03/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l-^-S I-B-I e e " D. Permit \:ees Schedule - Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Combination Residential Permit F~e Schedule Revision - Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Combination Residential Copies of report from the building division along with copies of ordinance and resolu- tions effecting a proposed change in fees and listing revised schedules were previously furnishe~ to Council members. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, ex- plained that the revision would establish mechanical permit fees (they had not been charged previously) and would increase fees charged for plumbing and electrical per- mits. It would also increase the combination residential permit fees which include all speciality permits in one permit package. He detailed the estimated revenues from the proposed fee schedule and said the change would bring the city's schedule into line with other cities of comparable size. Councilman Murray asked how the increases would affect rehabilitation projects. He was concerned about the initiation of a program of encouraging rehabilitation in some areas of the city and at the same time increasing fees that would discourage people from taking part. Mr. Nolte described the proposed increase as moderate for the combination permit fee and referred to a graph depicting the increase in relation to previous charges. He said the upper limit was $40,000 to $100,000 valuation. Also, that the building division was experiencing an increase in permit requests for valuations over $40,000. For projects to $3,000, he said, there was no increase in the combination permit fee. Mr. Murray said his understanding was that most of the rehabilitation projects would be valued at more than $3,000. He wondered if staff could determine some exemption for rehabilitation projects started as the result of a local government's program. Mr. Nolte estimated more than half of the rehab projects would be in excess of $3,000. He said this concern was anticipated, but staff felt the increase was justified and that it would not create an undue burden on rehab work. Manager thought some exemp- tion could be worked out, getting into the area of income level and substantial re- habilitation loans. He said one general area that could be considered were those groups under "312" where the federal government actually pays the fee. There were severa.Z ways that could be considered, he said, but it would take study as an issue separate from the fee schedule under discussion. Mr. Nolte noted there was some rehab work already being done that did not require a permit, such as painting and other superficial work deleted from the valuation of a project in arriving at the fees charged. Councilman Keller asked what fee would be charged on a $10,000 rehab project. Mr. No.Z te answered about $90 to $100 under the new schedule, which amounted to about a $15 increase over the existing fee. Mr. Keller thought that appeared rather insignificant as opposed to the hassle with alterations and changes involved in a rehdb project. He assumed $10,000 would cover the majority of such projects in this city. Mr. Murray said that though it seemed a minor amount, there were a lot of rehab projects where it was difficult to gain people's participation when there were complications. In certain parts of the city, he said, there was extreme interest .in try.ing to qet property upgraded. He said he would still like to see some staff work done to determine whether the permit fee schedule could be accommodated to rehabili- tation projects encouraged by the city. Mayor Anderson suggested that Mr. Murray make contact with the building division for discussion of his concerns, then a proposal could be brought back to the Council if something could be worked out. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the revised fee schedule as presented and schedule public hearing on the issue at the March 22 Council meeting. Comm 3/17/76 Pub Hrng It~s' 3/22/76 - 3