Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> City Council <br /> (Cont.) <br /> April 9, 1980 <br /> Nayes (0 <br /> Resolution declared adopted. <br /> This resolution appears in Resolution book No. 6, Page 94. <br /> Condominium Attorney Parks reported that the Uniform Condominium Act was <br /> Law passed. It did, however, leave the City with some authority <br /> to control condominium conversions. Parks informed the Council <br /> that he would look the Uni~Form Condominium Act over in detail <br /> and compare it with the City's proposed Condominium Ordinance. <br /> Parks further informed the Council that Mr. Glasrud maintains that <br /> he began condominium conversion prior to the date of November 28, 1979 <br /> and, therefore, would not be subject to park charges for the <br /> conversion. Parks stated that the City could probably demand the <br /> park charges from Mr. Glasrud as Mr. Glasrud has not filed a <br /> Declaration of the condominium conversion. Until the Declaration <br /> is filed, it is Mr. Parks- opinion that the conversion has not begun. <br /> Park Attorney Parks submitted to the Council an Ordinance which would <br /> Commission provide for changing the Park Commission from nine members to seven <br /> Ordinance members. It also provide; for a salary for Park Commission members <br /> to be set by Council resolution. <br /> Council had some concern with the wording in section 020 and setting <br /> the terms of the various Park Commission members so that they come <br /> up for reappointment on a rotating basis. <br /> Attorney Parks will reword the proposed ordinance to address the <br /> concerns of the Council. <br /> Hammond Mr. Parks informed the Council that he spoke to Mr. Pat Layton, who <br /> Matter is the attorney for Mr. Hammond. Mr. Layton informed him that Mr. <br /> Hammond is not willing to give the City either a bond or a hold <br /> harmless agreement as it would not be practical and the City probably <br /> could not require it. Mr. Layton stated that any damages that might <br /> result from the construction and landfi1ling operations on the Hammond <br /> property would probably be covered by the contractor's insurance <br /> coverage. <br /> Councilman Fahey stated that the Council could take the position to <br /> still require the hold harmless agreement and the bond. <br /> Parks informed the Council that before an insurance company would <br /> cover such a risk, they would probably go and inspect the property. <br /> After the work is completed, they would make another inspection to <br /> see if there were any resulting damages. <br /> Page -7- <br /> <br />