Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Cr~× introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #88-46 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION Ck~RTIFYING PETITION AND ORDERING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR <br />CAROLINE ACFtES BITUMINOUS SURFACING IMPROVEMENT (PROJECT #88-12) <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City has received a petition for a feasibility study to consider the <br />improvement o? hi'!urninous surfacing for Caroline Acres; and <br /> <br /> WItEI:{EA,'i4 the City Administrator has found the petition to be of the correct percentage <br />of lawful signalur~s of affected property owners; and <br /> <br /> WHEREA'~, the City Administrator has found the petition to be in accord with the City <br />Charter and Mim~sota Statutes concerning local improvements. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, S'rATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />A certaiu petition requesting a feasibility study to consider the improvement of <br />bituminous surfacing for Caroline Acres has been filed with the City Council on March 8, <br />1988. The petition is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of affected <br />property owners. This declaration is made in conformity to the City of Ramsey ordinance <br />210.0! and Minnesota Statute Chapter 429. <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />The petition is hereby referred to Peter Raatikka, City Engineer, and he is instructed to <br />updated h,'-asibility study to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the <br />Coun(;il in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as <br />to the cosl of the project to each affected property owner. The City Engineer shall also <br />commeui ~s to whether it should be best to be done as proposed or in conjunction with <br />sorer; oiher improvement. <br /> <br />3 ) The above mentioned project shall hereby be referred to by the Project #88-12. <br /> <br />The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember <br />DeLuca and upon vote being taken thereon, the following in favor thereof: <br /> <br />Mayo~: H~,il,~ann <br />Coun(;ihne~ nber Cox <br />Courtcihilel nber DeLuca <br />Cour~(,.ilmr;mber Pearson <br /> <br />and the followin,:~l w)ted against the same: <br /> <br />No~e <br /> <br />and the followino; ~bstained: <br /> <br />and the followil~9 wore absent: <br /> <br />Couhcih ne~nber Sorteberg <br /> <br /> <br />