Council discusses grading, drainage, escrow and fee changes; staff to return with code and fee proposals

City staff presented an analysis of recurring grading and drainage complaints and recommended a series of policy, engineering-standard and fee-schedule changes to reduce future problems and clarify enforcement authority.

Staff member Abby said the city—s current code and administrative procedures do not consistently require grading-plan review or as-built documentation for many land-disturbing activities, including major additions, substantial patios, pools and large landscaping changes. Abby told the council that last year staff routed approximately 109 permits to the city engineer and paid more than $24,000 for external reviews; permit fees do not currently recover those third-party review costs.

Key recommendations presented included: requiring grading plans for new structures, major additions, large accessory structures and substantial increases in impervious surfaces; adopting baseline grading-plan standards (e.g., contour spacing and minimum slope tolerances); requiring as-built certification when grading plans are required; increasing escrows (staff suggested using the $10,000 escrow level already required of developers as a model); and adding a pass-through fee to recover consultant review costs (the staff report referenced a Bolton & Mink quote and recommended incorporating the review fee into the city—s fee schedule). Staff proposed continuing to use consulting engineering services for plan review until in-house technical engineering capacity exists.

Council members expressed concern about potential cost impacts on homeowners doing smaller projects and about equitable application of higher escrows and review fees. Council asked staff to consider tiers (for example, separating new construction and major subdivision work from smaller homeowner projects) and to explore whether non-engineered, simplified grading-plan templates could reduce costs for do-it-yourself homeowners. Staff said the $2,000 escrow currently in code is generally insufficient to cover corrective work if a builder or applicant fails to complete required work and that larger escrows better protect property owners and the public infrastructure.

Council directed staff to continue refining code amendments, a proposed fee schedule to recover third-party review, and an escrow policy with possible differentiation between new construction and remodels; staff will return with ordinance language, comparative fee/escrow research, and proposed implementation steps before the next construction season.