FIN 11-1-1 (PR)
9.4
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATE REVISION EXAMPLES

The following is a nonexclusive list of estimate revision examples consistent with the criteria presented in the Estimate Revision Section:

1. The applicant fails to provide accurate, complete, or timely information.

• The original Fee Estimate to review the engineering plans for a proposed short plat was based upon an assumption that the applicant’s engineer would bring the plans into compliance within three re-submittals to the County staff. The estimate of three re-submittals was based upon historic averages for this permit type. Each of the three re-submittals was inaccurate and incomplete. Additional review by County staff will be required.
• The original Fee Estimate to review a critical area alteration exception was based upon an assumption that the applicant’s consult would provide an accurate delineation of a wetland and accurate characterization of a landslide hazard area. The submittal was inaccurate and incomplete. Additional review by County staff will be required.

2. The applicant fails to disclose a site or development issue which creates the need for additional review by staff, unanticipated by the Project Manager during the preparation of the previous Fee Estimate.

• During the construction of a detention pond for a proposed subdivision Native American artifacts are discovered. The new issue associated with the project was not anticipated in the original Fee Estimate and will require additional staff time to review.
• During the field inspection of clearing permit the inspector discovers a wetland not previously disclosed in the application. The new issue associated with the project was not anticipated in the original Fee Estimate and will require additional staff time to review.

3. The scope or design of the applicant proposal changes, creating the need for additional review by staff, unanticipated by the Project Manager during the preparation of the previous Fee Estimate.

• During the review of a preliminary plat the applicant changes the proposal from a single family detached development to a multifamily apartment development. The change in the project necessitates additional review.
• During the construction of a proposed subdivision the applicant applies for a drainage adjustment to the King County Surface Water Design Manual to divert runoff to a new location not previously evaluated on the originally approved construction plans. The change in the project necessitates additional review.
• During the review of the engineering plans for a proposed short plat the applicant’s engineer applies for and receives a variance to the King County Road standards to modify the horizontal alignment of a proposed roadway. The change in the project necessitates additional review.
• During the periodic review of a mining permit the applicant proposed to utilize a new haul route doubling the number of trucks on a residential street. The change in the project necessitates additional review.

4. The applicant fails to complete the construction of the project in a timely manner, creating the need for additional review by staff, unanticipated by the Project Manager during the preparation of the previous Fee Estimate.

• The original Fee Estimate to inspect the infrastructure for a proposed subdivision was based upon an assumption that the applicant’s contractor would complete the project in one construction season. The construction was not completed by the contractor within one construction season. Additional inspection by County staff will be required.
• The applicant for a proposed subdivision fails to complete all of the remaining construction punch list items, per the requirements of K.C.C. Title 27 and the performance Financial Guarantee. The project is in a “default” status. County staff must spend significant additional time communicating with the applicant, the surety company, and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The original Fee Estimate was not based upon a project reaching a “default” status.

5. The applicant’s proposal is appealed, and the previous Fee Estimate did not anticipate an appeal.

The original Fee Estimate for a grading permit did not assume an appeal to the County’s SEPA determination. The applicant disagrees with the SEPA determination and files an appeal. The appeal necessitates additional review.

6. The applicant requests to separate the review of the project into distinct phases.

Following the submittal of engineering plans for a proposed subdivision, the applicant requests to separate the construction into three phases. The first phase is an “early start” such that work in a stream can occur before the salmon return to spawn. The original estimate did not anticipate the additional review associated with coordinating three sets of engineering plans. The phasing of the project necessitates additional review.

7. Unauthorized construction (including but not limited to clearing or grading) occurs, or an associated code enforcement case is opened.

• The inspection of an approved clearing permit discloses the applicant’s contractor cleared significantly more area than the permit allowed. The applicant is required to mitigate the impact by submitting a plan to reforest a portion of the site. The original fee estimate did not include the staff time required to review and inspect the new reforestation plan.
• During the review of a surface mining permit, the County Inspector discovers the mining activity has eliminated a protected stream. A formal Code Enforcement case is opened pursuant to K.C.C. Title 23. The original fee estimate did not anticipate the additional time required for the inspector to review this permit in coordination with a formal code enforcement investigation.

8. The King County Council modifies permit fees.