RES 89-37 FEE SCHEDULE APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 89-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, WASHINGTON
APPROVING A FEE SCHEDULE.
WHF~REAS, Ordinance No. 88-16, establishes a procedure
for the review and setting of certain fees, charges, and
bonding requirements by the passage of a resolution; now,
therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Winslow, Washington,
hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1. The Fees and Charges Schedule 1989,
attached to this resolution is hereby adopted.
WASHINGTON, this / -- a of ~ , 1989.
APPROVED:
ALICE B. TAWRE~
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
rer
FO~:
RO[ERT O. CONOLEY, ~i~
CITY OF
JUly 24, 1989
MEMORANDUM
625 Winslow Way East
Winslow, Washington 98110
206.842-7633
TO:
Mayor Alice Tawresey
City Attorney Bob Conoley
SUBJECT:
Fees and Charges
Land Use Management
I. PHILOSOPHY OF FEES AND CHARGES
Within reason, fees and charges are considered the costs of doing bus-
iness for a real estate speculator or developer. Traditionally, the
overhead expenses of a project are transferred to the consumer upon
purchasing or renting a real estate product (e.g., house, office). A
city is then faced with the question: to what degree the development
process should be subsidized by the municipaliy's tax payers.
Real estate value is generally based upon comparisons within the market-
place; therefore the degree to which a city's fees and charges impact
real estate values will depend upon what comparisons are used to deter-
mine value. It could be a assumed that market value would have a greater
impact from comparison sales than municipal fees and charges; therefore
it cannot not be assumed that a low schedule of fees and charges would be
be transferred on to the public in reduced price schedules.
The .process may actually be enhanced if a schedule represents actual
or perceived costs to a municipality for reviewing and regulating a
land use control ordinance (e.g., zoning, subdivisions) and/or statute
(e.g., NEPA, SEPA). Fees and charges can be used to compensate add-
itional personnel required to make effective and efficient decisions,
which should make the review process more expedient and professional.
It has been my experience that most developers are more concerned with
predicability in scheduling their real estate projects than in the
cost of the fee schedules. That is, as long as the fees and charges
approach a regional norm and/or affordability.
II. CITY OF WINSLOW FEES AND CHARGES
it would appear that the City of Winslow's current fees and charges, as
they are applied to land use management processes, are materially below
the norms for cities of like location and socio-economic characteristics.
Winslow should be compared with smaller and medium sized cities with
a high socio-economic profile, extensive waterfront developments, trans-
portation impacts associated with Seattle commuters, and unique urban
characteristics. For purposes of this study, I have selected the cities
of Mercer Island, Edmonds, Issaquah and Kirkland for comparisons.
Mayor Alice Tawresey
"Fees & Charges - Land Use Management"
July 24, 1989
Page Two
From the comparisons of cities of similar form and social structure,
the City of Winslow appears to have a very low fees and charges sched-
ule; therefore the City is currently undertaking a significant subsidy
program of development. This subsidy of development is particularly
evident since the costs to the City to process a subdivision or planned
unit development far exceed the cost charged directly to the developer.
In the same token, the expenses to the City to process NEPA and/or SE~
requirements consistently operate at a loss.
III. RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN FEES AND CHARGES
The following recommendations are based upon (2) comparisons with other
cities, fees and charges schedules, (2) perceived overhead requirements '
within the Land Use Department of the City of Winslow:
CATEGORY EXISTING PROPOSED
Conditional Use Permit
$200 +
10 per acre
$500 +
15 per acre
Planned Unit Development
$200 +
10 per acre
$400 + [Preliminary]
15 per acre
$300 + [Final]
10 per acre
Incurred costs to City
Any incurred
See SEPA/NEPA
Rezone Application
$5O0 +
750 [Text]
1100 + [Land]
75 per acre
Incurred costs to City
$100 Deposit
Any incurred
See SEPA/NEPA
Site Plan Review
Multi-family (-4 units)
Multi-family (4+ units)
$ 40 $ 200
40 + 200 +
1 per unit 10 per unit
Non-Residential (-20 cars)
Non-Residential (20+ cars)
40 $ 200
40 + 200 +
1¢ per sq. ft. 20 per parking
$1 per parking sp
Master Plan 15 acres +
-0- 1200 +
25 per acre
Mayor Alice Tawresey
"Fees & Charges - Land Use Management"
July 24, 1989
Page Three
Recommended Fees & Charges (Continued)
CATEGORY EXISING PROPOSED
Shoreline Substantial Development
$1000 - $25000 value
$25000 & Higher
Permit
$100
200 +
1 per each $1000
$ 350 +
50 per acre
Exemption
$ 50
Resident improving
personal home or dock
$ 150
Special Significance (Area of)
$200 or incurred '0-
costs whatever greater
Drainage Plan Review
$ 50 + costs -0-
100 deposit
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEPA/NEPA
Checklist
EIS Review
Subdivision and Plats
Long Subdivision
Short
Resident Short (Home)
$ 25 +
1 per dwelling
1 per !000 s.f.
-0-
$500 +
50 per lot
$80+
20 per lot
$ 200
$1000 +
incurred costs
900 + [~reiimi~ary]
35 per lot
500 + [Final]
50 per lot
500 +
15 per lot
100
Mayor Alice Tawresey
"Fees ¢ Charges - Land Management"
July 24, 1989
Page Four
Erecommended Fees & Charges (Continued)
CATEGORY
Variances
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Less than 10% $ 70 $500 From Code
More than 10% 100 400 Other
Petition 50 '-
Conditional Uses and Planned Unit Development fees and charges would be
in addition to the underlying project (e.g., multi-family, etc.). In
addition, Site Plan Review and Environmental Review would be in addition
to the underlying petition's fees and charges.
The material presented here is PRELIMINARY. The back up materials making
a comparison of thevarious municipalities will be submitted under separ-
ate cover.
FEES & CHARGES
!
I
!
I
I
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
WMC
BARS CODE TITLE FEES REMARKS
SHORT SUBDIVISON
(SHORT PLAT) 80.00
+ 20.00
first division (2lots)
for each additional lot
001.1.345.81 VARIANCES 75.00 Variation of one foot
VARIANCES
001.1.345.81 - PETITION FOR
VA~RIANCE
100.00
50.00
WMC
Ord. 81-14
or less or variance of
less than 10% ~eviation
from the code. .~
Variation of 10% or
more deviation.from
requirement. --
· Public hearing ~ith
hearing examiner
WMC
0rd.
86-20
85-20
86-20
Ord. 86-20
Ord. 83-12
101.1.362.50
101.1.362.30
101.1.362.50
001.1.362.50
001.1.362.30.1
101.1.362.30.1
101.1.362.30.1
PARKING
BRIEN & BJUNE (BB) 40.00
Daily 2.00
CARPOOL 70.00
(ferry terminal)
CIVIC CENTER (CC) 60.00
3.00
FERRY TERMINAL 3.00
PARKING TOKENS 18,00
MONTHLY PARKING CANNOT
BE PRORATED
Monthly, Spaces 270-
304, 306 - 324 (Mon-Fri)
Per day after 9:00 a.m.
to 6 p.m.
Bi-monthly (Man-Sat)
Spaces~i_~_-%~'
Monthly, Spaces 1-36
(Man-Sat)
after 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
free on legal holidays
Per day (Man - Sat) q ~-~
Spaces 5~6-b~, ~'7~ - ' Lfl- c-s-5
~after 6 am to
6 pm
630-650 - 6 am to
4:30 pm
Per roll (20 tokens)
10% discount
PAGE 11