My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-02-25
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1986
>
1986-02-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:33:35 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 11:29:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />February 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />In response to Schmidt's question, Winkels indicated the City <br />had increased fees three years ago and again two years ago. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked if it was possible to put information into the <br />computer for reports; Winkels stated we are trying to time the <br />review of fees into the budgeting schedule, these particular <br />fees were included in the budget last October. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Schmidt, to WAIVE THE READING <br />AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING ZONING AND PLATTING FEES AS <br />AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER VII AND VIII OF APPENDIX A, ZONING CODE AND <br />CHAPTER 26, SECTION 26-7 OF THE NEW BRIGHTON CITY CODE. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Proper asked council to review the report and to call him with <br />any questions they may have prior to the public hearings, which <br />he noted had been changed from March 11th to March 25th. Proper <br />suggested proceeding with the public hearings and then, if there <br />is a need to postpone the projects for a year because of incon- <br />sistencies with other plans, it could be postponed at that time. <br /> <br />Benke asked what the notification process would be; Proper <br />stated a letter would be mailed ten days in advance to each <br />home-owner affected, per Minnesota statutes, plus it would be <br />published in the newspaper twice. <br /> <br />Benke reviewed the project for new councilmembers, stating an <br />informational meeting was held last year with the residents. <br /> <br />Benke asked if responses to concerns brought up at the informa- <br />tional meeting would be included in the letter notifying the home <br />-owners. Proper indicated that the City always includes addi- <br />tional information beyond what is required by law; an informa- <br />tional letter summarizing the project, giving them some ideas of <br />the cost, and will include the concerns mentioned at the pre- <br />vious meeting. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked if the study had been put on the wordprocessor; <br />Proper indicated it had been. <br /> <br />Motion by Benke, seconded by Brandt, to ACCEPT THE FEASIBILITY <br />STUDY AND SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MARCH 25, 1986, AT THE TIMES <br />INDICATED FOR 1986 IMPROVEMENTS. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />With regard to the staff report concerning the purchase of admin- <br />istrative staff vehicles, LeFevere reviewed an updated resolution <br />which provides for council ratification of purchases. <br /> <br />Page Six <br /> <br />Feasibility Study <br />1986 Improvement <br />Projects <br />Report 86-46 <br />Resolution 86-12A <br /> <br />Administrative Staff <br />Vehicles <br />Report 86-47 <br />Resolution 86-13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.