Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Development services proposes fee-schedule change, caps large warehouse change-of-use review at $24,000
Summary
Staff proposed Resolution 26-14 to amend the development-services fee schedule and to add a capped $24,000 fee category for a large change-of-use review (citing an Amazon facility) after a time study; staff said the amendment will proceed through additional public meetings before final adoption.
County development-services staff told the committee on June 9 that a proposed fee-schedule amendment would clarify permit categories uncovered while implementing the Clarity permitting system and would create a specific permit for certain change-of-use reviews that previously had no appropriate fee category.
A staff presenter said the county reviewed time requirements for complex change-of-use reviews and "we've capped that at $24,000," describing the cap as appropriate for large, time-intensive reviews such as those prompted by high-volume warehouses. Staff said this category was prompted by an application from an Amazon-related facility whose change in product volume altered the facility's use and required a distinct review.
Staff recommended adoption of Resolution 26-14 but said the fee change will go to at least two public meetings before final action. The committee moved the resolution into debate for further consideration; the transcript records the staff recommendation and the committee's movement to further meetings, but a final adoption vote is not recorded in the meeting transcript.
Why it matters: the change creates a new, explicit fee category for large change-of-use reviews and caps the fee at $24,000 based on a county time study. Staff said this avoids applying an inappropriate, much higher fee that would otherwise have been used under a mismatched category.
Next steps: staff will take Resolution 26-14 through the public-meeting process required for fee changes and return to the board for formal action; the transcript references July meetings but the exact schedule for final adoption was not finalized in the committee record.
Ending: The committee began debate and scheduled further public meetings; the transcript does not show a final vote on adoption.
