04/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e C. Permit Fee System for Encouraging Rehabilitation April 8 report from Superintendent of Building Inspection was distributed to Council, suggesting that ind.ividual credits for each project be entered in the Building Division revenue account when permits are granted and equal debits be entered in the appropriate Housing and Community Development fund. The report also suggests there be no special case modifications to application of the current comination permi t fee schedule as any such deviations would resul t in some additional administrative expense. Also distributed to Council with the report was a fee schedule. Manager explained a portion of the m:mey from the community development act could be set aside to fund the fees - otherwise the taxpayers are ultimately responsible. An attempt is being made to make construction inspection generally self-supporting and it is a matter of choice as to t.l'le source of the subsidy. Mr. Williams asked if both building permit fees and plan inspection fees are levied in all instances. Mr. Nolte responded the plan check fee does not apply to single-family residential but rather to commercial and multiple family projects. Mr. Murray wanted assurance that by passing the motion there would not be an obligation to take funds out of tlle community development grant to waive the fee; Manager suggested that will hopefully be discussed. Mr. Murray felt the Council should know that the fee issue, in terms of how much administrative expense is involved, is an extremely sensitive issue on the HCDC. There seem to be extraordinary expenses and it is a feeling that the city's commitment to housing and community conservation COncerns ought to be reflected somehow aside from the grant. Mr. Williams' understanding is that the proposal has not come before the HCDC and he is not sure it is a highly satisfactory one. He feels it should be referred to HCDC before a defini te decision is made. - Mr. Williams lOCJved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the matter to the HCDC for consideration and recommendation. Motion carried unanirrously. Comm 4/14/76 Approve D. Budget Committee Appointment - Mrs. Shirey referred to withdrawal of the nomination of Scott Lieuallen to the Budget Committee at the last Council meeting because Some COuncil members fel t approving his appointment might appear to be an endorsement of his candidacy for the City Council. Mrs. Shirey was concerned about the matter, feeling there would be no conflict in the appointment. MIs. Beal also regretted very much wi thdrawal of the nomination. She sees a Budget Committee not as a Council appointment but rather as the prerogative of the Council member to appoint. Mr. Murray commented that he probably would not have withdrawn the nomination had these comments been made earlier. He does feel Mr. Lieuallen is rrost able to fill the gap created by the sudden resignation of a member from his ward in the midst of the budget .process. He also added that the nomination did not necessarily indicate his endorsement: of Mr. Lieuallen for Council. He is sensitive to the awkwar.dness of the timing. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to reinstate the nomination of Mr. Lieuallen t~ the Budget Comnattee. Corom 4/14/76 Approve Mr. Bradley asked that the record note that his vote is not to be taken as support -- of Mr. Lieuallen' s candidacy for the City Council. e Vote was taken on the rrotion which carried, all council members voting aye except Mr. Keller and Mr. Williams abstaining. 4/26/76 - 13 aJ.1