Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to approve <br />the proposed Mississippi River Trail Corridor map. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Mr. Hartley noted that Councilmember Pearson does have an interest <br />in property directly affected by the Mississippi Trail Corridor alignment. Mr. Goodrich <br />advised that Councilmember Pearson withdraw from voting on the Mississippi Trail <br />Corridor subject. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson withdrew his second to the motion and Councilmember Peterson <br />withdrew his motion. <br /> <br />Motion by Mayor Reimann and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to table the <br />Mississippi Trail Corridor case until the City Council meeting scheduled for December 19, <br />1989, when there should be a quorum of voting members present. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Peterson and Peterson. <br />Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmembers DeLuca and Cich. <br /> <br />Case #3: Implementation Of "4 In 40 Zoning": <br /> <br />Mr. Otto noted that there are 3 councilmembers present and the adoption of land use zoning <br />ordinances require a 4/5 vote. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to table <br />adoption of 4 in 40 density zoning until the City Council meeting scheduled for December <br />19, 1989. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Peterson and Pearson. <br />Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmembers DeLuca and Cich. <br /> <br />Case #4: Discuss Street Maintenance Assessment Policy: <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka referred to Council's last discussion of the street maintenance assessment <br />policy at which time it was noted that it would be difficult to assess 100% of the cost to <br />reconstruct streets in areas critically needing those improvements because the Charter <br />allows residents to petition against projects. Mr. Raatikka stated that in 1990, there are 3 <br />subdivisions in critical need of street reconstruction; if the City were to do the project on a <br />50/50 cost sharing basis with the residents, the cost to the City would be $75,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley noted that funds for street reconstruction were not budgeted and recommended <br />that City Council delay amending the street maintenance policy to a 50/50 plan until it is <br />known for sure whether Legislature will relax the levy limits in 1992. Mr. Hartley did note <br />that if a City participates in public improvements up to 70%, the project would have to still <br />go through the special assessment process but the City can collect the 50% it would incur <br />outside of the levy limits. Mr. Hartley advised that City Council maintain a portion of <br />special assessments in any policy to protect the policy makers from accusations that an <br />improvement is for political purposes. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to direct <br />City Staff to prepare an ordinance change to reflect 50% City participation in street <br />reconstruction/overlays and second and subsequent sealcoating applications. <br /> <br />City Council/December 12, 1989 <br /> Page 6 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />