EDMONDS – You get what you pay for.
The city of Edmonds recently adopted a stricter interpretation of that philosophy in adjusting – mostly increasing – numerous fees for various types of permits in the city.
The move is another in a series of measures to offset the effect of lost revenue in recent years, losses primarily attributed to tax reduction initiatives.
Most of the fees are in the development services department, which encompasses planning, building and engineering. The fire department has increased its permit fees as well (see related story).
In the wake of the budget troubles – development services lost a planner, an accounting coordinator and building administrator in city budget cuts for this year – it was agreed a change is necessary.
“We need to start charging for the services that we provide,” said Duane Bowman, development services director.
Development services permit fees had previously been based on an estimate of costs, Bowman said. But many permits still had been subsidized, and the recalculation more accurately, and simply, takes into account only the labor and benefits associated with processing the permits, Bowman said – no overhead or materials costs.
“We’re trying to capture our labor costs,” Bowman said.
The list of the department’s fees is 20 pages long. While most of the fees have increased, some have been lowered, kept the same or eliminated (for examples, see inset box).
A public hearing was held on the plan in April. One resident spoke.
One set of fees that will not totally reflect costs is that for appeals to decisions made by the city, such as denials of permits and the like, Bowman said. While the cost for these is considerably higher than has been charged – an appeal of a building official interpretation was proposed to increase from $300 to $2,045 – the City Council wanted the city to continue to provide this subsidy so as not to stifle the democratic process, Bowman said. As a result, some appeals will be charged at 10 percent of the labor cost, appeals of notices of civil violations will be charged at 25 percent, and there will be no charge for Hearing Examiner reconsiderations.
Having been approved at the end of April, the fee increases are estimated to bring in as much as $232,963 for the remainder of 2003, Bowman said. Of that total, $102,434 could potentially come from a newly instituted fee for sidewalk, street or alley disruption. The fee can be charged to any builder whose activity prevents full use of a sidewalk for more than 48 hours or a street or alley for 72 hours. But builders can get around paying the fee by, for example, installing a temporary lid over a sidewalk that would allow pedestrians to be protected from any falling debris while passing through, Bowman said.
So this means the projected amount may not be collected, he said. If no money were to come in through the sidewalk disruption fee, the city will still collect an estimated $130,529 from the other, more predictable fees, Bowman said.
This would be enough to restore the three laid-off positions, Bowman said. The workload of those three employees has been redistributed among others in the department, with some noticeable difference to the public in terms of permit review times having “climbed a little bit,” she said. There have been “a few” complaints, he said. But overall, the employees have “just stepped up to the challenge and are dealing with it and are taking care of business,” Bowman said.
Whether the City Council will actually decide to use the money to restore the positions or put it into the general fund for 2004 won’t be determined until the budgeting process next fall, officials said. Currently, the development services department is funded partly by city utility fees (13 percent), development services fees (39 percent) and the general fund (48 percent).
“I’ve always believed that development fees that are collected on the second floor (where development services is housed) should go back in that department,” said Mayor Gary Haakenson. “I think that’s the appropriate use of that money. If we’re asking developers to pay more money we should be able to give them better service with it.”
City Council president Dave Earling agreed, with a caveat.
“I think the planning area should receive first consideration” in what to do with the new funds, Earling said. But he said there’s a chance the city could need the money in the general fund.
“I don’t think we can make a prediction at this point,” he said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
