Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auburn council directs staff to pursue 75% cost recovery for most planning and building fees, with specified exceptions
Summary
After a staff presentation on a cost-recovery study, the council directed staff to prepare a public hearing to move most planning and building fees to 75% cost recovery, while carving out limited exceptions for certain appeal and historic-design-review fees and leaving tree-permit rules largely unchanged.
The Auburn City Council on March 2025 directed staff to bring a proposed fee ordinance to public hearing that would move most building- and planning-related fees toward 75% cost recovery, Community Economic Development Director Jonathan Wright said.
Wright told the council the recommendation follows a fee study (ClearSource) that measures staff time and overhead; the 75% target is intended to recover a portion of city costs while limiting barriers that can discourage permit compliance for small home repairs. "We kept these low to below full cost recovery because if your permits cost as much or close to as much as the repair cost, people are less likely to get their permits," Wright said.
During discussion councilmembers expressed support for moving most fees toward 75% cost recovery but asked for moderation on items that could discourage compliance or unduly burden small property owners. Council direction (motion and second recorded) instructed staff to prepare a public hearing package that implements 75% cost recovery for most lines, with these exceptions captured in the record:
- Two appeal-line items (referred to in the staff packet as item 8 and item 9) were directed to be set at $1,000 each when brought back for hearing. - One administrative appeal/decision line (item 10 in the packet) was directed to be set at $400. - A historic-design-review minor-alteration line (referred to as item 22 in the packet) was directed to be set at $750 rather than the full 75% figure recommended by the fee study.
Councilmembers also urged care on tree-related permitting. Staff said the high tree-permit charges largely apply to large-scale or development-driven tree removals and that single-family homeowners typically do not need a permit for routine removals (e.g., hazardous trees). Several councilmembers asked staff to preserve accessible appeal avenues for residents while moving toward greater cost recovery.
Action: Councilmember motioned and the council voted to direct staff to prepare a public hearing on the 75% cost-recovery schedule with the specified exceptions; roll call recorded unanimous support. The direction was procedural; final adoption requires a noticed public hearing and ordinance or resolution.
Ending: Staff will return with a public-noticed hearing packet that incorporates the council's direction; no fee changes are effective until the formal adoption process is complete.
