Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenino business owner asks council to review $961 sign permit and $896 fine
Summary
A local real-estate business told the Tenino City Council it was surprised by a $961 sign-permit charge and a separate $896 fine, prompting staff to explain Tenino adopted Thurston County’s valuation-based fee schedule and the council to table the matter for two weeks for further review.
A Tenino business owner told the City Council on Feb. 11 that a recently approved sign permit unexpectedly totaled $961 and that a separate fine of $896 was assessed for not paying the permit before work began. The commenter said the permit was approved by email and the first time they saw the larger fee amount was after work had started: “I was floored,” the speaker said, adding that comparable permit fees in nearby cities were “a couple hundred dollars.”
The comment prompted a staff explanation from Maria Rodriguez, the city’s building staff, who read permit verbiage and said, “Once you sign it, you’re entering into a contract with the city of Tenino,” and that Tenino adopted Thurston County’s fee schedule. Rodriguez said fees are valuation-based, include plan-review and administrative components, and incorporate state fees that the city then distributes to relevant agencies.
Council members and the commenter questioned whether adopting the county schedule produces fee amounts out of scale with Tenino’s downtown storefront projects. The attendee said their original application showed only about $157 in city fees and that the larger $961 amount first appeared after full plan review; they also described the $896 penalty for not paying before work began as a separate issue and requested a temporary hold on collections while the city investigates.
City staff said the plan review for the project was routed to an external planner and that some project valuation fields were blank, which complicated fee calculation. Council members asked staff to confirm whether the work had been misclassified (for example, whether the installation should be treated as lettering on a building rather than a protruding or illuminated sign) and to determine whether Tenino should continue to adopt Thurston County’s schedule or set a local fee schedule more closely matched to the city’s scale.
The council and the commenter agreed to table the matter for two weeks for staff follow-up. Staff was asked to: confirm the sign classification, locate the email trail and valuation used for the fee calculation, explain why the larger fee and the fine were assessed, and advise whether enforcement or collection can be paused while the review is underway. The council set no immediate policy change at the meeting; a staff report was requested for the next session.
