My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-05 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
01-26-05 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 1:44:41 PM
Creation date
6/6/2008 11:46:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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
MINUTUS <br />CITY COUNCII, <br />JANUARY 2(, 2005 <br />should not have to underwrite the costs of the excessive police calls at <br />Montreal Courts. <br />Solar agreed that there are too many policy calls at Montreal Courts and <br />the matter needs to he addressed. I3e noted, however, that the details for <br />resolving the situation need to be addressed. He further noted that <br />Goldmark Properties has budgeted funds for additional security, but not <br />the $45,000 per year that would cover the level of security the Sheriff's <br />Department is recommending. <br />Solar indicated that the sale is scheduled to close next week, and it would <br />impose a financial hardship on the buyer to delay the closing. Solar <br />indicated that Goldmark is willing to work the matter out with the City, <br />and he would respectfully request that the City grant the needed approvals. <br />Solar also pointed out that he has checked the City's ordinance and was <br />not sure that the City had the authority to withhold the issuance of the <br />Certificate of Occupancy based ou a security issue. Solar stated that he <br />was not familiar with the bond transaction, therefore, did not know if the <br />Council had any disa~etion in that action. <br />Solar again stated that the current owners recognize the problem and <br />acknowledge that something needs to be done. The question is what needs <br />to be done. <br />Blesener asked what the City's discretion was in this matter. The City <br />Attorney indicated that he just became aware of the situation. However, iu <br />quickly looking at the issue feels that t1te City would have a difficult time <br />withholding the Certif Cate of Occupancy if the owners have complied <br />with the correction orders of the Fire Marshal and Building Official. <br />LaVa]le suggested that perhaps the City should impose a "l>er call" chu~ge <br />on Montreal Courts similar to whaC was done at the alternative learning <br />center. LaValle also suggested that given bars are closing at 2 a.m., <br />security would be needed beyond that time. <br />Blesener pointed out that an option would be to adopt an ordinance <br />establishing amulti-family license. <br />Montow pointed out that the City has held meetings with Goldmark to dy <br />to work out an amicable resolution to the problem. However, Goldmark <br />has continued to drag its feet and not work toward a solution. Goldmark <br />has not been responsive to the City's concerns, and Montour stated that he <br />is not excited about their ownership of Montreal Courts_ Montour felt that <br />the city must protect its taxpayers and its resources. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.