05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilwoman Beal suggested that the committee appointed to study fees take a look Oat regulations of various codes concerned with the building industry to determine Itheir part in the cost of structures. She felt they added more to the ultimate cost. !of a building than the fees charged by the city based on cost of services. Council-: !man Williams called attention .to the necessity for adoption of nationally recognized: 'codes as a condition for approval of a workable program under HUD regulations. He '.fel t the approach suggested worthwhile if it could be accomplished on a local level but was afraid it would involve modifying national codes. Mrs. Beal said that many :people believe the building codes were .formulated by industries covered bl/ those codes and so' were based o'n self-interest rather than safety:- She felt theCounCir-- should have the codes reviewed in the light of costs to the consumer, that a report.. would be helpful and recommendations at least could be made. e Discussion was brought back to the recommendation of the Planning, Co~ission, and Councilman Murray asked whet;her there was any difference in a legal sense adopting fees by resolution rather than as a part of the code. Manager replied there was none because issuance of permits and collection of fees both were administrative responsibility. Therefore, permits could be withheld until payment of fees. The purpose of adopting fees by resolution, he said, would make it unnecessary to re- print the code each time a fee change was made. Over the years an attempt has been made to delete from the code those kinds of references to fees and responsibilities which change from time to time, thereby cutting the expense of code changes. Mayor Anderson left the meeting. Council President Williams assUmed the chair. 'In answer to Councilman Murray, Manager said public hearing on the recommended code amendments would be delayed until a new planning fee schedule was adopted so that . there would be no gap. Councilman McDonald approved delay on fee adoption. He said ;regardless of objections registered by builders that the consumer would ultimately :pay the increase. Further discussion resulted in the understanding that public hear- ;ing onEhecod~a_mendments would be scheduled at the >appropriate",,~tirire-".- when revised planning fees were ready for adoption. ) .~~ . :Councilwoman Campbell repeated her opinion that fees based on a percentage of costs involved would be better than setting specific figures. Vote was taken on motion to schedule public hearing on recommended code amendments when revision of planning fees was settled. Motion carried, all council members present voting ay~ except; Mrs Campbell voting no. I I Corom ~/8/74 Approve F .Pet-i~tions~==o~. \,1~ Sanitary sewer, 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills - Petitioned by owners of 78'Yo '\ of property to be assessed. ,.-=,,_ \2. Paving intersection of 13th Avenue and Quaker Street - Peti tionea<hy owners of 100% of property to be assessed. ,Manager explained that; the paving of the intersection at 13th and Quaker would be .accomplished under private contract in connection with Quaker Street PUD. . In response to Councilwoman Beal's inquiry about the 22% frontage not represented Ion the Mahalo Hills petition, Public Works Director pointed to the area on a map and rexplained that the 78% pe.titioning the sewer was in one ownership. Manager added . lthat the proposed sewer would become on integral part of the city's sewer s7ystem. " , Comm Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the petition. Motion 5/8/74 ~ q~rried unanimousll/. Approve 3.Petition for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Sleepy Hollow Addition, ana kanitary sewers within 160 feet north and south of Sleepy Hollow Addition !Manager explained that 49% of the area to be assessed lies outside the city. Assess~ Iment for that portion would have to 'be deferred. I ! Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition. 'Councilman Williams asked how long t;he collection would be deferred, whether a time limit could be set. Manager explained that there was no annextion applica- tion pending. The sewer, running along the city limits line, was petitioned by .owners of property inside the ci ty. Properties abutting on the other side cannot 1egally be assessed nor can they use the sewer until they do annex. Assistant :Manager added that the sewer was designed so tha t when the entire area comes wi thin' 'the city it could be served; the area outside'consists of single, developed lots I 'd :and when it is annexed the assessment will have to be pal. . \.. \ Vote was taken on the motion to accept the petition. Motion carried unanimousl . ; " Corom / 5/15/74 Approve' 5/20/74 - .18 \bb J