay patients. NORTH CARaLIivA
56
Fee Study Review — Emergency Medical Services
Staff Recommendations
• Costs can be increased incrementally to regional peer averages. This will not dramatically improve cost
recovery due to constraints from Medicaid reimbursement and self-insured low payment rates.
• County cost to run this service is high, and based on current CIP & Operating model, county subsidy will
increase in future years. While County has limited ability to offset these investments, the County can
communicate the need for these investments during budget process.
• CIP includes significant investments in EMS services that will drive increases to debt service. These
include a robust EMS vehicle replacement schedule, new CAD software, and two new EMS
substations that will add staff and vehicles. New ES headquarters and VIPER radio towers are also
significant capital investments in next 5 years.
• County currently uses grant funding to cover new EMS programs like PORT and CARES, that will
eventually need to rely on county funding if they are maintained.
• One component for future review is external collections. County currently has staff in Tax Office collect
EMS fees. All peer reviewed counties use external collection services. County added an FTE in Tax in
2025 to improve collection recovery. Staff will review alternative models and reach out to peer staff which
use external collections.
ORANGE COUNTY
21 NORTH CAROLINA
57
Fee Study Review — Review and Questions
• Questions about fee study, presentation and findings?
• Are there other types of information that the Board would want to see based on
findings in this report?
• Staff can move to studying other Fee generating departments based on this
framework: Aging, Animal Services, Environmental Health and Solid Waste.
• Staff will have access to excel-based models for these departments, and so
can periodically update models based on changes in fees, costs or volume.
ORANGE COUNTY
22 NORTH CAROLINA