Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, member of the Fee Review Committee previously <br /> established to determine allocation of planning fees between the general public <br /> and applicants, expressed concern about attempting to ensure a developer was bear- <br /> e ing his share of planning services requested when in reality it would be borne by <br /> the consumer. She thought the aggregate of fees charged to the developer - build- <br /> ing permits, sidewalk permits, etc., as well as planning fees - would have an impact <br /> on the cost of housing, particularly for "modest-income" people. She continued that <br /> the Fee Review Committee spent considerable time determining how much benefit really <br /> went to the consumer and how much to the general public She urged the Council not <br /> to make a change in the existing allocation of planning fees until after the Plan- <br /> ning Commission has adopted new pun regulations now under consideration. That con- <br /> sideration, she said, includes the possibility of shifting away from use of pun <br /> procedures for small projects to site review procedures and outright zoning. If <br /> that happens, she thought it would have a bearing on this particular fee schedule. <br /> Referring the matter to the Budget Committee now, she said, wluld take just as much <br /> time as spent by the Fee Review Committee and would not result in anything drastically <br /> different from the existing apportionment of fees. <br /> John Boyer, Associated General Contractos, 1445 Willamette Street, expresed surprise <br /> that a change was being considered in the percentage allocation of fees for plan- <br /> ning services. He endorsed Mrs. Niven's testimony and asked that any proposed in- <br /> crease not take effect at least until May I, 1976. He didn't think any increase <br /> for housing to the consumer would be of benefit to the community, especially at tqis <br /> time when builders were starting into a "tough winter." . <br /> Randy Cuddeback, 2205 Lorane Highway, supported thetffitimony of both Mrs. Niven <br /> and Mr. Boyer. <br /> e Councilman Murray for clarification explained that Council action was to approve <br /> the fee schedule as drawn up. but with the additional intent to restudy the plan- <br /> ning fee issue. He said that did not imply the earlier fee schedule necessarily <br /> was wrong, but did question perhaps whether it was the best that could be developed. <br /> He agreed it was discouraging to think of increasing the cost of housing; yet it was <br /> difficult to be concerned about the impact of relative minor fees as compared to <br /> the increase of housing at a degree that financially outdistances the capacity of all. <br /> Councilman Haws pointed out a correction he thought was needed in the November 5 <br /> committee minutes with regard to the vote on motion to refer the planning fees to <br /> the budget committee revenue subcommittee. He said he thought Councilman Williams <br /> voted against the motion and that Councilman Hamel voted aye. <br /> Mayor Anderson thought the members of the Fee Review Committee were entitled to <br /> see the schedule they developed utilized through at least more than one building <br /> season. He asked the Council to table the issue .until the Planning Commission had <br /> acted on new pun regulations which would have a definite bearing on any new formula <br /> that might be developed. He said he would not support any suggested increase that <br /> would change the existing formula, either from the revenue subcommittee or from <br /> the Council. <br /> Mr. Hamel moved second by Mr. Keller to table the issue of fees for <br /> planning processes. <br /> Councilman Bradley called for a point of order. He asked if it was appropriate to <br /> e ask for reconsideration rather than a tabling action. Mayor Anderson replied that <br /> the action taken in committee was not official at this point. Councilwoman Shirey <br /> asked then if the action on approving a fee schedule was separate from committee <br /> action. The Mayor replied that the tabling issue involved only the formula for the <br /> planning fees. <br /> Vote was taken on the motion to table. Motion defeated - Council <br /> members Keller and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, <br /> Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voti~g uo. 594- 11/10/75 - 19 <br />