My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1999 11 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1999 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1999 11 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:45 PM
Creation date
2/4/2004 9:44:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
11/16/1999
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1999 11 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
versus non-residential. This type of planning will provide the justification for the five <br />reasonableness factors. <br /> <br />Sisk opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak on Ordinance No. <br />1314, Series 1999. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />Sisk closed the public hearing and called for Council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Simmons if the square footage fee in the Ordinance is the same amount that <br />was proposed in the Ordinance two weeks ago. <br /> <br />Simmons replied, no. He explained that the first reading contained a $1.00/sf fee, which <br />has been reduced to $0.72 after reviewing what the appropriateness of the fee would be in <br />relationship to the expected use of facilities. <br /> <br />Mayer asked whether the facilities listed on page one of the Council Communication are <br />the ones being considered as part of the cost. <br /> <br />· Simmons replied, yes. <br /> <br />Mayer expressed concern that there are a number of items that are not included, such as <br />traffic control devices, snowplows, street sweepers, new computers, new police officers, <br />etc. He explained that he didn't pursue it before because he felt that $1.00 sf fee would <br />cover these items. He suggested that Council revisit this fee in the near future, and <br />requested an explanation as to why some of the items were not included. He questioned <br />why Council was receiving information the night of the Council meeting regarding <br />justification for the reduction to $0.72 per square foot. <br /> <br />Dianne Ray, Finance Department Director, explained that the scope was narrowed to <br />long-term municipal projects for facilities and building improvements due to the <br />accessibility of data for these items. <br /> <br />Mayer replied that these are essential, growth-related items and the City could make a <br />reasonable effort to include them. He explained that the numbers and items are contained <br />in the Capital Projects Budget. He expressed concern that the residents would end up <br />paying for these items if the growth-related items aren't included. <br /> <br />Keany expressed concern that an aquatic facility is not included, as it is definitely a <br />growth-related item. He felt that an aquatic facility is growth-related and based upon the <br />expansion needs of the community. He felt that it is important to stress that this fee will <br />not impact existing citizens unless they expand their facility more than twenty-five <br />percent. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.