11/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

director, explained that some processing costs increased, others decreased, and it was fel t 20% would cover the average increase over the last t~'o years and would be reasonable. e Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the planning department assess Comm applicants for special functions of the city at the full cost of that 11/5/75 process. Withdrawn Councilman Williams questioned the fairness of that action when in fact the greatest bulk of the work carried on by developers was for the benefit of the city as a whole. He was also concerned about the impact of such action on the cost of housing. He said that forcing the cost of new housing up, making it that much more difficult for people to purchase, and forcing up rents on apartment construction, would create pressures on the existing market and existing housing with the single and absolute effect of increasing the total cost of housing for everyone. He felt it was not so much whether people would benefit most from putting the cost on a":single.-new dlvelling but rather whether that benefit would drive up the cost of that dwelling and the purchase price of an existing dwelling. Councilman Murray said he felt that was not quite an accurate analysis. He was not too concerned about the price of a new structure when it was already outside the reach of most people. He referred to analysis of cost to new construction when this 'issue was previously discussed and said he was surprised to find the impact was mini mal to the point of insignificance. He said the impact of new construction on existing housing had c negative effect, that it had the effect of creating slums, and that too much attention had been paid to one side and not the other. Mayor Anderson suggested referral of the issue to the Joint Housing Committee, e noting that Council action today without input from those people might not be appropriate. Gary Chenkin, Assistant Planning Director, pointed out that when the fees schedule was previously discussed there had been appointed a fee committee. That committee, he said, was where the fee split was recommended. Mrs. Beal with consent of the second (Hamel) withdrew the motion. She Comm instead moved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the issue to the Budget 11/5/75 Committee subcommittee on revenue. Approve In making the substitute motion, Mrs. Beal said the Budget Committee was the area where revenues should be discussed, and the Joint Housing Committee would have the opportunity for input there. She said she could see no reason for new housing to be subsidized through general tax monies, that it increased the cost of olde~' housing much more on an overall basis and keeping the taxes lOlver would make it easier for residents of older housing to remain. . Mayor Anderson suggested referring the issue to both the fee comndttee and the revenue subcommittee. He felt that would provide for quicker action as well as allow for input from the Joint Housing Committee. Mrs. Beal, however, would not reconsider her motion, saying she thought the fee committee reflected the interest of ne~ housing. Councilman Haws said he understood the fee committee was to gather facts and bring a report back to the Council for a policy decision. He wondered if e a policy change was wanted or whether it was a decision to meet the economics of the issue. Mr. Chenkin explained that the fee committee was originally appointed because of recommendations to increase fees to cover 100% of the cost of processing 5"92.", 11/10/75 - 17