Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12/4/84 Page -6- <br />with a written report of their discussions <br />before the January 15th council meeting. <br />Councilman Luce suggested that some objective <br />party one; who would sincerely have an objective <br />picture in terms of the parameter of the study. <br />He was not certain that by going out and ask- <br />ing somebody who has a high stake of one <br />way or another in the particular issue is <br />going to shed any particular light on any- <br />thing at all. <br />Mayor Meier commented that a third party <br />could be involved in the discussions and <br />perhaps council, by these disucssions, would <br />have: a better understanding of what the rami,- <br />ficaitions are relating to~the construction <br />penttit fee increase . <br />Councilman Leary Commented that he felt that we were lookinc <br />at t:he wrong issue. He had suspected for <br />sometime that our inspection fees are not <br />put on here to off-set the costs of running <br />-_ ----~--- _ the Building Inspection Dept. but are a <br />hidden source of another growth revenue. <br />Therefore, he felt he would have voted against <br />it because he was looking at what our building <br />insF~ection fees are; and felt they far ex- <br />ceed':ed what it cost to inspect the buildings. <br />and .are creatinc~.-.~t unstable revenue source 7 <br />Mr. Leary stated there was no mention of the <br />difference in property and if calculations <br />are done on the difference in property taxes <br />in Louisville and our neighbors - Louisville's <br />is half of many of them, and in some instances <br />-- - - o thex cities have property taxes .proliably twice. as <br />high.. So if we are going to look at the in- <br />centive issue, let's have everything on the <br />table. Mr. Leary stated that he didn't think <br />it was worth the time to spend on that <br />analysis; but if other people think that is <br />the purpose of building permits we certainly <br />could proceed on it. <br />VOTE ON THE MOTION All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br />ORDINANCE N0. 849 - CONCERN- Councilmembers had a copy of the ordinance; <br />ING EMPLOYEE'S COST OF LIVING Attorney Rautenstrans read it by title only <br />PUBLIC HEARING on second reading and public hearing and cer- <br />tified proper publication. <br />