Council asks mayor to break out legal‑ad costs after debate over who pays for planning and zoning notices

Councilors asked the mayor’s office on May 28 for a clearer accounting of how much the city spends on legally required advertisements for planning, zoning and licensing matters and whether those costs should be charged directly to applicants or to the boards that request them.

Councilor VanCamp argued for greater transparency: “I’d much rather see that money in line items connected to those functions, to those boards, rather than one catchall in the mayor’s office,” she told the hearing.

Planning staff explained that the city pays for required notices upfront and that developer and applicant fees are captured as general‑fund revenue or in escrow (53G) accounts that reimburse the city when applicable. Planning director Matt Lutanzi said some professional services and legal costs are billed back to developers through 53G/escrow mechanisms for discrete cases; he also said the planning board sees multiple applications monthly and that legally required notices are an ongoing expense.

Councilors pressed for a report to show how much the mayor’s advertising budget paid for board and commission legal notices versus community events or mayoral publicity. Administration agreed to provide a line‑by‑line breakdown and to consider moving legally required notices into the budgets of the boards that require them or identifying a process for appropriate chargebacks. Councilors indicated they would support a supplemental appropriation if the planning or zoning boards show they need dedicated advertising funds.