04/20/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e would affect programs. Mr. Mounts said that based on market assessments, alternative 1 is sustainable. He said that fee increases would be phased in over a two- to three-year period to achieve 53 percent cost recovery. Mr. Robinette wondered why the recovery of net direct cost for level 1 is not 53 percent of $1.25 million. Mr. Mounts said that the total cost is $1.775 million. He said that the net cost does not reflect revenue. Mr. Mounts clarified that new adult membership fees would be approximately $40. The motion passed, 7:1 (Ms. Ehrman opposed). Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about providing services to community members based only on their ability to pay. Mr. Boles emphasized that the community and the council will have an opportunity to re-examine these decisions. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Ms. Ehrman, and stated that this issue should be presented to the community. C. Component 117. DeveloDment Services Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to include compo- nent 117, which recovers the full cost of building permits/plan check development services through user fees. Mr. MacDonald emphasized that this issue needs to be presented before the community. Mr. Nicholson requested more information on how the component would affect the users. Mr. Ehrman said that the council had already voted to proceed with this option. Mr. Rutan said that Mr. Nicholson's question may have no answer. He said that as a result of this option, some development projects may not occur. For other developments, it may result in significant hardships. He said, however, that extensive analysis has already been done and community input has been received. He thought that it was time for the council to make very difficult value judgments. He pointed out that there will be citizens opposed to every strategy that the council suggests. Mr. Nicholson stressed that there is a difference between unfortunate options and unjust options. Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the public has expressed support for this option. The motion passed 7:1 (Mr. Nicholson opposed). D. Comoonent 115 AI. Statistical Samoling Mr. Nicholson was unsure whether this option applied only to licensed profes- sionals, such as electricians and plumbers. He said that if so, it should not be so restrictive. Mr. Mounts said that a different license is required to inspect work than to perform work. Abe Farkas, Director of the Planning and Development Division, stated that licensed professionals must be certified by the State. Mr. Nicholson stated that it seems more appropriate to address this issue on a legislative level. He suggested that the component be discussed in the near future, with the intent on ratifying the concept and removing State barriers. Ms. Ehrman expressed a desire to ascertain how those MINUTES--Eugene City Council 5:30 p.m. April 20, 1992 Page 3