CC_Minutes_2016_1205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 5, 2016 Page 9 cation fees be part of that broader discussion, and subsequent changes made in fees if/as indicated at that time. Councilmember Willmus stated one reason he was supportive of the increase was he didn't consider an additional $500 on the residential per unit fee to be a signif- icant deterrent. Also, Councilmember Willmus opined that, given the considera- ble investment being made in the city's park system, an additional 3% for com- mercial parcels was justified and substantiated the proposed increase. Councilmember Etten stated his agreement with Councilmember Willmus' com- ments; but if push came to shove, he'd agree to a midpoint figure. However, Councilmember Etten stated he could not support retaining 2016 fee levels for this area, given research done by staff resulting in finding other neighboring communities also increasing their park dedication fees; with the proposed Rose- ville fees in line with those rates. Councilmember Etten opined that the slight in- crease should not dissuade someone from developing in Roseville, and further opined that he found the proposed fees to be reasonable, but reiterated that he could support an increase in-between 2016 and proposed 2017 rates, but not spe- cifically the current motion by Mayor Roe. Councilmember McGehee stated her issue was related more to the use of park dedication fees, and stated that she would support these proposed 2017 fees if she was ensured they would go to the CIP Fund and for improvement of existing lands and buildings. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that this didn't seem to be a consideration at this time; and questioned why this only came up on an annual basis, suggesting that next year's discussion related to park dedication fees be tied to the Park Dedication Fund and how they were allocated. Councilmember Laliberte stated she was supportive of an increase in the park dedication fees, whether as proposed by staff or an in-between amount as sug- gested by Councilmember Etten. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the point had been more than proven that the city was now in a situation with additional as- sets that needed to be taken into consideration as to their maintenance; and further opined that the proposed fees were still within the realm of reasonable. Coun- cilmember Laliberte agreed that there are obligations in how those funds are spent, that should be part of future discussions going into 2017. Mayor Roe stated that the point of his motion was to allow for this discussion as part of a broader policy discussion; and while he remained concerned about the proposed fees, his main intent was to facilitate this discussion. Roll Call Ayes: Roe.