05/05/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sidized by about-$60;OOO~She-thought the request for investigation of planning expenditures was an issue different from that covered by the request from the AGC for appointment of a committee, which was 'verified by Mr. Boyer. :Councilman Keller supported the AGC request, saying he felt the industry people should have a better understanding of the proposed fee schedule especially in view of the wide range in some instances between the present fees and those proposed.' ~. ICouncilman Hershner wondered whether tabulations of proposed fees had been made (available to the AGC. He agreed with Mr. Keller's position, but thought if the :AGC had the tabulations and information used in developing the figures a pub~ic 'hearing would provide the same opportunity for input that a subcommittee would : provide. I Councilman Murray preferred proceeding with public hearing on the fee schedule with ; the idea that if testimony were presented to justify appointment of a committee for further study it could be done at that time. He felt that although it was un- fortunate costs would be passed on to the consumer, that seemed fairer than their being absorbed by the general public. Councilwoman Beal was uncertain about what was sought by the AGC in the study re- quested. She explained the cost accounting study was prepared by the finance de- partment on services performed by the planning department and said that any other matters concerning the planning department were a matter of city policy developed over a period of years as planriliig became more important to -tne--entTre Ci ty .-"'----- Mr. Boyer said they were not interested in amounts but in theory; there were some ... facets they Objected to on which they would like an opportunity to present their ~ views. 'He said they felt a committee representing all segments - planners, pUblic, contractors, builders, architects - could provide the requested review. Manager explained that the Revenue Study, prepared at request of the Budget Committee covered fees for various activities and services carried on by city departments. The' Budget Comm~ttee recommended adoption of fee increases proposed by the study. Question about plannlng fees was raised by people in the building industry who were under the im- pression that the new planning fee schedule had been proposed by the Planning Commission. It was noted that the Budget Committee recommended the increase in planning fees.' The Planning Commission did consider the rate increases, however" and recommended that the code be amende~ to allow f~e changes by resolution of the Council 'so that future changes could be made wlthout amendlng the code each time (included in official report yet to come to the Council) . Public hearing was opened. Betty Niven, chairman of Joint Housing Committee, distributed to Council members outline of her remarks with regard to concerns about increase in cost of housing attributed in many in- stances to governmental action. She felt the Council should be aware that in talking of passing on. cost of.i~c:eas~d fees it was passed to the consumer. That the developer, al- though paYlng the lnltlal lncrease, would eventually regain that through increase of the various elements to the buyer. She cited the ratio of $500 additional income per thousand ~ollar incre~se in housing cost necessary to permit purchase and said incomes were not rising ln that fashlon. She read from several publications to stress the concern with increased cost of housing. Mrs. Niven continued tha~ the kinds of fees proposed by the study presented problems because they were "flat rate" and had no relationship to services demanded - they would apply the same to an $80,000 house as to a small rental unit. She noted also that when ~~ W'c I~I 5/6/7.4 '- 4