MGT Study Buckeye UF Final Report 1.29.26.pdf

Comprehensive Fee Study 
Report of Findings 
City of Buckeye, AZ 
JANUARY 2026 
MGT.us

PAGE 1 
CITY OF BUCKEYE 
COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY 
JANUARY 2025 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 
Study Scope and Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 1 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 2 
User Fee Financial Overview ............................................................................................................................... 2 
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 
Economic & Policy Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 5 
ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS ............................................................................................... 6 
Municipal Airport ................................................................................................................................................. 7 
Community Services ............................................................................................................................................ 7 
Development Services ....................................................................................................................................... 11 
Water Resources and Utility Billing ................................................................................................................... 15 
Finance – Business Licenses ........................................................................................................................... 15 
Peer Comparisons ............................................................................................................................................. 15 
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 16 
APPENDIX A – USER FEE RESULTS ............................................................................ 17 
Municipal Airport ............................................................................................................................................... 18 
Community Services .......................................................................................................................................... 20 
Development Services - Planning ..................................................................................................................... 24 
Development Services - Building ...................................................................................................................... 26 
Development Services - Engineering ................................................................................................................ 29 
Development Services – Fire Safety ................................................................................................................. 33 
Water Resources and Utility Billing ................................................................................................................... 35 
APPENDIX B – PEER COMPARISONS ......................................................................... 37 
Municipal Airport ............................................................................................................................................... 38 
Community Services .......................................................................................................................................... 39 
Building ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 
Planning .............................................................................................................................................................. 43 
Engineering ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 
Fire Safety .......................................................................................................................................................... 46 
Water Resources and Utility Billing ................................................................................................................... 47 
Business Licenses ............................................................................................................................................. 48

PAGE 1 
Executive Summary 
Introduction 
MGT is pleased to present the City of Buckeye with a summary of findings from the recently 
completed fee study. 
The City engaged MGT to conduct a comprehensive fee study based on the fiscal year 2023-2024 
budgeted expenditures, staffing costs, and operational data. The City’s current fees represent the 
fees being charged at the beginning of this study.  
In 2016-2017, MGT conducted a cost of services study of the Development user fees. This study 
updated that study, as well as performing an analysis of the cost of user fees for other 
departments. 
This report is the culmination of an extensive study conducted by MGT in collaboration with the 
City’s management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge 
all management and staff who participated in this project for their efforts and coordination.  
Study Scope and Objectives 
The study reviewed fee-for-service activities in the following departments: 
 Airport* 
 Community Services 
 Development Services 
o Planning 
o Building 
o Engineering 
o Fire 
 Finance 
 Fire 
 Water Resources 
*Municipal Airport doesn’t have fees for service so MGT conducted a comparative survey of 
their fees in lieu of a cost analysis. 
The primary goals of the study were to: 
 Determine the City's costs to provide specific fee-related services. 
 Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new fees. 
 Identify service areas where the City 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. 
 Develop fiscal projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees.

PAGE 2 
 Provide comparative data for what neighboring cities are charging for similar 
services.  
The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City 
with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and 
the resulting impact on restricted and general fund revenues.  
Summary of Findings 
User Fee Financial Overview 
The primary objective of the study was to equip the City's decision-makers with essential data for 
informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of services and presents 
recommended proposed fees and fiscal projections based on recommended cost recovery levels. 
Recommendations are based on careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, 
historical cost recovery levels, and market comparisons.  
The chart below shows the annualized costs and revenues for the City’s user fees that were part 
of this analysis. It is difficult to predict future revenues due to the fluctuation in demand and 
economic conditions. MGT based the annual cost on the individual full cost for each fee analyzed 
multiplied by the annual volume statistics.  
Note: The Community Services department’s summary of cost and revenue is not included in the 
chart, as their analysis includes options for cost calculation and recommended cost recovery. 
See the Analysis Highlights section for details. 
 
 
 Full Cost User Fee Services – This column represents what the full cost to the City is 
for each of the departments to provide annual user fee services based on the annual 
volume statistics. In total, this study evaluated $19,734,199 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 City. 
 Current Revenues – This column represents what the City is currently recovering in 
revenue for these same services based on the annual volume statistics. Based on 
current fee recovery levels, the City receives fee-related cost recovery in the amount 
equal to $11,381,631 and is experiencing an overall 58% cost recovery level.

PAGE 3 
 Current Subsidy – Current fee levels recover 58% of full cost, leaving 42%, or 
$8,352,568, to be funded by other sources. This subsidy represents an opportunity for 
an updated and more focused cost recovery effort by the City for fee-related services. 
 Cost Recovery Policy – It is estimated that adoption of the recommended fees would 
increase cost recovery to $19,357,992. This would increase the overall cost recovery 
level to 98%.  
 Increased Revenue – Assuming activity levels remain relatively static, approximately 
$7,976,602 in additional cost recovery could be received by the City, an increase of 
70%. 
Methodology 
A cost-of-service study consists of two basic elements:   
 Hourly rates of staff providing the 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. 
Hourly Rates 
The hourly rate methodology used in this study builds indirect costs into City 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 (including labor, operating expense, department 
administration and Citywide 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 specifically to a particular 
function or activity, including the labor of persons working directly on the specific service for 
which the fee is charged, and possibly materials or supplies those people use for the task.  
Indirect costs are those that support more than one program area and are not easily identifiable 
to specific activities. Examples of indirect costs are: 1) departmental administrative and support 
staff, 2) training and education time, 3) public counter and telephone time, 4) some service and 
supply costs, and 5) Citywide overhead costs from outside of the department as identified in the 
City’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 is comprised of 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. There are three elements of indirect cost incorporated, including:

PAGE 4 
 Indirect Labor – includes compensated absences, administrative and supervisory 
staff costs. 
 Other Operating Expenses – most services and supplies are included as a second layer 
of indirect cost and are prorated across all fees and services. There are some service 
and supply expenses classified as “allowable direct”. Some examples of these are 
professional services expenses or supplies. These allowable direct expenses would 
be directly associated with specific fees or programs, as opposed to being allocated 
across all activities through the indirect overhead.  
 External Indirect Allocations – this represents the prorated portion of citywide 
overhead (from the City’s cost allocation plan) which is attributable to the service for 
which the fee is charged. 
FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES – incorporates all the elements that comprise the hourly rates 
used in this cost analysis. 
 Each direct or operational staff classification is listed, together with the average 
annual salary and benefits. 
 The hourly salary and benefit rate is calculated by taking the annual salary and benefits 
of an employee and dividing by 2,080 available hours in a year. 
 The overhead rate is derived by multiplying the internal and external indirect cost rates 
against the salary and benefit rates. 
The total combines the salary, benefits and overhead rates. This is the fully burdened rate for 
each staff classification. MGT prepared indirect overhead rates and corresponding hourly rate 
calculations using FY 2023 budgeted expenditures.  The building and safety division utilizes one 
divisional hourly rate which incorporates all of these elements but averages them together. 
Time Spent 
The next step in the process was to identify staff time spent directly on each of the user fee 
activities. Each staff person involved in the user fee services identified time spent completing 
each task associated with all user fee services. Annual volume statistics were also gathered to 
develop total annual workload information. This information is provided in detailed user fee 
workbooks which were provided to the City upon completion of the study. 
Fee Calculations and Revenue Projections 
Given this information, MGT was able to calculate the cost of providing each service, both on a 
per-unit and total 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 added in. Finally, if other departments or divisions provided support into 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 fees/revenues collected, and subsidies (or over-
recoveries) are identified.  
User fee summaries by department may be seen in the next section of this report.

PAGE 5 
Economic & Policy Considerations 
Calculating the true cost of providing City services is crucial for establishing user fees and 
corresponding cost recovery levels. Although it is an important factor, other factors must also be 
given consideration. City 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. 
 Economic barriers – It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits 
lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford. 
 Community benefit – The City Council may 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 recovery levels. Miscellaneous classes tend to have a moderate 
cost recovery level and adult sports programs typically have a higher cost recovery 
level. 
 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. Development-related fees generally fall 
into this category; however, exceptions are sometimes made for services such as 
appeal fees or fees charged exclusively to residential applicants. 
 Service driver – In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the 
service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered.  
 Managing demand – For those fees which are not subject to pure cost recovery 
limitations, other market considerations may inform recommended fee levels. 
Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain City services; increasing the price of 
some services results in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa.  
 Competition – Certain services, such as recreation classes, may be provided by 
neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these 
services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. 
Furthermore, if the City's fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private-sector 
competitors could be adversely affected. 
 Incentives – Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as a 
youth sports program or the issuance of a water heater permit. 
A sample of the decision-making process is shown in the chart below:

PAGE 6 
  
Analysis Highlights 
Below is a brief discussion of the findings for each department/division’s analysis. Please see 
the user fee summary sheets in Appendix A of this report for the details on each fee calculation 
and cost analysis. 
Fees are charged in a variety of ways including: 
 Flat (or fixed) fees – the fee is always the same, regardless of size or complexity of 
the service provided in each instance. 
 Per square foot – the fee is calculated based on the size of the project under review. 
 Hourly (or time‐and‐materials) – City staff track time and materials expense, and fees 
are calculated to recover actual costs. 
 Actual cost – this fee is charged to recover consultant costs as billed to the City, or 
time and materials of staff. 
 Percentage of permits – the fee is calculated as a percentage of the original permit 
fee.  
 Other increments – fees are calculated based on increments such as number of 
sheets or number of set ups/take downs.

PAGE 7 
Municipal Airport 
The Buckeye Municipal Airport is a key facility in the City of Buckeye, AZ. It serves as a hub for 
various aviation activities and offers a range of services to meet the needs of its users. The airport 
provides essential infrastructure for general aviation, including hangar rentals, fueling services, 
and maintenance facilities. Additionally, it supports flight training, recreational flying, and 
business travel. 
The fees charged by the Airport are largely rental fees, consisting of tie-down and hangar fees. 
Rental fees aren’t based on staff labor and don’t need to be tied to cost. In other words, they can 
be charged based on market rates. In lieu of a cost analysis, MGT conducted a peer bench-
marking survey. The results of the survey showed that on average, Buckeye Airport fees are 54% 
lower than their peers.  
The following fee changes are proposed 
 Airport Hourly Rate – increase from $50 to $80 with a 2 hour minimum 
 Overtime Hourly Rate – increase from $100 to $160 with a 2 hour minimum 
 Banner Towing – increase from $10 to $50 
 Commercial Photography – decrease from $200 to $50 
 Replacing Monthly and Daily Tie-Down helicopter fees based on size to a flat fee per 
helicopter: $36 per month and $9 per day 
The following new fees are proposed: 
 Non-Airworthy Aircraft Hanger fee – 2x the applicable hangar fee 
 Gate Access Device/Key - $25 
 Temporary Permit Fee - $50 
All other fees are proposed to remain the same. See fee schedule in Appendix A and survey in 
Appendix B. 
Community Services  
The Community Services Department offers classes, sports programs for youths and adults, an 
aquatic center, parks and facilities rentals, and special events. 
MGT’s cost analysis was done at a higher level than that of the other departments included in this 
study, comparing annual program costs to annual revenues collected. It is difficult to develop a 
detailed cost analysis at the per‐participant or per‐use level with any degree of accuracy because 
program offerings are constantly changing due to changes in seasons, high vs. low demand 
levels, etc. MGT’s analysis provided the department with cost recovery levels by program area.  
The fees were grouped into the following categories, based on services having more community-
wide benefit versus more individualized benefit: 
Rentals & Permits 
 Small/Medium/Large room rentals 
 Pool rentals

PAGE 8 
 Field rentals, with or without lights 
 Small/Medium/Large Ramada rentals 
 Beer permit 
 6th Street Plaza rental 
 Overnight camping 
 Event booth space fees 
Parks & Recreation Programs 
DROP-IN ACCESS 
 Open Swim 
 Aqua Aerobics and Lap Swim 
 Swim Pass 
INTRODUCTORY LEVEL-SKILL BASED ACTIVITIES 
 Swim Lessons/Swim Team 
 Youth Sports Leagues 
 Adult Sports Leagues 
 Special Interest Classes 
 Senior Classes 
 Teen Activities, Dances and Programs 
ADVANCED LEVEL-SKILL BASED ACTIVITIES 
 Lifeguard and Water-Safety Instructor Training Class 
ENRICHMENT, EDUCATION AND CULTURE ACTIVITIES 
 Summer Recreation program 
 Senior Field Trips 
SPECIALIZED BUSINESS SERVICES 
 Private Swim Lessons 
 Summer Camp 
 School Break Camp 
 Lil’ Squirts Program 
 Kids BASE Before/After School Programs 
 Trips for youth and teen participants 
Events 
 Marathon Activities 
Sales 
 Air Fair Parking

PAGE 9 
 VIP Experience 
 Concessions 
At the department’s request, the direct program cost was analyzed as well as the full program 
cost. The direct program cost includes only the direct salaries and benefits of the staff providing 
services, as well as program-specific materials and contractor cost. No departmental or citywide 
overhead was included in the direct cost. The full cost includes the same costs, plus departmental 
and citywide indirect cost, as described in the “Hourly Rates” section of this report. 
The analysis of the full program cost shows that the fee revenue for Community Services 
programs recovers 30% of the cost for programs with a 70% general fund subsidy. Full cost 
recoveries by category range from 12% to 45% See chart below.  
 
 
The analysis of the direct program cost shows that the fee revenue for Community Services 
programs recovers 47% of the cost for programs with a 53% general fund subsidy. Direct cost 
recoveries by category range from 26% to 146%. See chart below.  
 
In 2022 an outside firm recommended a policy with target cost recovery percentages for different 
activities and services. The activities and services were grouped into categories and arranged in 
a continuum with activities with more community-wide benefit having a higher subsidy and less 
cost recovery versus activities with more individual benefit having a lower subsidy and higher 
cost recovery. The department has followed these guidelines and recommended ranges of cost-
recovery for each category, as shown in the chart and table below.

PAGE 10 
 
 
 
Category 
Cost Recovery  
% Range 
Rentals and Permits 
40% - 70% 
Drop-In Access 
0% - 25% 
Introductory Level Skill Based Activities 
40% - 70% 
Advanced Level Skill Based Activities 
50% - 80% 
Enrichment, Education and Culture Activities 
0% - 30% 
Specialized Business Services 
50% - 80% 
Events 
0% - 50% 
Sales 
40% - 70%

PAGE 11 
Using the above cost recovery ranges, MGT’s model shows how the revenue would be impacted 
for each program at the bottom, middle, and top of each range, for both full-cost and direct-cost 
of the programs. See Appendix A for details. 
Development Services 
Planning and Zoning 
The main purpose of the Planning and Zoning division is to manage all development proposals 
made to the city to assure that they are consistent with the community's vision and policies as 
identified in the city's General Plan and the city's adopted regulations as identified in the city's 
Development Code. Planning staff collaborate with other departments to ensure that each 
proposal meets all applicable regulations and facilitates the comprehensive process from 
preliminary and technical meetings through to administrative, Planning and Zoning Commission 
and City Council. Planning staff also provides front counter customer service on planning and 
zoning information, zoning plan review on building and landscape permits as well as planning 
representation on a variety of special projects such as the Land Use Policy projects, Capital 
Improvement projects, Economic Development projects, Development Code updates, CDBG 
management and Transit planning. 
The cost analysis shows that overall, Planning fees are recovering 65% of the cost for fee-related 
services with a 35% general fund subsidy. Although many of Planning’s fees are under-recovering 
the cost, several are over-recovering. Planning is recommending all fees that are over-recovering 
cost be reduced so they don’t exceed the cost of service. In addition, there are several fees that 
Planning recommends continue to be subsidized. These include pre-application conference 
meeting fees, special event temporary use permit, temporary sign permit, and the rezone from 
obsolete zoning district fee. The reasons for recommending subsidies range from encouraging 
development to reducing economic barriers to small business owners.  
If Planning recommendations are approved, revenue is projected to increase by $11,098, 
assuming demand levels remain consistent.  
Thirteen (13) fees are recommended for removal, either because they are obsolete, no longer 
charged, duplicates, or were consolidated with another current fee. Fees recommended for 
removal are: 
 Due Diligence Meeting 
 Discovery Meeting: 2nd Meeting and Each Subsequent Meeting 
 Time Extensions Planning Commission/Council 
 Written Interpretation 
 General Plan Amendments per acre 
 Landscape Permit 
 Landscape Plans, per sheet, per review 
 Rezone with overlay base fee (up to 160 acres) 
 Rezone with overlay base fee plus per acre fee (161+ acres) 
 Site Plan: Planning Commission base fee plus per acre 
 Minor Subdivision Council

PAGE 12 
 Re-plat Council 
 Variance on same lot: per additional lot 
Five (5) new fee proposals were added: 
 Pre-Application Conference (PAC) Meeting (for projects with 60 acres or more) 
 Rezone to PAD base fee (40 acres or less) 
 Rezone to PAD base fee (40+ acres) 
 Rezone to PAD plus per acre fee (41+ acres) 
 Amendment to site plan 
See Appendix A for details of individual fees. 
Building  
The Building division provides plan review, inspection, and permit-issuing services to residents, 
developers and businesses. 
The cost analysis shows that overall, Building fees are recovering 55% of the cost for fee-related 
services with a 45% general fund subsidy. Building is recommending all fees be set at 100% cost 
recovery, with the exception of the Building Demolition fee for other than single family structures. 
The department is recommending that fee remain the same. If fee recommendations are 
approved, assuming demand levels remain consistent, Building’s revenue is projected to increase 
by $8,225,782, assuming demand remains consistent.  
Ten (10) fees are recommended for removal, either because they are obsolete, no longer charged, 
duplicates, or were consolidated with another current fee. Fees recommended for removal are: 
 Stamping of Additional Approved Plans (After Two Initial Sets) 
 Photovoltaic System - Residential Standard Plan Review 
 Wall Standard Plan Review 
 Tract Homes (65% of Building Permit Fee per ICC), 1st and 2nd Review  
 Truss Deferred – Review, Residential, 1st and 2nd Review, Per Structure 
 Existing Meter Clearance (201 to 400 AMP) 
 Electrical Residential, Individual Run Branch Circuit 
 Fences -Block, Privacy, Wrought Iron, Chain-link, Vinyl, Wood, etc. 
 Roof Replacement (Single Family Residence) 
 Stucco (Single Family Residence) All other BOV 
Fourteen (14) new fee proposals were added: 
 Plan Reviews: Non-Residential/Commercial: Other (Based on Stated Value) 
 Water Heater: Electric to Gas or Gas to Electric 
 Certificate of Completion 
 Change of Occupant Permit 
 Stock and Train

PAGE 13 
 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 
 First Extension of TCO (61 to 120 Days) 10% of Original Building Permit Fee 
 Second Extension of TCO (121 to 180 Days) 20% of Original Building Permit Fee 
 Third Extension of TCO (181 to 240 Days) 30% of Original Building Permit Fee 
 Product/Manufacturing Equipment Hookups (MP&E, etc.) 
 Product/Material Handling 
 Temporary Batch Plant 
 Tanks/Silos/Process Piping 
 Solar Farm 
See Appendix A for details of individual fees. 
Engineering Development Services 
The Engineering Development Services division was previously part of the Engineering 
Department but is now part of the Development Services Department. The division reviews street 
and utility improvement plans for compliance with applicable design standards and regulations 
and inspects project construction to assure conformance with approved grading, drainage and 
storm water management plans. These services benefit the development community as well as 
individuals and are therefore eligible for cost recovery. In general, because these fees primarily 
benefit the fee payer, these fees are typically set at or close to 100% cost recovery.   
The cost analysis shows that overall, Engineering fees are recovering 112% of the cost for fee-
related services; however, because it was not feasible for staff to extract annual volume statistics 
and revenue collected for fees based on the size of the project, such as Grading Construction 
permits, it is more likely that Engineering is recovering less, not more, than their cost. The analysis 
shows that Engineering is not recovering their cost to provide Grading Construction permits and 
is therefore recommending fee increases for all tiers except the 500 acres or greater tier. Raising 
these fees to cover full costs would likely result in the overall revenue increasing, assuming fee 
recommendations are adopted.  
Engineering is proposing to change the way some of their fees are charged, such as charging 3% 
of project cost for Major Infrastructure Plan Reviews instead of the hourly fee currently charged. 
They are also proposing to change the current hourly Master Reports fee, which includes all types 
of Master Reports, to individual fees for each type of report. The new fees would include a base 
fee, plus an hourly fee after a certain number of hours.  
There are some fees for which Engineering is over-recovering their cost. Engineering is 
recommending these fees be lowered so as not to charge customers more than the cost of 
service. See Appendix A for details of individual fees 
Eighteen (18) new fee proposals are recommended: 
 Street Name Exhibit 
 Addressing Multi-Family – base fee 
 Addressing Multi-Family – plus per unit 
 Address Map Additional Submittals – 4th and beyond

PAGE 14 
 Single Address 
 Commercial Site Plan Addressing 
 Traffic Impact Analysis 
 Traffic Impact Statement 
 Dry Utility Plan 
 CLOMR/LOMR (Outside Consultant Cost on top of Base Fee) 
 Micro-Trenching 
 Traffic Signal Box Art Fee 
 High-Volume Road Closure (greater than 5,000 vehicles per day) 
 Nighttime - High Volume Arterial Road Closure (7PM to 6AM Only) 
 Low-Volume Road Closure (Less than 5,000 vehicles per day) 
 Nighttime - Low Volume Arterial Road Closure (7PM to 6AM Only) 
 Lane Restriction 
 Left Turn Restriction at Signal 
 
Fire Safety 
The Development Services Department provides fire safety plan reviews and inspections to 
ensure new construction includes safety devices such as sprinklers and alarms and meets all 
code requirements. In addition, they inspect businesses on a periodic and as-needed basis to 
ensure all fire code requirements are being complied with. 
The cost analysis shows that overall, Fire fees are recovering 35% of the cost for fee-related 
services. If fee recommendations are approved, projected revenue will increase by $157,380, 
assuming demand levels remain consistent. It should be noted that Fire is recommending the City 
continue to subsidize fees for Fireworks displays as they typically are held at city events or 
schools. See individual fee details in Appendix A. 
Fire is recommending nine (9) new fee proposals: 
 CO2 Alarm 
 Group Home 
 Special Event 
 UST Tank 
 AST Tank 
 Battery Energy Storage System 
 Burn Permit 
 Fire Prevention Records Request 
 Fire Miscellaneous (hourly rate)

PAGE 15 
Water Resources and Utility Billing 
The Water Resources and Utility Billing Department is responsible for the installation and 
maintenance of all residential, commercial and landscape meters within the city of Buckeye’s 
service areas. The Meter Services Division also responds to requests for high water consumption 
investigations, low pressure inquiries and provides turn-on and turn-off services for residential 
and commercial customers. 
The cost analysis shows that overall, Water fees are recovering 207% of the cost for fee-related 
services. The primary reason for this is the New Account Processing fee. It is currently $60 and 
the full cost to provide services is $27. Because of the high volume of this fee, the revenue loss 
will be $269,511 if the fee is adjusted to 100% of cost.   
Finance – Business Licenses 
The Finance Department issues business licenses and collects the revenues from the fees. Most 
people or companies doing business within the city limits are required to obtain a city business 
license which helps to ensure the reputability of people or companies doing business in the city.  
Business licenses are regulatory in nature, not traditional fees for service driven by labor cost. In 
lieu of a cost-of-service analysis, MGT conducted a comparative survey. See Appendix B for 
details. 
The Finance department is recommending removing nineteen (19) business license fees that 
are no longer issued. These are: 
 Alarm Agent – Application and Agent fees 
 Alarm Business – Application and Annual fees 
 Carnivals, Circus and Road Shows – Application and Daily fees 
 Marijuana Dispensaries – Investigation and Employee Application fees 
 Massage Parlors – Employee Application fee 
 Mobile Vendors – Application, Monthly, and Annual fees 
 Sexually Oriented Business – Investigation and Employee Application fees 
 Solicitors and Peddlers – Special Event fee 
 Tattoo and Body Piercing Establishments – Employee Application, Background and 
Fingerprinting fees, and Late fee and Reinstatement fee 
Peer Comparisons 
MGT conducted a comparison of fees with five neighboring cities: Goodyear, Surprise, Peoria, 
Avondale, and Glendale. In addition, MGT conducted an extensive comparison of Airport fees 
with seven (7) neighboring municipal airports. The departments participating in the comparative 
survey were Airport and the Building, Planning, Engineering and Fire divisions of Development 
Services, and Finance. Comparison surveys do not often provide an exact apples-to-apples 
comparison for each fee, but they can assist in providing guidance when departments make 
their fee recommendations.  
Survey details and results can be found in Appendix B.

PAGE 16 
Recommendations 
MGT recommends that the City continue to analyze its fees and charges, either by staff or outside 
consultants, to build on its investment in this cost-of-service analysis. Once the commitment is 
made to understand the full cost of providing services, it is important to review and update the 
analysis to keep pace with changes in service delivery, staffing changes, and demand levels. 
Most agencies ask us at the conclusion of the study: how often should this type of study be 
undertaken? Our advice is to perform this detailed analysis at least every three but not more than 
five years, with minor adjustments in the non‐study years (to keep pace with economic impacts). 
MGT recommends the City apply an inflation adjustment to fees annually, based on CPI or COLA, 
to keep pace with inflation. The industry best practice is to apply this index once per year as part 
of the City’s annual budget process. This is particularly helpful once an agency has chosen to 
adopt a cost recovery policy – whether 100% of the cost or something less – to keep fees at the 
desired level. 
MGT also recommends that our clients consider a phase-in approach to some fees where the 
increase necessary to reach the proposed recovery level is so high that a one-year implementation 
is cost prohibitive.

PAGE 17 
 
Appendix A – User Fee Results 
The following pages show the individual fee study results.

PAGE 18 
Municipal Airport 
BUCKEYE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 
RATES AND FEES SCHEDULE 
 
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Based Monthly Tiedowns
Single Engine 
$36.00 
$36.00 
Twin Engine 
$45.00 
$45.00 
Turboprop 
$75.00 
$75.00 
Jet 
$90.00 
$90.00 
Helicopter <12,500 lbs 
$36.00 
None 
Helicopter >12,500 lbs 
$50.00 
None 
Helicopter – Twin Rotor 
$100.00 
None 
Helicopter 
None 
$36.00 
Transient Daily Tiedowns 
Single Engine 
$6.00 
$6.00 
Twin Engine 
$8.00 
$8.00 
Turboprop 
$10.00 
$10.00 
Jet 
$12.00 
$12.00 
Helicopter <12,500 lbs 
$6.00 
None 
Helicopter >12,500 lbs 
$9.00 
None 
Helicopter – Twin Rotor 
$10.00 
None 
Helicopter 
None 
$9.00 
Based Monthly Covered Tiedown
Small – Monthly 
$45.00 
$45.00 
Large – Monthly  
$75.00 
$75.00 
Transient Daily Covered Tiedown 
Small – Daily 
$7.00 
None 
Large – Daily  
$12.00 
None 
Based Monthly Hangar
T-Hangar 
$175 
$175 
Conventional Hangar 
$0.25 
$0.25 
Non-Airworthy Aircraft
Hangar Fee 
None 
2 times applicable fee above 
Land Lease
Application Fee 
$150.00 
$150.00 
Land $/SF 
Negotiated Rate 
Negotiated Rate 
Monthly Vehicle Parking
Tenant Vehicle/Trailer >3 days 
None 
$25.00 
Access Device/Key

PAGE 19 
Gate Access/Key 
None 
$25.00 
Gate Access/Key Replacement 
None 
$35.00 
Airport Business Permit
Annual Permit Fee 
$150.00 
$150.00 
Temporary Permit Fee 
None 
 
$50.00 
 
Fuel Flowage Fee
Per Gallon Delivered
$0.08
$0.08
Administrative Fees
Airport Hourly Rate – 2 hr min 
$50.00 
$80.00 
Overtime Hourly Rate – 2 hr min 
$100.00 
$160.00 
Late Fee 
$15.00 
$15.00 
Returned Check Fee 
$50.00 
$50.00 
Airport Damage 
Actual 
Actual 
Aircraft Removal 
Actual 
Actual 
Miscellaneous Fees
Banner Towing 
$10.00 
$50.00 
Commercial Photography 
$200.00 
$50.00

PAGE 20 
Community Services  
Full Cost of Programs

PAGE 21

PAGE 22 
Direct Cost of Programs (No Indirect Cost)

PAGE 23

PAGE 24 
Development Services - Planning

PAGE 25

PAGE 26 
Development Services - Building

PAGE 27

PAGE 28

PAGE 29 
Development Services - Engineering

PAGE 30

PAGE 31

PAGE 32

PAGE 33 
Development Services – Fire Safety

PAGE 34

PAGE 35 
Water Resources and Utility Billing

PAGE 36

PAGE 37 
Appendix B – Peer Comparisons 
 
The following pages show the peer comparison survey results.

PAGE 38 
Municipal Airport

PAGE 39 
Community Services

PAGE 40

PAGE 41

PAGE 42 
 
 
Building 
 
 
 
 
Activity
Current 
Fee
Proposed Fee
Goodyear
Surprise
Peoria
Avondale
Glendale
Phoenix
Shell Building – Commercial, Valuation = 
$8,252,772, Square Footage = 62,521
$44,593
$53,108
$29,874
$42,264
$32,133
$44,211
$40,597.74
No comparison done on 
these fees
Certificate of Occupancy / Certificate of Completion
$100
$140
$500
$75
$150
$100
$114.35
No comparison done on 
these fees
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 
NEW
$140
$500
$500
$1,000
$150
$531.22
No comparison done on 
these fees
First Extension of TCO (61 to 120 Days) 10% of 
Original Building Permit Fee
NEW
10% of permit
5% of the permit fee, minimum $200
None listed
None listed
None listed
$1,062.46
No comparison done on 
these fees
Second Extension of TCO (121 to 180 Days) 20% 
of Original Building Permit Fee
NEW
20% of permit
5% of the permit fee, minimum $200
None listed
None listed
None listed
$2,124.94
No comparison done on 
these fees
Third Extension of TCO (181 to 240 Days) 30% of 
Original Building Permit Fee
NEW
30% of permit
5% of the permit fee, minimum $200
None listed
None listed
None listed
None listed
No comparison done on 
these fees
Change of Occupant
NEW
$166
$0 (up to $10,000 valuation) or
$97 (Min $50 ½ Hr) ($10,001 value or 
more) - Plan Review
$100 - Permit
$86 - Planning and Zoning
$102 – Application
No comparison done on 
these fees
Product/Material Handling
NEW
BOSV
10% of stated value
No comparison done on 
these fees
ADU/Accessory Structures (to include commercial 
parking canopies) {Table 1A: $2,000 Base}
$125
$490
$100
$112
$121
$125
$87
No comparison done on 
these fees
Window Replacements
BOV
BOV
No comparison done on 
these fees
Patio Covers (residential) {Table 1A: $500 Base}
$50
$269 for $500 
valuaton
Plan Review: $20 / Application: $102
50% of cost per square 
foot of ICC valuation
$13
None listed
None listed
No comparison done on 
these fees
AFP-annual facilities permit 
None
None
No comparison done on these fees
$275
$750
No comparison done on these fees
None listed
None listed
None listed

PAGE 43 
Planning

PAGE 44 
Engineering 
 
 
 
 
Activity
Buckeye 
Current 
Fee
Buckeye 
Proposed 
Fee
Goodyear
Surprise
Peoria
Avondale
Glendale
Review Fees
-Engineering Plan Review 
(Per sheet)
$430
$344
$145
Concept review: 
$300
$360
$375
$358.88
-Engineering Report Review
NEW
$929
$1,477
Concept review: 
$300
Drainage Report – 
Major Residential 
Subdivision: $1,000 + 
$10/acre
Limited design 
review: $250; Site 
Plan and Design 
Review Application: 
$5,600
$358.88
-Address map and 
addressing
$550
$372
$732
Map of dedication 
fee: $750
$25/lot
Minior Map 
Amendment: $1,425
Minor Map 
Amendment: 
$2,115.50 + 
$112.14/acre
-(residential) Address map 
and addressing
$2,010
$1,600
$971
Done on a per-
address-basis
$25/lot
Major Map 
Amendment: $2,050
Major Map 
Amendment: 
$4,221.57 + 
$112.14/acre
-Master Engineering Report 
Review (Per hour?)
$160
$1,598
$111
$180
Misc. Engineering 
Review: $100
Limited Design 
Review: $250
Drainage report - first 
review $358.88
Permitting Fees
-Major 
Infrastructure(Traffic 
signals, bridges, box 
culverts, etc) Permitting 
Fee
$160
$403
$100
Civil Engineering 
Permit and 
Inspections Annual 
Traffic Control 
Permit: $750
Capital Improvement 
Project Permit Fee: 
$50
Traffic Sign/Signal 
Repair/Replacement 
: $100
Not Listed

PAGE 45 
 
 
 
 
Activity
Buckeye 
Current 
Fee
Buckeye 
Proposed 
Fee
Goodyear
Surprise
Peoria
Avondale
Glendale
Grading Permitting Fees:
Base Fee, Plus (Includes 
Clear and Grub)
$140
$168
Grading/Drainage 
(base) Base Fee Plus 
Per Acre: $242 /
Grading/Drainage 
(additional) Plus Per 
Acre: $194;
Mass Grading Permit 
50% of G&D Permit 
cost: 50%
$135
Residential: $100 /
Commercial: $200
$375
$126.73
Less than 5 Acres
$250
$287
$.07/Square Yard
Not Listed
Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis
$160
$412
Engineering Traffic 
Report Base Fee: $370
$180/hour
$300
$225
$358.88
Not Listed

PAGE 46 
Fire Safety 
 
 
Activity
Current 
Fee
Propose
d Fee
Goodyear
Surprise
Peoria
Avondale
Glendale
Sprinklers Standard Plan Review
$160
$461
Fire Plan Review: $97
$150
$100-200
$237.99
Sprinklers, Per Facility: 120,000 
sq. ft. or greater
$1,460
$1,324
$650
$1,360
$3,210
Flow Test
$100
$170
Not Listed
$110
$100
$63.38
Not Listed
Not Listed

PAGE 47 
Water Resources and Utility Billing 
 
 
 
 
Activity
Current 
Fee
Proposed 
Fee
Goodyear
Surprise
Peoria
Avondale
New Account Processing Fee
$60
$27
$60
$63
$63
$60

PAGE 48 
 
Business Licenses 
 
Activity
Current 
Fee
Goodyear
Surprise
Peoria
Avondale
Glendale
Contractors and Builders
Application Fee
$25
$168
$20
$25
$25
Annual Fee
$125
$84
$25
$40
$25
Quarterly
$50
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Mobile Food Vendors
Application Fee
$25
Not Listed
$168
$20
$25
$25
Monthly Fee
$75
$100/event
Annual Fee
$175
$100/event
$84
$25
$40
$25
Professional & Personal Services
Application Fee
$25
$168
$20
$25
$25
Annual Fee
$65
$84
$25
$40
$25
Mercantile Business – Wholesale and Retail
Application Fee
$25
$168
$20
$25
$25
Annual Fee
$65
$84
$25
$40
$25
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed
Not Listed