My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-23-2024 PW_CDS SS Briefings
>
Meetings
>
2024
>
12. December
>
2024-12-23 1:30 PM - Public Works and CDS Study Session
>
12-23-2024 PW_CDS SS Briefings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/19/2024 11:25:09 AM
Creation date
12/19/2024 11:15:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
12/23/2024
Meeting title
Public Works and CDS Study Session
Location
BoCC Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
C. Implementation parameters: <br /> The bill provides 2 approaches for local jurisdictions to demonstrate consistency. <br /> Option 1— Up to 20% of permitting fees are subject to refund if timelines are not met. <br /> -10% of permitting fees must be refunded if the application decision exceeds the <br /> prescribed timelines by less than 20% of the maximum allowance. <br /> Example: If the fee for a non-administrative application is $2,000 and the <br /> decision isn't issued until the 203rd day from the deemed complete date <br /> (19% beyond the 170-day allowance) the applicant would be refunded <br /> $200. <br /> -20%of permitting fees must be refunded if the application decision exceeds <br /> the prescribed timelines by 20% or more. <br /> Option 2— HB 5290 provides ten project review and code revisions (listed below a-j) that can be <br /> adopted to avoid Option 1. This option requires formal adoption of at least 3 of these <br /> provisions. <br /> (a) Expediting review for project permit applications for projects that are consistent <br /> with adopted development regulations; <br /> (b) Imposing reasonable fees, consistent with RCW 82.02.020, on applicants for <br /> permits or other governmental approvals to cover the cost to the city, town, county, or <br /> other municipal corporation of processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, <br /> or preparing detailed statements required by chapter : .':'' RCW. The fees imposed <br /> may not include a fee for the cost of processing administrative appeals. Nothing in this <br /> subsection limits the ability of a county or city to impose a fee for the processing of <br /> administrative appeals as otherwise authorized by law; (c) Entering into an interlocal <br /> agreement with another jurisdiction to share permitting staff and resources; <br /> (d) Maintaining and budgeting for on-call permitting assistance for when permit <br /> volumes or staffing levels change rapidly; <br /> (e) Having new positions budgeted that are contingent on increased permit revenue; <br /> (f) Adopting development regulations which only require public hearings for permit <br /> applications that are required to have a public hearing by statute; <br /> (g) Adopting development regulations which make preapplication meetings optional <br /> rather than a requirement of permit application submittal; <br /> (h) Adopting development regulations which make housing types an outright <br /> permitted use in all zones where the housing type is permitted; <br /> (i) Adopting a program to allow for outside professionals with appropriate <br /> professional licenses to certify components of applications consistent with their license; <br /> or <br /> (j) Meeting with the applicant to attempt to resolve outstanding issues during the <br /> review process. The meeting must be scheduled within 14 days of a second request for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.