Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews permit-renewal fee, public-notice board refund and on-street use rates
Summary
At a study session the Leavenworth City Council discussed staff proposals to add a renewal fee for expired building permits, create a refundable fee for public notice boards, and consider different rates for on-street use permits; the parking-advisory committee was asked to review differential on-street charges.
Leavenworth councilors and staff used a study-session slot to review a set of administrative and fee adjustments intended to tighten permit management and improve municipal customer service. Staff described three items: a fee-correction omitted from a previous update, clarified language to capture staff time on smaller projects, and a proposed renewal fee for permits that have expired and then are renewed after a 30-day grace period.
A staff member said the renewal fee would let the city ‘keep people going and keep us informed’ and allow charging a modest fee when a permit lapses and the applicant wants to continue inspections and work. Several council members pushed back on how the policy would be applied. “It feels really subjective and I wasn’t even aware that if a permit expires, people can still renew it,” one councilor said, urging clearer parameters and asking whether the city should set a maximum time after expiration before requiring a new application.
Staff replied the permitting system currently prints expiration dates on permits and the vendor can run reports to flag expiring or lapsed permits; work is needed to produce an active permit list and automated reminders.
Councilors also discussed public-notice boards and a proposal to charge a refundable deposit to improve return rates and tracking. One councilor noted that the boards “cost money” and a refundable fee would make check-out and accountability easier.
On a separate but related item, staff outlined a proposed special-use category that would charge a different rate for businesses using on-street parking spaces (active parking spots) versus closed-street pedestrian zones such as Front Street. Business representatives and some councilors raised equity concerns, saying some commercial-street businesses predate the Front Street closure and should not face higher fees. Council members discussed limiting the number of on-street stalls available per business or per block as a compromise.
The council did not adopt any ordinance or set a final fee. Instead, members asked city staff to pursue two follow-ups: have the permitting vendor produce reports or an active-permit dashboard to support renewal policy enforcement, and refer the on-street rate question to the Parking Advisory Committee for more detailed review and recommendations.
Next steps: staff will bring back information on active-permit tracking and examples of renewal thresholds, and the Parking Advisory Committee will consider the on-street use-rate structure before the council reviews any fee ordinance.
