|
<br />-
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />types of permits. He said he understood the concern was primarily about the ef- ~
<br />fect of additional cost to the buying public which faced already increasing costs i
<br />from the "spin off" on total cost of housing because of assessor's practices. To I
<br />~ . determine what the effect might be, he said, some calculations were made on PUD
<br />~- : costs should the entire amount of the fee as originally suggested be charged,:ft" j
<br />Those calculations ~howed no major impact on the cost of housing and he felt I
<br />that should be recognized--in discussing what was really being accomp'lished in '
<br />, setting these fees. I
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal saw the benefit to the general public of planning control,
<br />,
<br />housing codes, etc., in maintaining standards, but she didn't see any difference :
<br />between planning and transportation functions, for instance, and other improve- i
<br />ments such as sidewalks, sewers, streets normally charged to homeowners. She !
<br />, 'I
<br />recognized too the proposed fees based on percentage of ac;tuaij'costs represented
<br />a departure from past method of setting fees, so she tho~ghtit might be feasible I
<br />not to charge the full cost at this time. However, she still thought the fees I
<br />proposed were too low, that raising the subdivision application fees would have
<br />very little effect on cost of housing, and that they were not raised because of
<br />pressure by'a",specialgroup which profited from that.
<br />Comm
<br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council 8/14/74
<br />members present voting aye, except, Mrs. Beal voting, no. . See~Be-l!ow
<br />._._..... .. .. --_.. ..' ..~.. '," . _. ._~.._.._~._., .~,.....~._- '. ~. ___... _." J\ ~ .~. __. ~.- "..1,.. ~''''''..:' .
<br />
<br />Because of the late hour and desire for proper~:consideration of the committee report on
<br />~ fee :evision, it was agr~ed to carry this item over to the September 16, 1974 Council
<br />. meetlng.
<br />
<br />C. I,Joint Social Service Fund - Final Report"- Copies of final recommendations for.
<br />funding social service agencies for,1974-75 submitted by 'the Joint Social Services
<br />Budget Subcommittee were previously distributed to Council members. The recommenda-\
<br />tions listed allocations in two priority sections - the first (28 items) were firm \
<br />recommendations on which contracts ~ere already signed with the agencies; the '
<br />second (13 items) were additional allocations to be funded with money made avail-
<br />iable by the County. Two other items (Mental Health Center and Legal Aid Secretary)
<br />:were recommended for funding as money was available.
<br />
<br />i
<br />iCouncil was requested to delegate authority to Kess Hottle, director of Lane County
<br />iCommunity Health and Social Services, to sign amendments to the contracts resulting
<br />:from approval of the second group. Attention was called to the allocation for Drug
<br />;Information Center - approval would constitute authorization only, payments would
<br />:be made only after some administrative problems lvere cleared and contract signed
<br />iwi th tha,t agency. ~,..__,.,u,__'__ ~___.__.~___,__, __._'_'. h, ,__ _ ,_. --.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Campbell inquired about the $20,000' allocation to CARES; she h'ad
<br />:understood it might be deleted. Assistant ManagBr answered that a combination 1
<br />~ /of things occurred to enable funding that agency - expenditures were cut, match- I
<br />., iing"grant from County Health Agency, and some staff help. Mrs. Campbell commented 1
<br />on the innovati ve procedure for funding social services in this area, elici ting ,
<br />from Assistant Manager the fact that recognition of the joint funding program was '1
<br />given Lane County in the form of an award from the National Association of Counties.
<br />. ~ . I
<br />' . I
<br />Councilwoman Beal asked for more informati,on on the Drug Information Cente.r. I
<br />Assistant Manager explained that the Center, funded with the understanding that it ,
<br />would operate for the entire fiscal year, came back with the announcement that it
<br />could operate--.only four months and would then,:have.:to:.c]'ose. The Joint Budget
<br />Committee was asked to allocate funds to permit its operation until receipt of a
<br />. Federal grant. The requested allocation was recommended after investigation re-
<br />vealed there would be costs to local government agencies to provide those services
<br />,if the Center didn't operate. Since that time the University, the contracting
<br />:agency, had raised some questions with regard to the legal status of the Center
<br />jWhich attorneys were trying to resolve. He thought those matters would be taken
<br />(care of before the next meeting of the Joint Budget Committee. In further re-
<br />\sponse to Mrs. Beal about use of the State Laboratory or Health Department for
<br />!analyses performed by the Center, Assistant Manager said these particular analyses
<br />[were sophisticated enough':_~o be used by narcotics agencies allover the State and
<br />\were a very valuable' toa:7from- a police standpoint.
<br />. !
<br />.~ i Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the Joint Budget
<br />Subcommittee recommendations on social services and allow Kess Hottle,
<br />County Community Health and Social Services director, to sign contracts
<br />as amended.
<br />
<br />~ ...... ~,
<br />---.-....:.......
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />8/26/74 - 19
<br />3'2
<br />
|