Laserfiche WebLink
City Staff and the City Council in arriving at the Final Escrow <br />R~quirement." Replace with - "The City Council shall consult <br />with the I.P.A. and City Staff in arriving at the Final Escrow <br />Requirement." <br /> <br />Sections 170.0316, 170.0317 - Ali. references to Building Inspector <br />be changed to City Staff. <br /> <br />Regarding the requiring of boulevard trees being.planted, Mr. Berg stated <br />that it would be better for the City not to do so because the City would <br />assume responsibility for the maintenance of those trees and it would be a <br />financial burden. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich requested Council to note P~ragraph 210.012G of Chapter 210 - <br />'Subsequent Assessment Of Initially Non-Benefitted Properties' - Mr. Goodrich <br />stated that it is a new paragraph that addresses the procedure to be followed <br />when going back to assess properties for improvements that were not assessed <br />at the time of construction and completion because there was no need, but at <br />a later date there is a need. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg commented that on Page 10 of Chapter 210, Paragraph 210.016A, the <br />reference to 'petition of 100% of the affected land owners' is not representative <br />of the democratic way. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that this policy does not conflict with State law and <br />that Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 allows Council to entertain a petition <br />by 35% of the affected landowners. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that Council's intent is not to extend sewer and water into <br />existing residential areas unless there is a health hazard and recommended <br />leaving it at 100%. <br /> <br />Council then discussed the percentage that is to be assessed out to the property <br />owners on an MSA route. It was determined that 50% of a typical street, <br />residential or commercial as the case may be, is to be assessed to the benefitted <br />property owner on an MSA route. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Reimann and seconded by Councilmember Van Wagner to <br />repeal Council's action of May 31, 1983 to adopt Ordinances#83~3 and ~83,4~ <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg,. Reimann,.. <br />Schlueter and Van Wagner. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilmember'Relmann to adopt <br />Ordinance ~83-4 amending City Code Chapter 170.03' ~ntitled~"Subdivis!on", <br />Sections 170.039 - 170.0316 of the City Code. It is furth~r'directed~that this <br />ordinance be published in summary form in the Official newspaper~ the Anoka' <br />County Union. (Please refer to ordinance file for'Ordinance'#83~ 4,) <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Ga/nec, Councilmembers So~teberg, Reimann, <br />Schlueter and Van Wagner. Voting No: None~ <br /> <br />Mr. Roger Buchanan - Inquired if it was good policy to adopt an ordinance'that <br />has been changed so much without really reading it through., <br /> <br />C/August 23, 1983 <br /> Page 10 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />