Laserfiche WebLink
03/21/2017 MINUTES 4 <br />Works Department Fee Schedule and adopt the 2017 Kittitas County <br />Public Works Fee Schedules. <br /> <br />KATHY JURGENS, FINANCE SYSTEM MANAGER reviewed a Staff Report and <br />provided an updated fee schedule. She explained that previous <br />comments and suggested changes have been made to amend the fee <br />schedule as well as changes to the Airport Fund noting a gate key <br />expense increase. She noted that Schedule B over the counter fees <br />had no changes to the previous recommendation; County Road Fund <br />Schedule B there was a Road Standard Variance Appeal Public Works <br />was asked to match with other similar Appeals after looking at CDS <br />fees and talking to the Boards Office they have increased that fee <br />to $1,580.00 to be consistent with CDS new fee. She stated that they <br />were directed to revise their Short Plat Fee and Final Plat Fee down <br />to 25% which brings the Short Plat Fee to $420.00, and the Final <br />Plat Fee to $985.00. She stated that in addition to those changes <br />are that the Cluster Plat (4 lots or less) $420.00 and Cluster Plats <br />(5 lots or more) $985.00. She explained that DPW was asked to break <br />down the cost for alternative energy they determined that for less <br />than 5 megawatts it would be $4,945.00 + cost and more than 5 <br />megawatts would be $9,625.00 + cost. MS. JURGENS explained that they <br />were tasked with taking a look at the cost for SEPA review and have <br />revised as requested down to $250.00. MARK COOK, PUBLIC WORKS <br />DIRECTOR explained that they were tasked with follow up information <br />regarding setting thresholds on concurrency. He suggested the BoCC <br />consider 25% cost recovery for anything greater than 4 lots as a fee <br />for concurrency plus cost. CHAIRMAN JEWELL questioned what the <br />minimum fee would be. MR. COOK indicated that it would be $980.00. <br />CHAIRMAN JEWELL questioned the break down for the alternative energy <br />and at what point the review kicks in and asked that more <br />definition/clarification be added for future Boards. MR. COOK <br />suggested adding “non-residential” and if that would work to <br />eliminate the concern expressed by Chairman Jewell. CHAIRMAN JEWELL <br />suggested “commercial”, and stated that this is being produced for <br />the market definition not to offset our consumption definition. MR. <br />COOK suggested a “personal use exemption”. COMMISSIONER O’BRIEN <br />reviewed some potential language in bills coming before the house. <br />He gave an example of an individual who may put a turbine in a canal <br />allowing water pressure to generate electricity to offset the cost <br />of pumping for the farmer. He questioned if 5 megawatts is a good <br />cutoff for this type of project and questioned if the proposed <br />project would be below or above the 5 megawatts. MR. COOK stated it <br />was his opinion that it would be below. He defaulted to Chairman <br />Jewell as he felt he had more knowledge pertaining to “alternative <br />energy”. CHAIRMAN JEWELL explained that in most cases it would be <br />below, but this wouldn’t fall under this type of permit because they <br />would be considered personal consumption type projects/uses and <br />provided examples of other small scale projects that fall under this <br />fee that are for personal consumption or are to offset personal <br />consumption and would not be caught up in this permit.