My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-12-1995 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
04-12-1995 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2014 3:04:23 PM
Creation date
2/12/2014 3:02:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
Date : March 31, 1995 <br />To • Joel Hanson <br />From : Greg Schmit <br />Subject : Adoption of 1994 U.B.C. fee schedule <br />Joel, <br />I have completed an informal telephone survey of Building Officials in some of <br />the surrounding communities to assure that we would be somewhat consistent <br />with others in what we charge for permit fees. <br />In general, all of the cities I spoke to have either adopted this fee schedule as of <br />March 20, 1994 (the date the new code became effective), or are in the process <br />of doing so. <br />Specifically those cities are, Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, No. St. Paul, <br />Roseville, Shoreview, St. Paul, and Mounds View. <br />The only variations from the UBC schedule are Maplewood, which is charging <br />only 50% of permit fee for the plan check on residential construction (65% is <br />the specified charge), and Roseville that currently charges an additional 8% on <br />the permit fee, however in their proposal to adopt the 1994 schedule this would <br />be eliminated. <br />It should also be noted that the current fee schedule is from the 1985 Uniform <br />Building Code. <br />My recommendation is to adopt the 1994 UBC fee schedule as part of the <br />model building code ordinance as I have submitted to you. <br />P.S. I will also be proposing in the near future a revised fee schedule and some <br />revised permit requirements for items such as roofs, decks, siding, etc. <br />In conducting my survey, I have found that this is common practice and <br />particularly with the new fee schedule, would be more reasonable for the <br />existing home owners. <br />Page 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.