|
<br />II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
<br />Previously discussed in committee meeting on August 28, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson;
<br />Council members Williams, Her.shner, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and
<br />~ September 4, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson (left early); Council members Williams,
<br />_ Hershner (left early), Beal, Campbell, Keller (left early), Murray, and Wood.)
<br />. Minutes of those 'meetings are printed below in italics.
<br />
<br />A. Fee Revision Committee Report_ - Accept (carried from August 26 Council) Approve
<br />
<br />Discussed in Committee on August 14, 1974 and carried over from the August 26,
<br />1974 Council meeting (see Council minutes August 26, 1974 for committee minutes)':
<br />
<br />Annabel Kitzhaber, ~peaking for the League of Women Voters, read a prepared
<br />statement in favor of the proposed fee revision with reservations. The League
<br />felt fees should reflect the costs of services provided and that those bene-
<br />fitting from .,the, s.ervic"es should pay tHe rees~-wi th exemptioh's-~mly,;in 'sp~~i.al .
<br />cases such as for CIR housing. Also that the-maj ority of planning tim-e--s'hould
<br />be spent on long-range planning and that type of planning should take pre-
<br />cedence so far as funds were concerned. The city should not subsidize indivi-
<br />,dual developers and builders to the extent it has in the past.
<br />
<br />(1043) Austin Pitcher, 175 East 36th Avenue, speaking for the Associated General Con":':
<br />tractors, said the .AGC approved the proposed revision of fees.
<br />
<br />(~6) B~tty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, me~b~r of the Pe~ Revision commit~ee disag:eed
<br />... wlth the League of Women Voters~ posltlon. She sald'that although lncrease ln
<br />costs to the developer appeared trivial it would r'esult in an increase in housing
<br />costs to the consumer, and as a ~atter of principle the city should be doing
<br />everything it could to-avoid any more increase in cost of housing than was
<br />absolutely necessary. She said the com~itiee felt it not unreasonable to take
<br />the point of view that the public benefit constituted a very large share of
<br />the benefit derived from planning activities, .so that the public should be sharing
<br />a substantial amount of the cost. .
<br />
<br />Lee Penny, 2355 Birch Lane, also a member of.,the -Pee Revision committee, thought
<br />tre proposed fee schedule a good start toward equalizing benefit to costs. It
<br />established the policy of charging fees based on a percentage of costs involved
<br />in various planning activities. Also review and revision of fees was encouraged
<br />to ensure future protection against a wide disparity between fees charged and
<br />actual costs involved. She noted the homebu~lders had suggested phasing. the
<br />increase over a two-year period and_she hoped that in future consideration of
<br />any fee revision there would be mole data available on the actual impact of
<br />increased fees on housing costs., _ She felt the committee was guessing somewhat
<br />in that regard, and said she was. not sure the impact would be as great as may
<br />have been estimated.
<br />
<br />~51) In response to Councilwoman Campbell with regard to the proposed revision pro~
<br />cedure, Manager explained that the committee recommended that the resolution
<br />adopting the fees include provision for staff review and recommendation to
<br />the Commission and Council should they feel changes were appropriate.
<br />
<br />(1160) Councilman Murray said he woull'vote for the proposed schedule. However, he
<br />thought it almost repugnant that '-'neighbors should be expected to subsidize a
<br />$40,000 home." He felt if fees were to be paid by the public iil the interest
<br />of lowering the cost of housing there shoulq be more money devoted to that, but
<br />it seemed to him-a roundabout way of dealing with housing costs.
<br />
<br />(1175) Councilman McDonald thought t~at the general public should not have to pay costs
<br />benefitting individual builders. Councilman Wood recognized that any increase
<br />(1197) in costs to developers would be passed on to the consumer. However, he said, the
<br />growth study under consideration by the Council would give the necessary infor-
<br />mation for a more objective evaluation and give the opportunity for reassessment
<br />of the fee schedule. He expressed support for proposed revision and hoped the
<br />new fees would be adopted.
<br />
<br />~ -. --~-..
<br />
<br />B. :Alley Directional Change between Oak and Pe,arl, Broadway and 10th
<br />, . j Commission on August 6, 1974 reco,rnmended changing traffic on north/south alley
<br />__ t tween Oak and Pearl, Broadway; and~'l Oth from southbound onl y to northbound onl y to
<br />'facilitate traffic f19w generated by new buildings in that area. No objec~ions I
<br />were received from property owners or tenants of existing buildings. Staff had '
<br />I some concern that a portion of the median planter on the Broadway mall between
<br />IOak p.nd Pear I 'would have to be removed to e'nable ease in turning from the alley
<br />lonto Broadway, but that would not be done- unless experience proved it necessary.
<br />If it was necessary, it was staff's understanding that Citizens Bank was prepared
<br />'to pay the cost of anll modification in the median. ~ _ __________ J
<br />
<br />._.~ . - -----.0. __. __" ___ _. a _.~ _....
<br />
<br />
<br />~~~ 9/16/74 - 5
<br />
|