Agenda - Council - 05/23/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

04/26/95 11:5i CiTY OF SRVR55 ~ $12 42? 5545 Mayor and City CounCil ollector Streets P~licy * I. ~5TERNATIVES: COMMENDATION: ! ACTION REQUIRED: -4- NO. 539 ~05 October 7, 1985 Our 9000 square foot lot assumption i~ somewhat.arbi- trary. Without a doubt we have been platting many lots of considerably less area. I think what influenced me to select 9000 square feet for the analsyis is m~ remembrance of the numerous lots we have had, and will continue to have, with much more area than 9000 square feet. I think the river and wooded areas that we have will cause this to be a recurring situation. A possible variation here would be to go to 6000 square feet or to base permit fees on exact lot size. The latter is probably the most valid. The attached table summarizes our little survey for utility h~ok-up fees. (These are the same communities we reported o~ for collector street polioies.) The tabulation indicates t~at at the present we are certainly not the cheapest, a%though apparently we're about average. I think it's i~portant to realize we are going to lose our competitive e~ge on the SAC charge in a year or two. This will make u~ one of the higher fee cities. As we discussed we are n~t in the same position as any of these other cities. Hdwever, I think these figures add substance to the Council'~ r~luctance to up our permits dramatically. W~ can select one of the combinations or any other alter- { n~tive, or keep what we have. K~owing that our MWCC SAC charge is going to go up, I t~ink we should be a little careful about ballooning our p~A~nit fee too much. I think we should stay in the area o~ Combination 5 or below.' I would also feel'comfortable abbut basing the permit fees on actual area. If~ Council concurs with the idea of using the alternate asi described with Combination 5, or any other, they should direct staff to amend the appropriate City documents. CnE/rjl rnclosure Crai~ L. Ebeiihg City Engineer