Planning commission recommends option backing SB 5290 timelines, 80/20 fee split

Kittitas County Planning Commission members voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a local approach to implement SB 5290’s new permitting timelines, using the option that collects 80% of a permit fee at submittal and 20% on final issuance.

The bill, which county staff said "was passed by the state legislature and every element of it went into effect, 01/01/2025," establishes three timed review tiers for land-use and building decisions and creates a refund incentive of up to 20% of permitting fees if timelines are not met.

County staff said the legislation sets three tiers of timelines: 65 days for administrative decisions that do not require public notice or hearing, 100 days for administrative decisions that require notice but no hearing (with some exceptions for certain preliminary approvals), and 170 days for non-administrative projects that require notice and a public hearing. Staff noted the timelines stop when additional information is required from applicants or when applicant and county agree to pause the review. Jeremy Johnson, Kittitas County long-range planner, told commissioners the county must monitor its compliance and process at least 51% of applications in a calendar year within those timeframes or adopt at least three of a menu of alternative options the statute allows.

Staff recommended the 80/20 fee approach rather than the bill’s straight refund schedule, saying it avoids multi-year refund exposures to the county budget. Johnson summarized the recommendation: "what we would do is require 80% of the application fee timed up for that submit application to bill, and then 20% when the final application when that final permit is issued." He told the commission close monitoring and memorializing every stop-the-clock event in the county’s permitting system will be required to comply.

Commissioners pressed staff on several operational points: whether the 51% metric counts applications submitted in a calendar year (staff: yes), how building permits fit into the timelines (staff: unclear; the county is awaiting guidance from the state legislature or the attorney general), and how the county will record and memorialize pauses. Johnson said building permits could fall into the 65-day administrative tier if the state interprets the bill that way, but that ambiguity has prompted jurisdictions statewide to seek clarification. He said the county may return with ordinance language if state guidance requires it.

The commission moved and seconded a recommendation to forward Option 1 — the 80/20 fee split and monitoring approach — to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion carried on a voice vote; commissioners indicated assent by saying "aye." The recommendation now goes to the county commissioners for final action.

Implementation questions remain: staff said the county’s permitting software (referred to as the “smart code” system) will need configuration to accept staged fees and track clock stops, and interdepartmental coordination will be essential when outside agencies provide information that triggers a stop-of-clock. Johnson also described tools a jurisdiction can adopt if it fails the 51% threshold, such as shared staffing agreements with neighboring jurisdictions or adding temporary positions funded by permit revenue. He said the staff recommendation to proceed with Option 1 reflects confidence that the county currently meets the timelines "pretty consistently."