Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants propose clearer fee‑waiver criteria, revised application fees and stronger graduated penalties
Summary
Consultants recommended objective criteria for administrative fee waivers (public benefit, comprehensive‑plan support, nonprofit status, staff error, hardship), proposed raising some application fees and per‑unit charges, and suggested higher civil penalties combined with a codified informal warning stage to encourage voluntary compliance.
Consultants presented proposed updates to application fees, fee‑waiver authority and civil penalties as part of the administrative provisions package. They reported benchmarking of five neighboring jurisdictions and recommended aligning several application fees and adding per‑unit charges (for subdivisions and multi‑unit projects) to better reflect staff time and public‑notice costs.
On fee waivers, the consultants proposed objective findings the decisionmaker must make before waiving an application charge: demonstrable public benefit (public facilities, infrastructure, community amenities), direct support for comprehensive‑plan goals (affordable housing, sustainability, historic preservation), location in a special interest area, applicant nonprofit status, refiling due to staff error, or verified financial hardship. The change would leave discretion either with the city manager (current practice) or with a designated development code administrator (DCA) if council elects to delegate that authority.
Jacob Schulte, the city's assistant director, cautioned that delegating waiver authority to a front‑line staff member could invite repeated requests and administrative burden but acknowledged that objective criteria with guardrails would reduce arbitrary decisions. Schulte noted staff neutrality and added that some waivers at the city‑manager level have successfully been used as economic development tools.
On enforcement, consultants proposed codifying an informal "notice of potential violation" step to give property owners a warning and opportunity to correct code issues before formal notices and penalties are issued. They also proposed increasing civil penalties (consultants cited surrounding jurisdiction starting points of $500–$600) and urged a graduated structure so that repeat offenses carry substantially higher fines.
Why it matters: higher fees and penalties create revenue and enforcement teeth for the city but raise concerns about affordability for low‑income residents. Commissioners generally supported a warning stage and asked staff to balance fairness with effective enforcement and to provide more detailed penalty categories for council review.
Next steps: consultants will provide a detailed draft fee schedule, a waiver criteria table and recommended penalty categories for the commission to review at a future session.
