Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 19, 2012 <br /> Page 10 <br /> Mayor Roe clarified that while there may not be a personal reason for any con- <br /> flict of interest for Councilmember Willmus from a financial perspective, in an <br /> effort to avoid any perception of a conflict, Councilmember Willmus had cho- <br /> sen to leave the Council Chambers during this discussion. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this re- <br /> quest as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012. City Manager Malinen <br /> noted that 100% of the costs of these improvements would be borne by the <br /> property owner in accordance with the Chapter 429 assessment process. <br /> McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11026 entitled <br /> "Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Feasi- <br /> bility Report for 3040 Hamline Avenue Utilities;" <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that she had personally walked the property, <br /> and the plan was a good one, and lots already approved. <br /> Roll Call <br /> Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. <br /> Nays: None. <br /> Councilmember Willmus returned to the Council Chambers and dais. <br /> 9. General Ordinances for Adoption <br /> a. Adopt an Ordinance Amending City Code, Chapter 314.05: 2013 Fee <br /> Schedule <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted ele- <br /> ments of staff recommended adjustments to existing fees for the annual fee <br /> schedule for 2013, as detailed in the RCA dated November 19, 2012; and as <br /> outlined. Finance Director Miller noted that supporting document was included <br /> in the RCA as Attachment D; and advised that several new fees included rental <br /> registration fees, seasonal pool fees, and minor subdivision escrow fees. <br /> Finance Director Miller advised that, page 4 of Attachment D (Exhibit A to the <br /> proposed ordinance) had an incorrect number for Residential Park Dedication <br /> Fees, with the correct number being $3,500 per unit, rather than the stated <br /> $3,000 per unit. <br /> Mr. Miller also advised that staff had a question regarding liquor licenses, and <br /> the new category as requested by Pour Decisions as acted upon by the City <br /> Council in August of 2012, and comparable fees of$7,000 annually for other <br /> on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses; with the Pour Decisions firm questioning <br />