04/30/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - Ms. Ehrman said she favored waiving the fee for the River Road/Santa Clara area, but she would like to retain the annexation fee for other areas. Ms. Wooten said she agreed with Ms. Ehrman because the City is agressively pursuing annexation only in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Ms. Bascom said she understood the City is agressively pursuing annexation in all areas. Ms. Brody responded that the annexation policy approved by the council waives annexation fees for the River Road/Santa Clara area. Mayor Obie suggested that the councilors discuss the annexation policy again at its quarterly process session. Ms. Marmaro said the Planning Department publicized the proposed changes. Comments from the public suggested that fees be waived for other governmental units, and that the conditional use permit fee be reduced for day care facil- ities in residential districts. Ms. Marmaro said applications for day care facilities in residential districts are often controversial and the staff spends much time processing them. Mayor Obie commented that important applications will be received from the University of Oregon soon for a new science building and, perhaps, a dome for Autzen Stadium. Mr. Gleason pointed out that a request may be received from Lane County for a jail. Answering a question, Ms. Marmaro said the City does not receive many requests from other governmental units. Mr. Hansen asked if the City's processes were examined to see if they could be more cost-effective. Mr. Chenkin responded that the City revised all its planning processes in 1984 so that there is only one local hearing and one local appeal and so the hearing and appeal are on the lowest level possible. He said the changes resulted in approximately a 3D-percent savings in proces- sing time. Ms. Brody said savings also result from automating processes. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Brody said an exemption from the appeal fee for people with low incomes was not considered. Ms. Marmaro said the council stated in 1974 that the City should recover 30 percent of the cost of processing residential applications and 60 percent of the cost of proces- sing non-residential applications, but the fees established then included only direct costs for the most part. She said that current cost recovery amounts to about 12 percent of total costs; the proposed fee schedule would raise the total cost recovery level to 21 percent. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Ms. Marmaro said it is difficult to com- pare the proposed fees with those of other cities because most other cities base fees on a less rigorous analysis of costs. However, the proposed fee schedule is similar to the schedules of Beaverton and Salem. Ms. Brody com- mented that the Eugene PUD fee will be less than Salem's and the Eugene fee for some other applications will be more than Salem's. Ms. Wooten said she is concerned about the increase from $230 to $625 for residential conditional use permits because many conditional use permits in residential zones concern minor issues and little financial gain. Ms. Brody said the staff recommended eliminating the difference in fees between resi- dential and non-residential conditional use permits. She said residential conditional use permits are often complex and involve significant staff time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 30, 1986 Page 2