My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 5/13/2014 (3)
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 5/13/2014 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:17:08 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:40:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
5/13/2014
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
7/11/2014
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Prescott City Council <br />Regular Voting Meeting <br />May 13, 2014 <br />Page 10 <br />Mayor Pro Tern Lamerson said his understanding is that impact fees cannot be used to <br />relocate existing facilities, only new growth. <br />Jon Paladini, City Attorney, said that was generally correct, however, if the Council did <br />not adopt police and fire fees and then went through a study, the study could <br />contemplate relocation of a fire station. The study could attribute part of the need for a <br />new location to future new growth. <br />Mr. McConnell said that Council and staff will be talking about the FY15 budget on <br />Thursday. He said staff will describe FY15 as a transitional year, where they form ideas <br />about what to do concerning public safety funding. <br />Councilman Lazzell said he objects to the state telling the City of Prescott how to run <br />their business. <br />Councilwoman Wilcox asked if Council selects Option 2 in the resolution, where they <br />defer the imposition of an impact fee, can Council then decide not to charge an impact <br />fee at all for police and fire after Council receives the ICMA study. <br />Mr. Paladini said that the longer you push it out the more it is subject to challenge. <br />Anytime during the time period that it is being deferred and not being charged it can <br />always be eliminated. <br />Councilman Blair said he was not going to support this. The state is overstepping their <br />bounds. <br />Mr. McConnell commented that with respect to the water, wastewater and water <br />resource development fee, that is significant funding. The City needs the money to keep <br />the capital program going. If the revenue from impact fees for new capacity is lost, the <br />City will not be able to do projects which deal with existing deficiencies. <br />Councilman Blair said it was unfortunate that those who do not know what Prescott is all <br />about to force a law on the City that takes away an opportunity to enhance the <br />community. He said that he would vote yes to support wastewater and water. <br />Councilman Kuknyo said the decision from the state does not let the City of Prescott <br />prepare for the future. <br />Daniel Mattson, resident, said that Council can reduce the fee anytime they want, but <br />adding a fee will take 18 months or more. He recommended that Council adopt this <br />with fire and police. He thought the City had the option to get rid of it at a later date. If <br />the City does not maintain it at this point, all the time and expense has been wasted. <br />Len Scamardo, resident, addressed the Council. He was against the legislation in that it <br />was a flat fee basis. When he was a builder in New York, a building permit, was based <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.