My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_1121_Packet SS
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_1121_Packet SS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 2:08:23 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:10:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
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
��r <br />� <br />Memo <br />To: <br />From: <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Neal Beets, City Manager � <br />Chris Miller, Finance Director � <br />� <br />Date: November21,2005 <br />Re: Discussion on the Recommended Adjustments to the 2006 Fee Schedule <br />Date: 11/21/OS <br />Item: 4. <br />2006 Fee Schedule <br />Background <br />On November 22,2004 the City Council adopted the 2005 Fee Schedule which set forth the fees <br />and charges for service for the City's regulatory functions. The presence of a fee schedule <br />allows regulatory-type fees to be easily identified in one document, as opposed to being scattered <br />throughout City Code. In addition, a fee schedule adopted by resolution on an annual basis <br />provides the Council the opportunity to review fees for services in a comprehensive manner. <br />Review of the City's Regulatory Function Costs <br />Over the past several months, Staff has reviewed the direct and indirect costs of the City's <br />regulatory functions to determine whether fee adjustments are necessary. In general, it was <br />determined that the fees were appropriately set with a few exceptions. Based on this analysis, <br />Staff recommends adjustments to the following fees: <br />Notes: <br />a) <br />h) <br />c) <br />2006 Recommended Fee Adjustments <br />1 �Lk;:�c:�.; I:t.:7�� <br />�.2°� �}i�i�-s-�l� [iqt�r lic�r�s� 4�� <br />1�i�ssa�c thcrapi�i <br />�;�i[it� ?,�rr�ic� fr��ti�n fae <br />�.tt�roachr�cnt ��ra�mrni f�c <br />l�i gF�s-�f-w�x}�; ���emc«t ���oiir�� <br />Er��i�r� �on�l i��s cctio�, crrni <br />--._ � ._,�....�, <br />Pu�li� imp�«��eari�E��e[f�l��.i (u) <br />Eiui]di ii� i'�r�r,it� P��n r��zc�� fc�s <br />f�e <br />� ��� <br />c) <br />� :�}li.�l� � _�ii.�.ii�� <br />��,� 2.��-�� <br />'��,�LM ] 00_f�[l <br />- 1��,�0 <br />_ .,...����0_{1[� <br />_ ���_�Q <br />- V�i� — �r� h�ld}v � <br />- .� 5 UU. Q� pltis 1.-�°� <br />��� ��Cndin ,� ��e aT�«�f�x }� <br />3.2% off-sale liquor license holders include grocery and convenience stores <br />Permit fees as follows: <br />1) Less than 1 acre =$180 <br />2) 1 to 5 acres =$480 <br />3) More than 5 acres =$720 <br />See narrative below <br />An overview for each proposed fee adjustment is presented below. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.