My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1204
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:43:26 AM
Creation date
12/19/2006 9:11:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/4/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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 />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/04/06 <br />Minutes - Page 14 <br /> <br />Ihlan further opined that if residential park dedication fees were <br />being raised, commercial dedication fees should also be reviewed <br />and adjusted as applicable; and that consideration should be given <br />to balancing ways to require actual land dedication or cash as <br />appropriate; and sought assurances that the park dedication fees <br />could withstand a legal challenge, and were in compliance with <br />State Statute and the City's park needs. Councilmember Ihlan <br />questioned the timing of adoption of the fee schedule, and <br />enactment of such. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that he would have to review the <br />timing for adoption and enactment; and would provide his <br />findings to the Council when available. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan requested additional information, <br />specifically those materials reviewed by the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission related to residential and commercial park dedication <br />fees; opining her support of increasing fees if deemed appropriate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined her support of raising residential and <br />commercial park dedication fees to make them more consistent <br />with neighboring communities; and questioned why the proposed <br />fee schedule was not all-inclusive of City charges. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller advised that each year, staff found additional fees that <br />were not included on the schedule; but that were incorporated into <br />ordinance and code language; and when found, were then <br />incorporated into the next fee schedule. <br /> <br />Mr. Brokke requested clarification on the additional information <br />being requested of staff related to park dedication fees. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan clarified her request for the two comparison <br />lists displayed by staff comparing area communities' fees; Parks <br />and Recreation Commission discussions on residential and <br />commercial fees; review of those communities basing dedication <br />fees on market valuations, and analysis of whether that made <br />sense for the City to review and less cumbersome for review; and <br />Statutory requirements and determination if City Code and Park <br />Dedication fee processes were in compliance with State law to <br />avoid potential legal challenges in the future. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.