My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_1219
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_1219
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:29:43 AM
Creation date
1/17/2006 3:36:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/19/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
<br />,b..L.i-'-.C k H<L~& 0-1-'-'\) . ~ <br />I :J-l i "I D-t; <br /> <br /> <br />Memo <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />~: ~::cil JIMR lJu;to <br /> <br />December 16, 2005 <br /> <br />From: <br /> <br />Date: <br />Re: <br /> <br />Fee Resolution <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br />1. On November 28, 2005, the City Council unanimously approved Resolution <br />10353 setting City fees for 2006. <br />2. Since that time, Staff has studied further the question of fees charged developers <br />for consultant expenses in light of a court decision favorable to the City of Andover. <br />Based on that review, we recommend amending Resolution 10353 to broaden the scope <br />of the City's fee authority to help the City pay for development or redevelopment con- <br />sultants. <br />3. Specifically, Staff recommends the Council consider and approve the attached <br />Resolution at your December 19 Council meeting so the City's revised fee schedule is in <br />effect for 2006. <br />4. The attached Resolution affects the revenue side of the 2006 City budget but does <br />not affect any of the 2006 Budget Resolutions in your council packet (because they deal <br />with the expenditure side of the budget). <br /> <br />PURPOSES <br /> <br />4. The attached Resolution has two purposes. <br /> <br />a. One, proposed Resolution broadens the City's authority to require developers <br />to deposit money in escrow. The current fee Resolution authorizes staff to charge de- <br />velopers for consultants the City retains to evaluate commercial, industrial, multi- <br />family and traffic proposals. The proposed fee Resolution would expand the occasions <br />when a developer would have to pay the City's consultant costs to include all of the <br />foregoing situations plus all utility, building permit, economic development or redevel- <br />opment projects or proposals. <br /> <br />b. Two, the proposed Resolution increases the amount a developer must pay <br />from 75% of the anticipated consultant cost to 100%, and it clarifies that this payment <br />may be in the form of an escrow. <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.