04/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Res. No. 2892--Establishing fees for applications for hearing requests in connection with the processing of petitions for the vaca- tion of streets and alleys, partition and subdivision of land, administration of the Sign Code, and street name changes; and repealing Res. No. 2641 was read by number and ti tl e. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution; to delete fee schedule for appeals and street name changes and return consideration of those to the Planning Commission. Manager noted a technical problem in that it was designated in 1974-75 that the Planning Commission would not have to review the fee schedules. He suggested the two items for consideration be returned for consideration to the CIAC. With concurrence of Mr. Hamel and Ms. Smith, the motion was changed to read lito return cons i derati on of the appeals and street name change fees to the CIAC. II Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion to delete the word "appeal." Motion died for a lack of a second. - Mr. Haws went on to explain that he felt that the fees should be raised to 100 percent of cost as people should pay for the services and felt it to be more practical. Manager suggested that should be a separate motion, noting there were many reasons why the percentage figure as presented had been arrived at. He further suggested that perhaps that matter should be referred back to staff or a committee and reiterated he felt it to be a separate motion. Assistant Manager noted for Council when the fee schedule was discussed previously, the ratio was at issue. The Mayor had appointed several persons form the community to discuss the issue, and such a committee had been used each time the percentage ratio had been evaluated. Mr. Haws said he personally did not want to make up the difference in fees, and felt many persons in the community would feel the same way. He felt that the people using the services should pay the full amount for those services. Mr. Haws moved to increase the fee to 100 percent. Manager recommended the motion be rejected at this point. Mayor Keller felt it to be a new motion and not relevant to the original motion. Mr. Haws said that he felt a motion to increase fees could not be out of order. Mayor Keller said the 70 percent increase was dealing with a larger issue, and felt it to be a separate motion. Mr. Delay challenged the ruling of the Chair, as he felt it to be a simple amendment to the main motion. Mayor Keller said he ruled it to be a separate motion because it is a substantial increase and totally out of context to what is before the Council at this point. Mr. Delay said he was questioning procedure, not the merits of the proposal. He said the Chair was ruling this was a new subject, and that was what he - 4-26-78--9 300