Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mill Creek to raise and standardize development-review fees; staff proposes $175 hourly baseline
Summary
City staff proposed a citywide update to development-review fees tied to a single hourly cost basis ($175). The update would raise many planning, building and engineering permit fees and align Mill Creek more closely with peer cities; staff estimated the changes would have produced about $161,000 in additional revenue in 2024.
City planning staff on Oct. 7 presented a draft citywide development-fee update aimed at recovering staff costs, simplifying administration and bringing Mill Creek’s permit fees closer to regional peers.
Staff proposed moving to a single, staff-cost-based hourly rate for development-review tasks and setting a $175 hourly baseline. The department said using a single hourly basis would allow staff to update many fees annually by adjusting one metric, rather than amending dozens of fee lines individually.
Presenting the study, a staff member summarized the rationale: “Now is the time just to kind of, refresh things, and, hopefully, we can have a better functioning fee system moving forward.” Staff said the fees have not been reviewed consistently — some remained at early-1990s levels — and that a shift to hourly-based recovery would make fees more predictable.
Examples staff provided show Mill Creek's current base fees run substantially below peer cities for many routine actions: a new gas-stove inspection currently costs about $42 in Mill Creek compared with peer averages above $120; a range of planning and building base fees were shown 30–78% below comparison jurisdictions. Using 2024 permit volumes and the proposed schedule, staff estimated the city would have collected about $161,000 more in 2024.
Staff also proposed a 30% design strategy for capital projects' early phases to limit near-term cash exposure and suggested a 10% administrative uplift for third-party review contracts (for work such as critical-area reports). The team recommended a 50% discount on temporary-sign fees for nonprofit organizations and a refundable or enforcement-based approach for political signs was discussed.
Council members raised implementation questions and procedural points. Councilmember Steckler asked whether higher fees might deter development; staff responded that the changes primarily recover staff time and apply most heavily when projects require extra hearings or code changes. Councilmember Duque urged the staff to ensure public education and outreach about fee changes and permit procedures. Staff described a schedule: Planning Commission review Oct. 16, return to council Oct. 21 (for direction), transmittal to the state Department of Commerce Oct. 23 and an intended Jan. 1 effective date for the updated fees.
Actions: staff will present the proposed fee code and fee schedule to the Planning Commission on Oct. 16 and return to council for adoption steps; staff will transmit final code/fees to the Department of Commerce for the required review period.
Ending: City staff said the revisions are aimed at fairness and cost recovery rather than turning development into a revenue driver; council members requested follow-up information on appeals handling and whether hearing-examiner costs would be recoverable in all cases.
