08/26/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- .. .....-., '-..' . ,-- .- - -- - - ...', Councilwoman Beal noted the reduction in fees proposed for major and minor sub- ,divisions and asked if the Fee Committee considered subdivisions of benefit to the general public. She said the Budget Committee had suggested the fee study with ! - the idea of possibly increasing revenues to cut the deficit in processing costs, and she wondered why it was proposed to lower the subdivision fees now after having raised them earlier in the year. Mr. Chenkin answered that prior to ! adoption of the present fee schedule there had been no charge for subdivision.~' I applications. He said it was correct that if the fees now proposed were adopted ithe charge for land partition would be less, that the fees would be based on a Ipercentage - 30 or 60 - of actual processing costs to all city departments, not \just planning. Councilman Wood said the main consideration in recommending the 30%/60% factor was the impact the Fee Committee thought charging the full amount to the developer would have on the cost of housing to the consumer. In addi tion, he said, the community benefited from the review and monitoring process in terms of maintaining standards. . Mrs. Beal could see no reason why the general public should pay the cost of new !development any more than the cost of public improvements - sidewalks, sewers, IPaving .- whiph were assessed to the individual property owners. She said she agreed completly on waiving permit fees for CIR housing, but on the ottier costs ,it seemed consideration was being given only to the consumer and none to the tax- !payer. She was opposed to subsidization of high-cost housing and said she would like to see the fees discussed in public hearing because it seemed the taxpayer should have a voice. . Councillnan Wood thought the total community should bear the burden of some of the i normal growth within an area. He said the Fee Commi ttee, 'however, didn't consider I i . that so much as it was concerned with the impact of any increase in cost passed ! to individuals rather, than having broader based economical support. Mrs. Beal \ felt a better definition of "consumers" might be that in general they,ryere tc:.:i'''~ , , , payers -. those supporting the tax structure of the city. She said she saw no reason to subsidize commercial development either and repeated her opinion that i " there should be further consideration of the fee report in public hearing so people I J would know exactly what they were subsidizing. .. "7.-"'-- ._,. --.. - .---...--........---..-....-- --", -- .-. ".~. . ~'---_. Councilwoman Campbell didn't think the fees were high enough but she was willing to accep't the report rather than reject it and start over again. She felt a great deal of consideration should be given to the report since it reflected a . citizens group point of view. Mr. Wood added that the fee schedule could be ad- justed at a later date, that it did represent various philosophies and expertise on Housing and growth impact. He favored approval and drafting of the appro- priate legislation for public hearing. Mayor Anderson recognized the difficulty of developing an equitable system of fees but said the approach taken by the Fee Committee seemed the fairest way to handle the charges and was more~equitable than had applied in the past. Mrs. Beal agreed that the approach was right - . passing along some of the actual city costs. But she said she recognized the Committee on which the building industry was well represented was possibly in- , fluenced by desires of people who wished to provide housing, and she again~sug- \ gested that there should be public hearing on the report to give the opportunity for pub,Iic expression. I Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to accept the report. Councilwoman Beal asked if the motion should also set a public hearing on the fee , report before an ordinance implementing it was prepared. Councilwoman Campbell , I expressed concern with that procedure. Councilman Hershner said his motion was not intended to "put anything through" without public input. He said acceptance of the report with preparation of legislation for consideration at the August 26 Council meeting would provide opportunity for separate discussion even though it would probably not have the wide publicity a public hearing would have. He said it seemed the issue was whether the functions of the city in this area were,ex- . \ clusively for the benefit of the developer and people living in a development or the city as a whole. He believed the city as a whole did gain benefit and that i it was proper the city as a whole - the taxpayers - should bear a certain portion : of the cost. i Manager called attention to anticipated revenues built into the budget based on . : fees suggested in early budget presentation which had been reduced. Now, based ; on this recommendation, there would be further reduction of about $60,000. He said the effect would not be disastrous since money was available in an emergenclJ fund to make up for unrealized revenues. He thought the basic question was what share the general public should p~ for the costs of processing the different , ' :;j. - ....:>'. = 8/26/74 - 18 '311