Planning staff presented a package of changes to Mill Creek's development-fee schedule that would raise the base hourly rate for permit review and inspection work, change valuation-based permit calculations, and add new charges such as a credit-card processing fee and a 10% administrative surcharge on third-party reviews.

"We are bringing a new permit system online, which presents a great opportunity to fix our processes and our fees and get everything up to date," said Speaker 4, the staff presenter, who said many Mill Creek fees had not been updated since the 1990s. Staff said the proposed base hourly rate would rise to $175 from $100 and plan-review charges would move from 65% to 70% of permit fees.

Why it matters: Staff said the present fee structure leaves the general fund subsidizing work that should be paid for by applicants and that many peer cities charge notably higher rates. Staff reported the city collected nearly $300,000 from 861 permits in 2024 and modeled that the proposed schedule could have generated roughly $160,000 in additional net revenue in a 2024-like year after paying the third-party contractor.

Key details: Staff outlined several structural changes. Over-the-counter permits (simple, no-review items such as water-heater or minor mechanical work) would be standardized so the base fee covers roughly one hour of staff time; examples discussed included increasing reroof permits to $175 and raising fence permits to $87.50. Weekend and holiday inspections would be charged at double the hourly rate. Work performed without permits would face higher penalties and application-extension fees would increase (staff cited an increase from $200 to $350 for extensions). The plan-review share for permits requiring review would rise to 70% of the permit fee.

Contractor impacts and net revenue: The city contracts with SafeBuilt for plan review and inspections; staff said about 40% of development-fee revenue is paid to that contractor. Speaker 3 noted SafeBuilt charges the city for plan reviews and inspections and that as the city's fees rise, contractor costs will also rise. Staff provided a five-year modeled table showing the city and contractor shares and said the net revenue to the city would be lower than gross projections because of SafeBuilt's portion.

Business concerns and waivers: Commissioners raised concerns that some permit-related studies (for example, traffic or environmental impact studies) can make relocation or small-business moves impractical. Speaker 8 described a case in which a business found relocation financially impractical because cumulative fees and study requirements were high. Staff and commissioners agreed that the impact-fee and study requirements are more complex and not part of this immediate update; staff said fee waivers or reductions are possible under the code but should be governed by consistent guardrails tied to public-benefit performance criteria.

Next steps: Staff said the city council will hold a public hearing on the fee changes on Dec. 2, and that the new permitting software and fee schedule are planned to take effect Jan. 1. Staff also noted the public hearing produced no speakers at tonight's meeting.

Ending: Staff committed to clarifying specific thresholds (for example, right-of-way footage minimums) before presenting the package to council and to publishing the permit-fee schedule and supporting valuation table with examples on the city website.