CC_Minutes_2016_1205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 5, 2016 Page 8 Nays: None. b. Consider Changes to City Code Chaptcr 314.05: 2017 Fee Schedule City Manager Trudgeon referenced previous City Council input advising that it had been incorporated into this iteration of the fee schedule. For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe noted they could obtain additional in- formation on the fees on the city's ��ebsite from the November 15, 2016 meeting. Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1516 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule: Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule" as presented. Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation to staff for changing language in several areas (e.g. hardscape permits addressing landscaping of a more intense degree than charging inspection or pennit fees for residents simply planting shrubs). Councilmember Laliberte concurred. However, Councilmember Laliberte point- ed out that due to the November 14t�' meeting running late, only those high points had reviewed (e.g. new fees), without noting some that had significant increases from last year. Councilmember Laliberte asked that sufficient time be allowed next year to be more conscious about spending time addressing those more no- ticeable changes. Roe moved, McGehee seconded, separating out consideration of park dedication fees and changes from the remainder of the Fee Schedule. Roll Call Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. Nays: Etten and Willmus. Motion carried. Mayor Roe referenced Attachment C(page 3) addressing park dedication fees for residential and non-residential parcels as recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission. However, Mayor Roe opined that personally he considered those changes higher than he's be comfortable approving at this time; and therefore, suggested that they remain the same as 2016 fees at this time. Roe moved, Willmus seconded, retaining 2016 fees for park dedication the same: residential per unit ($3,500) and non-residential (fair inarket value at 7%). Mayor Roe opined that developers looked at this fee as part of the cost for devel- oping in Roseville. Since additional discussion was pending regarding how those funds would be used going forward, Mayor Roe suggested the level of those dedi- rt �; , . � �� 1 ;