My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_1128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_1128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 1:12:47 PM
Creation date
12/27/2011 1:12:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 28, 2011 <br /> Page 6 <br /> detailed in the staff report (page 1), Mr. Miller noted two (2) new fees: accessory <br /> dwelling unit (ADU) permit fee and a water main tapping fee. Mr. Miller noted <br /> that the ADU permit fee had previously been authorized by the City Council, but <br /> not yet included in the Fee Schedule; and that the water main tapping fee was cur- <br /> rent practice,but also not yet memorialized in the Fee Schedule. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller confirmed that no additional changes, <br /> other than minor corrections to pages 7, 8 and 9, had been made to the 2012 Fee <br /> Schedule from this draft to that previously presented to and reviewed by the City <br /> Council. <br /> City Manager Malinen noted on page 4 of the proposed 2012 Fee Schedule, foot- <br /> note "c," related to park dedication fees for commercial properties based on pre- <br /> vious City Council discussions, with staff anticipating a formal resolution coming <br /> forward at a future City Council meeting, but referenced in the Fee Schedule to <br /> ensure that it was obvious to developers in the future. <br /> Mayor Roe concurred, noting that this was based on earlier City Council discus- <br /> sions related to when the market value of a property was established. <br /> Councilmember Willmus expressed concern with the additional fees for a DVD <br /> copying charge; and personally opined that the City should make it easier for the <br /> public without other available means, to get copies of meetings; further opining <br /> that $25 seemed to be a steep fee; and suggested it may be more palatable to <br /> structure the fee as a deposit, such as the School District used, with the deposit re- <br /> turned once the DVD was returned. <br /> Mr. Miller clarified that the fee included staff time for searching out the appropri- <br /> ate meeting or information and time to burn the DVD. Mr. Miller advised that <br /> staff was amenable to a deposit at the City Council's discretion as long as they <br /> were cognizant that staff time would not be recouped. <br /> Councilmember Willmus opined that part of staff's time should be interacting <br /> with the public. <br /> Councilmember Johnson questioned the average number of DVD requests fielded <br /> by staff on a weekly basis. <br /> Mr. Miller advised that he was unable to respond to that query at this time, since <br /> most of the DVD requests were related to the Police Department; and he would <br /> need to check with them. <br /> Councilmember Johnson suggested burning five (5) DVD's of each City Council <br /> meeting and have them available for the public. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.