The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About111589 Min Ag Packet PLAT TOWN S E N De WAS f I GT 98368 F + 4 } 1I Port Tomsend, Planner * g Colnirnission CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND a meeting of November ember 1 , 1989-41 Roll Cali Acting Chairman Ron Kosec called ' meeting to order at 7. 35 p.m, other members present were Lois Sherwoodi Karen Erickson and Sally i cDole. Also present was 'i a to of Planning and Building Michael Hildt. II, Reading and Approval of Minute from-..Previous Meeting • 't Lois Sherwood moved to postpone ,the approval }of, the minutes until the next business meeting, Sally IcDole seconded and all were in favor* f - , 4 _ III, Co mud" icati ons--Done y+ IV, Old Business , is + A. Draft ordinance relating" o update of the sign '.code. 4 . 1. Staff Presentation and Review Mr. Hi ldt asked the Commission,- if they had, received, all the documents. an updated Sign Code; S gn Code outlines and meeting agenda, Mr. Hildt, reviewed the outline for the Sign Code Update. r. ,Carman joined the Commission at this time Mr. Koc asked staff if the sign ordinance hard been enforced since 1986 and if sandwich board signs if allowed would be considered In the total square footage. Some dlscu s on followed. 2 . Public Testimony J. Cox-Webb who gives guided sidewalk tours i{r� the City stated her business would be greatly affected by 'the. outlaw of sandwich board signs. Ruth S ogman, owner of Tibbals Gallery, asked if ars off-premises sign from another business would be counted in the -allowable F square footage of the property where the sign' is lodated.. Planning Commission--November 15, 1959 Page 2 of Bill Sperry stated that sandwich boards and grand-fathered signs are the two biggest issues in the proposed changes in the s*ign code. He stated that he recently took a poli of 47 business owners from the downtown area, and plans to complete the poll to include more business owners from other areas of the city. He reviewed some of the results of the poll . He suggested that property owners show proof of an insurance policy to bola the city harmless when applying for sandwich board signs, that sandwich board signs should be secured to sidewalk, and that directional sign program would be a good alternative to sandwich boards. Bob Sokol stated that "the ad hoc committee on sidewalk signs" needed more time to review the issue. He stated that sandwich board signs on water street are crucial to uptown businesses, and that the signs add to the ambiance of the downtown. He also stated that allowing only monument signs is very limiting, and suggested that low signs on double poles be allowed. Bill Sperry stated that a color scheme for follow through signs may mare them more effective. 'ferry Berge, of the Back Alley Tavern, stated the loss of sandwich hoard signs would be detrimental to his business. Tom Johnson stated that he does not like sandwich boards and feels uptown businesses should not be allowed to clutter the downtown. He stated the amount of sign area allowed in the draft would be too much signage in the historic district, Joan Deering, stated that she was not in favok of sandwich board signs. Feels that they add clutter. some discussion followed over how many sandwich board signs should be allowed and where. Carolyn Niemeyer, Main Street Director, stated some business owners on corners feel that they do not want sandwich boards on their property. Keith Jackson stated that signs on the corner near his business cause clutter. Ruth Skogman presented an option for an awning for the Palace Motel . Some discussion followed on awnings. Bill Sperry stated the grand-fathered signs should be allowed to stay. Planning Comml ion.-November 15, 1989 Page 3 of 4 Hill Darlington of the Buritto Depot stated that the sandwich board sign is very beneficial to his business. Public Testimony Closed Ms. MDole stated that too many signs can become obnoxious and undistinguishing. Ms. Erickson son stated that signage is important to all businesses and this will be a difficult issue to resolve. Some discussion followed over pole verses monument signs and grand-fathered signs. Ms. Erickson stated that -years should be sufficient time to get nonconforming signs into compliance, Ms, M Dole concurred, Some discussion followed concerning special exemptions for grand- opening ng s i gn . Ms. Erickson stated that maybe 20-30 days may be an appropriate length of time for a grand-opening, other commissioners disagreed and felt 20 days would be much too long. Ms. Sherwood moved to continue to a date specific during new business. Mr. Carman seconded and the motion carried un n i,mou l y. V. New Business The Commission scheduled a special workshop meeting on January 4, 1989 to discuss proposed changes in the sign code. Scheduled Bay Vista Condos final plat on November 30, 1989, Ms. McDole announced that she will not be present at the November , 1989 or the December 2 , 1989 meeting. Ms. Sherwood will participate in the committee report for Clayton Cook. Mr. Mildt distributed the proposed 1990 budget for the Planning and Building Department. Some discussion followed. The Commission scheduled a public hearing for a street vacation application by Willenhag for Jan. 11, 1990 1 . Announcements November 30, 1989 meeting Street Vacation, Skip Wood (Grimm/Sherwood) Conditional Use, Clayton Cook, (Carman/Sherwood) Variance, Allan and Rosalind Cunningham ;.. Gagman/Erickson Planning Comms slon--I ovember 15, 1989 Page 4 of 4 December 14 , 1989 Meeting Street Vacation, Sally McDole (Grimm/Koseq) Conditional Use, Port of Port Townsend rimm/Kosec Draft ordinance: Binding Site Plans 11 , The Meeting was adjourned at 9:15. Darlene Bloomfield Planning Comftission Secretary i PORT TOW ISEN09 1 ASHINGIT40 83619 Port Townsend Plarm g Com solon. _J CITY OF PORT TO IINSE D 2s.s&C3 14D2S, (Proposed) Special Meeting November 15, 1989 1. ROLL CALL -------------------- 7. 30 P. . . READING AND APPROVAL CE MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEE'T'ING COMMUNICATIONS: a. current maid. . OLD USINESS: a. PUBLIC HEARING. Draft ordinance relating to update of the sign code 1. Staff Presentation and Review + 2 . Public Testimony Commission Discussion Commission Recommendation . NEW BUSINESS: a. 1990 Budget . ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Schedqled Business Meetings: November 30, 1989 a. Street Vacation Appl, 8909-05 , Skip Wood Committee: Grimm Sherwood ] : Conditional Use Appl. 8910- 1, Clayton Cook . Committee: Carman/McOole 1 Variance Appl, 8910- , Allan and Rosalind Cunningham Committee: Carman/Erickson December 14 , 1989 . street Vacation Appl , 8909-03 , sally McDole Committee: Grl 1 /K se . Conditional Use Appl . 5910- , Port of Port Totwnsend Committee: Grimm/K sec C, Draft ordinance relating to review process for binding site plans 7. ADJOURN � . Guest List40 PC NAME (please print) ADDRL"SS Do you wish to If yes, indicate present lealimony7 topic..- j YES NO gt ❑ � b Z Cl LAJC* � � 3 1 �K �4/�G 'L3 W a � �- ❑ '1 Lia f� ❑. lu A/z 0 3 mom: jr ,f ze . .> I g Fh i ZSR CJ �—Ya,A4-� ❑ ❑ . FE ev Larez � 0 0 Cl: 10 �J4 1 El El 1 ID. p . 0 0 D 0 J i k C'Ity of Port Townsend Planaing and Building Dep ent (l Water Street, Port Towfiwnd,STA 98368 206/385-3000 To: Planning Commission and City Council From: Kevin O'Neill , Assistant Planner } Re: Update on recent court decisions effecting planning and building regulations Date:: I ovember 11 1989 Attached for your review is an outline of a pre a tation which was rade by James Haney of the law firm Ogden, Murph r and _ • Wallace, at the recent Association of WashingtoCities' Planning and Zoning Institute. r. Haney specializes in municipal law and serves as city attorney for several communities in the state. At the conference, Mr. Haney reviewed and summarized several recent court decisions on such topics as zoning enforcement, SEPA, and liability for zoning and building code decisions. Keith Harper has reviewed the attached outline, and suggested that it be circulated to you for your reference. if you have questions about any of the specific cases or issues raised in the outline, .please contact Keith, Michael , or me. 'hank you very much. KO co: Keith Harper Michael Hildt r { Keith C. Harper Attorney at Law 1206 water,Suite S o e b r 14 , 1 8 P.O.Box 104 Port Townsend,WA 98368 206/.385.6400 . MEMORANDUM To : Kevin O' Neill R E: Ogden , Murphy & Wallace memorandum concerning recent Court decisions impacting Planning and Zoning AWC Planning conference, October 7 , 1989 I reviewed the above and agree that it might. be useful to cir- culate that to Planning Commission and City Council memb rs for their information . You right also indicate on the memorandum that if they have specific questions regarding any of these . cases or if ues- t .ons 'should cone up , they should contact Michael , you or me for more specific advice , Thanks . KEITH C . HARPER City Attorney for the City f Port Townsend c H i h s Attachment i Y 0 ' t ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2100 Westlake Center Tower Johns D.Wallace R.Milder Ad&= 1601 Fifth Avenut Douglas E.Albright Carol Il.Berna.sconi • Sealxls,WA 08101-1686 Lea Corkrum Rosewuy P.$ordlemay Wayne D.Tanaka Cameron D.Comfort (206)447.7000 G.Geoffrey Gibbs Robert T.Do1Ciager FAX:(206)447-0215 harry C.Martin Milton R Deumit.Jr. Robert C.Andre' David A.$llenhorn Michael G.Wickstead Kathlren C.Healy Robert A.Kies: William F.Joy" Steven A.Reisler K*nt C.Meyer W.Scott Snyder Pbill#p C.Raymond Christopher A.Washimpon 71sress A.Rox:ano James E.Haney Ellen M.Rym --� Thomas W.Sear n II; of Counsel Gil Sparks James A.Murphy David A.Stainer Karen Sutherland Karen M.Wigg Charles D.Zimmenmm RECENT COURT DECISIONS IMPACTING PLANNING AND ZONING Presentation to AWC Planning and Zoning Conference Saturday, October 7, 1989 Tacoma Sheraton by JAMES E, HALEY 1, ANNEXATION A. Boundary Review Boards 1. Hanson v. Spokane County, 53 Wn. App, 721, 770 P.2d 653 (1989) : The 120 day period for completion of BRB review runs from the date a formal written request for review of a proposal is filed with the Board. The 120 day period has no application to BRB proceedings conducted upon remand after an appeal to superior court. II. AUTHORITY To ZONE AND PLAN A. Conflicts Between Municipalities -- "Sibling Rivalryll 11 Everett v. Snohomish County, 112 Wn. d 433, 772 P*2d 992 (1989) : Whether one local government's proposed project within the territorial limits of a i second local government is required to comply with the second government's zoning code is determined by the intent of the state legislature in enacting the statutes authorizing the first government's proposed activities. A city's sewage plant located on unincorporated county land must comply with the county's zoning code. EHO1832X Weaswh"Dfcr.1 South Chelan Street.P.D.Box 1808,Wenert e%WA H W7,(509)66 -1884.FAX(5 09)883-1565 r 2. Olympic View Water and Sewer district v. Snohomish County, 112 Tran.2d 445, 772 P.2d 998 (1989) : Applying the legislative intent test of the Everett v. Snohomish Counter case, the court holds -that a water and sewer district's office, shop and storage facility on unincorporated county land must meet the countys zoning requirements. B. Zoning of Indian Lands le end l a v 10 Confederated Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. if 109 .Ct. , 106 Le de2d 343 (1989) An Indian tribe has exclu ive authority to zone property within its reservation awned by members of the tribe. An Indian tribe has no authority to zone property within its reservation owned by non- members, that authority being vested in the local government within whose territory the reservation lies. F III, EIF' REMENT OF ZONING REGUA 'ICNS A* Enforcement by Municipality L. Clyde Hili. v. Roisen, 111 Wn.2d 912, 767 P.2d 1375 (1989) : A land . use - ordinance is enforceable as against a claim of vagueness where the ordinance gives persons of common intelligence adequate notice of the conduct it prohibits and contains adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. A city ordinance which prohibits "naturally grown fences" exceeding eight feet in height is valid and enforceable: B, Enforcement by Public Through Mandamus 1. Carkeek v. Seattle, 53 Wn. App. 277, 766 Pe d 480 (1989) : Where there is no clear duty under city's codes to abate violations, a court will not compel the. city to pursue abatement, I v. ENVIRONMENT A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1. Robertson v. Methow Valle Cit' ens, 490 U.S. 109 S.Cte 1835, 104 L.Ed. d 351 (1989) : NEPA does not require that an EIS contain a complete plan to mitigate all potential environmental harm, nor does t require that an EIS include a "worst , case analysis" of such harm, EH 1832X -2- i; S ■ i 2. Marsh v. ore on Natural. Resources Council, 490 U.S. , 109 Se t. 1851, 104 L*Ede2d 377 (1989) : NEPA does not require an EIS to , contain a complete and detailed mitigation plan and a "worst vase analysis. " An agency's decision that an EEIS meed not be supplemented will not be overturned unless the decision is arbitrary and capricious, i.e. , made in willful disregard of facts or circumstances relevant to the decision. B. State Environmental policy Act SEA . . Cougar fountain Associates v. Kina Count Wn.2d 742, 765 .2d 264 1988) (a) Administrative decisions based upon SEPA provisions and policies are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and will be upheld unless the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been committed. (b) Before denying a proposal on SEA grounds, an i agency must: (1) Specifically set forth potential adverse environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposal, and (2) Specifically set forth reasonable mitigation measures to counteract those impacts, or (3) ifsuch measures do not exist, # specifically state why the impacts are unavoidable and development should not be allowed. mere statement that 'the proposal as presently envisioned would likely result in significant adverse impacts which -cannot be mitigated by reasonable mitigation measures' is too conclusory meet this test. (c) Where a proposal complies' „with the relevant zoning requirements, it cannot be denied for failure to meet conflicting guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. .* Levine v. Jefferson County,, 54 Wn. App. 88j, 772 Pe2d 528 (1989) : Even after issuing a DNS, Can agency may condition its approval of a project on the developer s ompl lance with environmental mitigation measures, as long " the measures are JEHO1832X h ba1 sed on identified SEPA policies and are intended mitigate specific adverse impacts identified in the envirorental documents, West 514 v. Spokane County,, 53 Wn. App,, 838, 770 *2d 1065 (1989) : (a) Increased, economic competition which will result from a particular development is not a significant adverse impact on the physical environment, requiring an -EIS or supplemental EIS. , (b) An MDNS may condition approval of a development on additional studies to be done in the future. LIABILITY FOR ZONING AND PLANNING DECISIONS Ae Building Codes 10 Zimbelman v. Chaussee, 55 Wn. App. 278, P.2d �. (1989) : Under the "failure to enforce" exception to nonliability articulated in Ta for v, ,Stevens County, 111 Wn,2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988) ,? public official must have actual ,kno l of hazardous condition before liability will be imposed. Knowledge does not include what an official mi ht have known if he had performed his duties more effectively or vigilantly. The mere submission of defective plans does not dive a building department actual knowledge. Waite . Whatcom Coup, 54 Wn,. App* 682, P. (1989) : Under the "failure o enforce" exception, the actual knowledge of a public official is a question of fact for the jury. Actual knowledge can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence. B. Interference with Business Relations 1. Pleas v. Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, P. 2d (1989) : (a) A municipality may be liable in tont for intentionally interfering with a developer"s business expectancy to be derived from his or her project, (b) In order to prevail on , such a claim, a developer must show no't only that the municipality intentionally interfered with his project, but that the interference was ]used JEHO1832X � - 1 r� on improper motives or was achieved by improper means. (c) A city's denial of a project to gain political favor with an opposition croup and an arbitrary delay or refusal of permits for project establishes the necessary improper motives and means. (d) Actions by a City Council or other city Officials on a rezone are quasi-judicial and immune from liability. Where the action relates to building permits or other non- quasi-judicial on- quasi-]ud cial matters, here is no immunity, co Interpretations 1. Grader v, Lvnnwood,, 53 Wn. App, 431, 767 P.2d 352 (1989) : (a) A negligent interpretation of a ci r • subdivision procedures were not available or could not have provided the requested relief. E View Blockage 1. Collinson v. John L. Scott Inc,.,, 55 Wn. App 481, Pe 2d (1989) : " legally erected structure which merely obstructs an adjacent landowner's view is not an actionable nuisance. I the absence of a view easement or restrictive covenant, a landowner has no right to an unob� structed view over adjoining property. STI. PLATTING A-9 Lot Line Adjustments 1. R L Associates v. Klockars, 52 Wn. App, 726, 763 Pe2d 1244 (1988) : Adjusting the boundary line between two platted lots so that an additional building site. is created is not permitted as boundary lime adjustment ern though only two lots would remain after the adjustment. B. Sale of Lots 1. Valley QualitvHomes v. Boca 'e� 52 Wn. App, 743, 763 P.2d 840 (1988 : In the absence of a local ordinance establishing such a requirement, final approval of a short plat is not a► prerequisite to the sale of lots. The prohibition against the sale of lots prior to final plat approval found in RCW 58 . .2 applies only to subdivisions, not short plats. vii, PROCEDURE A. Appeals 1. ovanni v,--Tukwila,,, 54 Wn. App, 627, P.2d (1989) : For purposes of a requirement that a party aggrieved by a zoning ordinance seek review within a specified period of time from the date of a council's "action,, " the "action" occurs on the date the council passes the ordinance, not on the date the ordinance becomes effective. Validity of Ordinances 1. Citizens for responsible Govt„. v. Kitsap County, 52 Tn. App. 236, 758 Po2d 1009 (1988) : procedural defects and irregularities in the enactment of a r zoning ordinance render it voidable, rather than void. A party who delays unreasonably in JE i 1832X _ 6- r J commencing an action to challenge a zoning enactment will be barred. . JEHO1832X � - �r PLANNING G A• D BUILDING DEPARTMENT MISSION The Planning and Building Department provides planning support to the Planning Commission and City Council pertaining to the future development of the community, and administers the city's building, zoning and environmental regulations. The Director and Adminis- trative Assistant also provide administrative and project support to the Mayor. BACKGROUND Established in June, 1988, the Planning and Building Department was formed to improve administration of construction and land use reg ulations, and to provide assistance to the Planning Commission and City Council in planning for the future development of the city. The department appears for the first time in the budget this year- -a consolidation of the budgets of the Planning Commission and Building Inspector, and a portion of the Mayorapouncil budget. During the past eighteen months, the department has concentrated on basic administration, team building, ordinance improvements and public information. Because the city lacked systematic permit prow- cess ing or record-keep in , basic administration forms, procedures,, filing systems, etc. ) had to be established, Staff development and training have stressed technical competence communications and efficiency. During this period, building perm.t activity has doubled, while .and use applications have more than tripled. Construction valued t over $15 million has been added within the city during 1958 and 1989. Building permit fee revenue has increased from $30,000 in 1987 t $85,000 in 1989. (See Figure 1, While improved office procedures have helped to ]peep up with the new demands, permit processing and related citizen services have been given priority over SU�L_D i NG PERMIT ACTIVITY: 1986-8 future planning activities, In oct-Dec 1989 Prof c:ec It i 3DC 90000add ion, demands on staff time LEGEND 80000 have been compounded by more 250 PERMITS ISSUED thorough plan reviews and ina S FEE REVENUE 70000 peions, and the personal, 200 60000 problem-solving approach taken t p p resolve permitting problems. 150 � 0000 Finally, economic growth in Port 40000 1 Townsend has increased the 00 30000 r number of larger, more complex 50 20000 projects received for plans 1966 1987 188 X989 review and -on-site mos i n 40 a hospital expansion, two Figure 1 motels, four new commercial buildings, many commercial expansions and renovations, library and community center-, multi-family projects, performing arts pavilion, etc. For these reasons, the department is not only handling many more permits, it is doing more work on each. The City Council has passed updating ordinances dealing with non- conforming buildings, setbacks, address assignments, barns, and bed and breakfast inns, A new chapter updating off--street parking and loading requirements has been recommended by the Planning Commission and will be heard by the City Council in November, 1989. An overhaul of the sign code which is now before the { Planning Commission, should reach the City Council early in 1990 . Public informational handout materials have been obtained or pro- duced, and a joint Port Townsend-Jefferson County Building and Development Handbook was published as a supplement to the Jefferson County-Port Townsend Leader. This handbook has been very well received by realtors, builders and property owners; and it has also reduced staff time denoted to answering routine questions. A 1990 edition will be published in January or February.. While review of today's development projects hay 'improved markedly, additional staff resources are required to address the course of future development of the community, as well as to improve follow- up on enforcement. 1990 BUDGET The adopted 1990 Budget for the Planning and Building Department totals $233 ,,946 and includes the addition 'f two positions: a Planning and Building Assistant and a Planner I. In addition t the director, the 1989 staff included an Assistant Planner, Building Inspector, a secretary-Receptionist, and a student Intern (part-time, after school ) , In 1990, the Assistant Planner will adVance to Planner I I; the Secretary-Receptionist to Admi nistrat,ive Assistant. Because the department operated out of three separate departments during 1989, including portions of the Mayor-Council budget, direct year-to-year comparison is not possible. A close approximation of the portion of the 1989 Mayor-Council budget attributable to the activities of the Planning and Building Department, together with the 1989 budgets of the Planning Commission and Building Inspector, totals about $160,000, Con- sequently, the 1990 departmental budget includes an increase of approximately $74,000, or over 1989. Approximately $33 ,,000 of this sizable increase is required t { Maintain existing services, continue updating ordinances and improve enforcement follow-up, see Work Program A, below, ) The remaining $41 ,000 represents the costs of an additional planner an consulting funds' to assist the Planning Commission and City Council 41 address the course of future development of thecommunity. See Work Program B, below, ) The 1990 budget includes approximately $30 ,000 in discretionary, one-time expenses consulting fees, training, computer, office equipment, etc. ) which would not carry over into future years. Should building activity and revenues decrease, these items could most readily be eliminated. 1990 OBJECTIVES (subject to revision by the City Council) : 1. Provide the highest quality service possible in reviewing plans and applications for permits required by the Port Townsend Municipal -Code. 2 . Recruit, select and train Planning and Building Assistant. 3 . Complete major zoning code update projects: ) Off-street parking and loading. ) Signs. c Use tables. d) Mobile/manufactured homes Simplify and streamline building permit application system. Establish improred enforcement system a) Amend ordinances to remove criminal charges in favor of civil infractions. b) Establish routine form letter and citation procedures. C) Update staff training. Publish 1990 Development Handbook in the Leader. 7. Develop a concept plan and grant application for redevelopment of City Dock and the Marine Park Building. 8, Establish Gateway Design Committee; develop Gateway Design Handbook. Work Program 91 recruit, select and train Planner I. to. Develop and recommend a draft street use policy and ordinance dealing with private use of street areas. r 11 . Develop day care center zoning ordinance.' r 12. Develop Gateway Development and Funding Plan for Phase 1 improvements City Limits to Sheridan Street) .. 13 , Initiate the "Port Townsend: Turning the Century project, a citizen-based project to develop community consensus regarding the desired future direction for Port Townsend. The project will address the future growth of the city and propose specific preservation and development plans, goals and policies from which the Comprehensive Plan and implementing plans may be updated or developed. 1 . Initiate a Joint Ferry Parking and Access Pian with Washington State Ferries for the . existing Washington State Ferry Terminal, once adopted, the plan will provide a vehicle for more-effective lobbying for needed improvements. 1 . Initiate a multi-family housing land use and zoning study. ■ � � 1 PLANNING BUILDING DEPARTMENT, 1990 BUDGET SUBMITTAL 1990 BUDGET SUBMITTAL: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 410 CURRENT EXPENSE 04 PLANNING & BUILDING 1990 REQUEST 1990 REQUEST 1990 REQUEST WK PROG A WK PROD B TOTAL 511.240 PLANNING COMUSSION 511.200.10 SALARIES & WAGES 511.200,11 SALARIES & GAGES 511.200#11.141 SALARIES fi MAGES 36,190 24,000 60,190 511#240.11.102 OVERTINE I,I84 11184 SALARIES & WAGES 37,374 24,040 61,374 511.204.20 PERSONNEL BENEFITS 511.204.21 PERSONNEL BENEFITS 511.244#21.201 SOCIAL SECURITY 21859 11836 4,695 511.204.21,202 RETIREMENT 21429 11560 3,989 511.200.21.203 MEDICAL INSURANCE 51400 3,600 91000 511.200.21.204 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE 310 200 510 PERSONNEL BENEFITS 10,998 7?196 18,194 ■ 511.240.34 SUPPLIES 511.200,31 OFFICE & OPER. SUPPLIES r 511.200.31.301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 604 200 800 511.200.31.309 EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES 100 100 OFFICE fi OPER. SUPPLIES 704 200 90 511.200.40 O'!'HER SERVICES AND CHARGES 511.200.41 PRDFESINAL SERVICES 511.200.41.410 PLANNING SERVICES 91000 91040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,000 91000 511.200.43 TRAVEL 511#240.43.425 TRAVEL 544 544 TRAVEL 500 500 511.200.49 MISCELLANEOUS 511.240,49,443 DUES 90 350 444 511.204.49.450 TUITION 15/0 154 30/0 * XISCELLANE4US 240 500 740 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES 740 91500 10,240 511.204.64 CAPITAL OUTLAYS 511.204. 4 FURNITURE, MACHINERY & EQ , 511.240.64.617 OFFICE FURNITURE - 450 450 PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, 1990 BUDGET SUBMITTAL CAPITAL OUTLAYS 450 450 PLANNING CISSION 49,812 41,346 91,158 558.640 PLANNING 558.600.14 SALARIES 6 WAGES 558.600.11 SALARIES & WAGES 558.600.11.101 SALARIES & WAGES 40,483 40,483 558.600,11.102 OVERTIM 61800 6,800 SALARIES WAGES' 47,283 47,283 558.604.20 PERSONNEL BENEFITS 558.644.21 PERSONNEL BENEFIT'S - 558.600.21.201 SOCIAL SECURITY 3,617 31617 558.600.21.202 RETIREKENT 31473 3,073 558.600.21.203 LAICAL INSURANCE 41500 41540 558.600,21.204 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE 329 329 PERSONNEL BENEFITS 11,520 11,520 558. OVF30 SUPPLIES 558.604.31 OFFICE & OPER, SUPPLIES 558.600.31.301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 900 900 558.600.3 ,308 PUBLICATIONS, BOOKS & HANU 540 500 558.600.31.327 RISC OPERATING SUPPLIES 558.500.31.331 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 11000 11400 OFFI0E & OPER, SUPPLIES 21440 21400 558.600.40 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES 558.640.41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 558.640.41.410 PLANNING SERVICES 51000 5,000 558.600.41,419 SECRETARIAL SERVICES 200 200 558.644.41.488 SER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE $50 (850) 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61050 51240 ` 558,600.42. COMICATIONS 558,600.42.420 TELEPHONE 21400 21400 558.600.42.421 POSTAGE 11200 1,200 COMMUNICATIONS 31644 3,500 558.600.43 TRAVEL 558.600.43.425 TRAVEL 21300 21300 TRAVEL 21300 2,300 558.600.45 OPERATING RENTALS & LEASES 558.600.45.427 BUILDING RENTAL 31600 (3,000) 504 t OPERATING RENTALS & LEASES 31600 600 558.644,48 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE • w 1 . * 3 PLANING & BUILDING DEPkRTMT, 1990 BUDGET SUBMITTAL 55 .600.48.439 E UIPMM REPAIR & NAINT 300 300 558.600.48.464 COPY MACHINE MINTENANCE 254 250 REPAIRS M 11AINTMOCE 554 550 558o600,49 NISCELLANEOUS 558.600.49,445 WHIPS 50 50 558.600.49.448 FILING & RECDRDING FEES 50 50 558.600.49.450 TUITION 500 500 558.600*49.457 PRINTING & BINDING 200 200 + 558.600.49.459 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES MISCEMEOUS goo Soo OTHER SERVICES MD CHARGES 16,900 13 r 054 558.600.64 CAPITAL OUTLAYS 559.600.64 FURNITURE, MACHINERY A EQ F 558.640,64.617 OFFICE FURNITURE 11100 illoo 558.640.64.618 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 21500 2j500 CAPITAL OUTLAYS 31600 31600 PLANNING 8I,703 77,853 559.600 BUILDING PERMITS AND PLAN REVIEW 557.600.10 SALARIES & MAGES 559.600.11 SALARIES I WAGES 559.600.11.101 SALARIES & WAGES 41,600 41,604 SALARIES i WAGES 41,600 41,640 559.600*20 PER IIM BENEFITS 559.600.21 PERSOM BENEFITS 559.600.21.201 SOCIAL SECURITY 31182 31182 559.600.21.202 RETIRFW 21744 21744 559.640.21.203 TICAL INSURANCE 71200 7,200 559.60.21.204 MSTRIAL INSURANCE 399 399 PEES NNEL BENEFITS 131485 13,485 559.600.30 SUPPLIES 559.500#31 OFFICE & OPER, SUPPLIES 559.600.31.301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 440 400 559.640.31.308 PUBLICATIONS, BOOKS & NANO 100 104 559.600,31.331 COX TER SUPPLIES 750 750 OFFICE I OPER. SUPPLIES 1,250 11250 559.640.44 OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES 559.640.41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 559.600.41.488 OVER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE .850 850 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 850 850 559.600,43 TRAVEL x. •.• , VOW kip 4p 40 +art 4 + PLANNING & BUILDING DEPAUNENT, 1990 WNET SUBMITTAL 559,600,43.425 TRAVEL 11700 11700 TRAVEL 1,700 11700 559.600.49 NISCELLAHOOS 559.600.49.443 DORS 559.600.49.445 KEMBERSHIPS 100 100 559.600.49.448 FILING & REWRDING FEES 50 50 559.600.49.450 TUITION 540 500 559.600,49,457 PRINTING & BINDING 200 200 I+LICELLANEUS 850 850 OT'HE'R SERVICES AND CHARGES 31400 31400 559.600.60 F CAPITAL OUTLAYS 559.600,64 FURNITURE, NACHIKERY & E 559.600.64.617 OFFICE FURNITURE 700 700 559.600.64.61E OFFICE EQUIPKENT 500 500 559.600.640652 COMPUTER 4,040 41000 CAPITAL OUTLAYS 51200 51200 BLDG PERMITS & PLAN REVIEW 64,935 64,935 PUMI G & BUILDING DEPT. 196,450 37,496 233,946 r