04/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was set at approximately 30 percent of the actual processing cost to mitigate the effect of a fee on the ultimate housing cost. Also, the Committee suggested a fee for various commercial and industrial uses ~ should be set at 60 percent of the actual processing cost. Mr. Saul said ., that that was the basis of the fee structure before Council with the exception of: 1} A waiver of fees for control income and rent housing projects; and 2} reduction below the 30% fee for social service permits. In 1974 the first fee was established and it was directed at that time it be reviewed not less than one year and not more than two-year intervals. He said the bulk of the fees being recommended are increases by straight percentage figures because of the cost of inflation and an increased amount of staff work involved. He noted corrections: The Sign District Boundary Change fee should be $500 (instead of $504); Sign Code Variance recommended fee should be from $85 to $100; and the Zoning Variance fee $35 to $45. Mr. Haws expressed hope that the Council would not give consideration to the charge for appeals, but simply forget it. Ms. Smith said regarding the fees for appeals, it was perceived by many in the community as being a way to limit citizens and neighborhoods the opportunity to question decisions that are being made. She felt more time needed to be given to the study of the fees and requested delay of the entire discussion. Mr. Williams did not want to discuss the subject of the appeal charge. However, at a very minimum the issue of costs being inflicted on others needed to be discussed and favored delaying discussion of the entire fee schedule. In answer to a question from Mr. Delay regarding the determination of ~ a 20 percent increase, Mr. Saul said the figure was reached by approxi- mating the amount of actual increase of processing time. He did not have actual dollar figures as to how much money had been lost. Those figures were part of the material presented to the Budget Committee. He noted it was necessary to have some resolution as budget projections for 1978-79 were based on this fee increase. Ann Ramp, Crest Drive Neighborhood Association, agreed with Mr. Haws in that the appeal fees were incredible, unbelievable, and should be junked. George Platt, representing the Citizens Involvement Advisory Committee, said the Committee had met this morning and addressed the subject of fees for appeals and street name change. Their unanimous suggestion to Council was that it direct the subject to the Committee for consideration. The Committee considers appeals fee to be a serious matter. He further thought that access to the system through appeals is an important part of citizen participation. The Committee recommended to Council that it separate the appeal and street name fees, as they have never been given any citizen approval. It was suggested those be returned to the Planning Commission for study, which would give the CIAC an opportunity to examine the impact of accessibility by citizens to decisions made by Council. He noted he was not speaking for the Planning Commission, but only for the CIAC. - 4-26-78--8 1~'t