Council reviews proposed fee-schedule rewrite and permit changes; contractors and residents raise concerns about permit costs and emergency repairs

City staff presented a redline version of a revised fee schedule at the Aug. 13 public hearing that changes many permit fees, adds some permit categories, and raises penalties for work performed without permits.

Staff said the proposed schedule reduces many base permit fees to be more competitive with neighboring jurisdictions, removes a $60 application charge, and increases the multiplier for work done without a permit to four times the initial amount (previously two times). The packet also lists new or clarified permit categories that staff said were not cleanly captured in the current published fee schedule, including residential and commercial window replacement, siding, water-softener installations, and certain trade permits.

Staff said plan-review fees for building permits will be a pass-through of third-party actual cost for projects requiring full plan review; staff identified Bureau Veritas as the primary third-party reviewer for commercial structural plan reviews, while some engineering reviews for site plans may be performed by engineers on a case-by-case basis. Staff also said most routine inspections for trade permits (plumbing, electrical, HVAC) will be handled in-house by the city inspector rather than sent to Bureau Veritas.

Contractors and other members of the public spoke at length. A local glass-company owner and several contractors said they were unaware that routine repairs such as emergency window replacement required a permit and raised concerns that charges and the time required to obtain permits would be passed to customers. Several commenters asked the council to consider exemptions or lower fees for emergency repairs or one-off residential maintenance that does not affect public utilities or safety.

Residents and council members asked for clearer signage on which activities require permits, whether inspections are performed in-house or by third parties, and how the city calculates third-party plan-review costs. One commenter said the city should publish a line-by-line explanation of which items on the fee schedule require an inspection, who performs the inspection, and whether a given permit carries a fee. Staff acknowledged those requests and said they would provide further detail and meet again with a trades group the next day to collect more input.

The hearing drew extended discussion but no formal action; the council will review additional drafts of the fee schedule in upcoming budget workshops and a trades-focused meeting the following day.