Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jankowski Stated that a feasibility study is needed. <br /> <br />Motion by Cou.ncilmember Beyer and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to authorize <br />Staff to proceex~ with the Chapter 444 process and draft a feasibility study, get the public <br />hearing notices ~ublished and have the public hearing at the first meeting in March <br /> <br />Further discussion: Mr. Hendriksen stated that in this scenario he is sure Council's intent <br />is to speed alongbut the Chapter 44~. process adds constraints that City Attorney Goodrich <br />has mentioned, tOn the other hand, $8,000 is not a large amount of money - no more than a <br />snowplow, et~. - and funding it would not delay the project another 90 days. <br />Councilmembe~.Beyer stated that by starting the process of Chapter 444 at this point does <br />not lock us into ~loing it that way. <br /> <br />Motion carried.i Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beyer, Peterson, Beahen <br />and Zimmermaa. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #5: ,Sward Engineering Services for Extension of Sewer and Water <br /> I0tilities to Ramsey Elementary School <br /> <br />City Engineer J~nkowski stated it will be necessary to extend sewer and water service to <br />the. Ramsey. Elementary School and the expanding MUSA. to the. north and west. He <br />sohmted propol~als to three firms and the lowest b~d was recmved from John Oliver <br />Associates of Elk River. Mr. Jankowski noted that representatives of John Oliver <br />Associates wer~ present. He (Jankowski) summarized what basic services for the project <br />include and als~described the technical services and soils work. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to award the <br />engineering design and associated services for extension of sewer and water utilities to <br />Ramsey Eleme/~tary School to John Oliver Associates, Inc., in accordance with their <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Motion carried.~ Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Peterson, Beahen, Beyer <br />and Zimmermarl. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #6: Amendments to Pawn Shop Ordinance <br /> <br />Police Chief Auspos stated that the City's Pawn Shop Ordinance was enacted in 1990; <br />however, it is f&lt that updates are necessary. The proposed amendments include a re- <br />definition of pa{vnbroker, provide a purpose statement, address the license requirements <br />and issuance lirditations, provide for a higher fee and more detail regarding investigation of <br />applicants, expiration and eligibility of licenses and license holders, the holding of <br />property, prohibited transactions, verification of property identification and minor <br />procedural changes. <br /> <br />City Attorney GOodrich detailed the fees for pawn shops that some area cities charge. He <br />added that the ~ost significant change to the ordinance was limiting the number of pawn <br />shops in the Cit~ to three. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin slated that the City currently has three pawn shops and directed Staff to <br />notify the shops ~of the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Motion by Cour~cilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to introduce <br />the ordinance araending the present Pawn Shop Ordinance. <br /> City Council/February 14, 1995 ~/~ <br /> Page 15 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />