Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 20 1x:; , : 5 <br />982 <br />vehicles next year to replace theirs which are 5 years old, <br />and they must fully cost for enterprise. <br />Discussion then ensued as to approaching this by <br />increasing the fee structure 60%, for instance, and then <br />readdressing the fee structure after the effects of such a <br />raise can be evaluated. The need for the planning checking <br />fee was also mentioned. <br />Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion and Commissioner: <br />'•Wodtke withdrew his second. <br />Commissioner Wodtke strongly recommended that we add a <br />planning inspection fee, and possibly we might then only <br />need a 30% increase. He hoped we -could get this structure <br />to a position that is comfortable to live with until we get <br />through a joint study and determine where the City and the <br />County are heading in regard to the Building Department. <br />Commissioner Fletcher questioned the'need to inspect <br />work done by certified architects and engineers, and felt <br />they take advantage of these inspections for the purpose'of <br />exempting them from liability. He saw no 'need to double <br />check on professionals. <br />It was noted that the engineers and architects are not <br />generally on the job site; also that only about 30% of the <br />plans submitted are architect sealed; and Attorney <br />Brandenburg stated that once the County initiates a program <br />of inspection, it must be carried out in a professional, <br />non -negligent manner, and we.cannot rely on anyone else. <br />Finance Director Barton stressed the need to make the <br />charges uniform and alleviate the operational problems - <br />involved with determining where property is located and what <br />fees apply. He further stressed that the City intends to <br />bill the County for their shortfall, and he did not believe <br />we have the money to fund this. Mr. Barton urged that the <br />Board make their fees the same as those of the City. <br />90 <br />