11/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

applications. He said the fees were finally set by the Council on percentages of cost - 30% residential, 60% commercial/industrial. At that time it was also recommended, he said, that staff review the schedule every two years. He felt that the Council might want some advice from conunittees if it was considering a e change in that allocation, otherwise it would be merely carrying forth that policy and changing only the figures to reflect the costs. Councilman Bradley wondered why the Council was discussing referral when it had the authority to make the decision. He said he would like to see action on the original 1OCJtion (to assess full cost of applications), thereby deciding whether the cost would be on the developer or on the present formula. Councilman Murray, however, thought thera was no advantage in acting too quickly even though he favored the original motion. He thought referral to the revenue subconunittee rather than to the fee conunittee was preferable because of the makeup of the fee committee. Also, there nnght be some new ideas, something that had not been presented before. Mayor Anderson had no firm opinions on which conunittee but he aid feel that taking action now would be unfortunate because the Council in considering housing policy had always been careful about receiving comments from all segments of the communi ty. He said the construction industry had just as much right for input as anyone else. Councilman Williams wondered if it was really appropriate to refer a fees schedule concerning housing matters to a committee that "operated in a near vacuum vis-a-vis the issues invol ved. " He was concerned whether the revenue committee was properly structured to deliberate on issues involving the entire housing question. Councilman Bradley asked about intent of the 1OCJtion. He thought if it was for e the purpose of raising revenues the revenue subconunittee would be the appropriate place for referral. However, if its intent was one of a,1location of burden, perhaps the Joint Housing Committee was the proper group to analyze those types of issues. Councilman Hamel didn't think t;he issue would receive the proper recommendation from the revenue subcommittee because that conunittee's primary responsibility was budgeting. An opinion from the Housing Conunittee, he said, would get to both sides of the issue. Councilwoman Beal in response to the -question with regard to whether the issue was revenue or allocation of burden said it was indeed revenue that was being lost at present, cost that was being spread now on the tax rolls against everyone in the city. She said referral to the revenue subcommittee could be accompanied by a request that they exannne information from the JQint Housing Cbnunittee or any other person interested. . Councilman Murray thought a false issue had been raised. He said that members of the Joint Housing Committee would doubtless take the initiative to be included in any discussion of the issue. He suggested amendment of the motion to include in~itationfor response rrom the Joint Housing Comrnuttee. Mrs. Beal thought that was implicit. She suggested, however, that the Joint Housing Committee be notified of the referral to the Budget Committee revenue subcomndttee. Vote was taken on the motion to refer the planning fees schedule e to the Budget Conunittee revenue subconunittee, i~lying contact with the Joint Housing Committee with regard to t;hat referral. Motion carried, all counci-l members present voting aye, except **Councilman Hamel vot;inf! no., . ** Cor.rected to show Councilman Williams voting no, Councilman .. Hamel voting aye. 11/10/75 - 18 593