Kent council approves resolution allowing alternative street‑cut permit fees for new fiber installation methods

Kent — The Kent City Council adopted Resolution No. 2087 on May 6, giving the chief administrative officer discretion to apply alternative permit fees for some street‑cut and shoulder‑boring work used by fiber providers.

Staff member Matt Gilbert told the Committee that new fiber companies are using different construction methods that typically bore under soft surfaces, sidewalks and shoulders rather than open a long trench through paved roadway. "That means less work for everybody. So we want the ability to charge less money because of that," Gilbert said, summarizing the staff rationale.

Why it matters: Council members and staff said the current fee structure was built around traditional street cuts and associated inspection and restoration work. Gilbert said the change would let the city bill hourly for actual staff processing and inspection time, plus a $500 intake fee, until a new, empirical fee schedule is developed and returned to council for review at year‑end.

What was discussed: Gilbert said the city had worked with EZ Fiber, which has 13 planned work areas in Kent and paid the existing (higher) fee for its initial permit batches while holding the others pending the council decision. He described the proposed approach as temporary flexibility: the CAO could apply alternative fees for work that demonstrably reduces roadway and sidewalk disturbance. "We charge a small fee, a $500 fee for intake of a permit, and then we would charge them hourly for our reprocessing and inspection time," Gilbert said.

Councilmember questions focused on fairness, scope and homeowner impacts. Councilmember Boyce asked whether the city would charge different firms different fees; Gilbert replied the fee would be scaled to the observed impact, not the company, and would be available to any provider using reduced‑impact methods. Councilmember Fincher asked whether "in‑kind" contributions were anticipated; Gilbert said that could include negotiated use of existing infrastructure rather than a cash payment but that the city would not expect unrelated items such as new street lights.

On resident impacts, Councilmember Boyse asked about effects to private yards where shoulder boring occurs. Gilbert said yard disturbances generally require less engineered repair than street or sidewalk cuts and that providers (he cited EZ Fiber) have experience coordinating directly with property owners to restore irrigation, landscaping and other surface items.

Formal action: Councilmember Boyd moved to adopt Resolution No. 2087 (creating an alternative permit fee for some street cut permits and authorizing acceptance of in‑kind contributions). The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The resolution grants temporary discretion to the CAO to apply alternative fees, with staff planning to propose a revised, empirical fee schedule to council after processing several permits.

What’s next: Staff will apply the temporary fee discretion as needed, track processing and inspection time on these projects, and return with a proposed, data‑based fee schedule at the end of the year.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are present in the transcript and listed below.