CCMin_87Apr22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 198 PAGE 2 ROSE WITCHER, 1757 SNELLING, did not feel there was any benefit if she did not use the system. Mr. Strommer again asked why Hermes Center was not being assessed and Baldwin replied if the northernmost lot ever becomes a separate distinct property they could be assessed. Baldwin stressed that assessing the Hermes property would not decrease the amount of assessment to each property owner and explained the city is already paying a large share of the project cost. Council discussed payment options for the $2,750 per property assessment, such as assessing $2,000 with a $750.00 charge at time of connection, or allowing the entire $2,750 be assessed to property owners who wish to connect to the system immediately. There being no others wishing to be heard, Baldwin closed the hearing at 7:57 P.M. Chenoweth moved, seconded by Hard, approval of Resolution R-87-13. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION R-87-13 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE SNELLING AVENUE WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT (CRAWFORD TO ROSELAWN) SNELLING AVENUE CONTRACTOR GRANTED PERMISSION FOR POSSIBLE NIGHT TIME WORK Arnie Laingen, Concrete Division Engineer for Progressive Contrctors, Inc., presented his request for a variance to the 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. construction hours approved by Council previously, and explained the timing of the sawing of the concrete must wait until the concrete is hard enough to run the saw on, but not so long that cracking can start. This could be any hour of the day or night depending upon the temperature and humidity. He also stressed it will not be an excessive noise and compared it to the sound of a semi truck passing on the street. Chenoweth moved, seconded by Wallin, granting the variance. Motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION Hard explained the Human Rights Commission recommended Council include the sexual preference category in the ordinance (which had been deleted by Council at a previous meeting). Council did not feel it appropriate to add the classification as it is not at present a part of State Statute, concurred the ordinance should follow State Statute, and suggested the Human Rights Commission lobby the Legislature for addition of that category to the Statute. Following the discussion Hard moved, seconded by Ciernia, adoption of Ordinance 0-87-4, with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 0-87-4 2~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART 6, CHAPTER 2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONTRACT COMPLIANCE