Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />June 24, 1981 <br />Mr. Forsberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION bIO. 81-6-321 - AUTHORIZIDIG THE NIRING OF ONE <br />RT-TIME SU MER E PL EE BY THE CITY'S UTILI7Y DEPAR7MENT <br />AT THE MINIMUM WAGE <br />The foregoing resolution was du1y seconded by Mr. Fahey, <br />Ayes (5) Forsberg, Fahey, Scalze, Nardini, Hanson. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 7, Page 239. <br />Circle Council discussed whether or not the circle in the parking lot at the <br />In Parking City Center should be removed. Mayor Hanson stated that without object~ion <br />Lot /~t 6y the Council, the circle should be removed, <br />City Center <br />Park Mrs. Scalze pointed out that Ordinance No. 172 does not contain the <br />Charge current fee schedule for park charges as was set by CounciJ Resolution <br />Ordinance No. 79-9-426. That resolution set the City's park charges at $300 per <br />single family home, $300 per unit for duplexes and townhouses, and <br />$100 per unit for apartments and condominiums. <br />The City Clerk pointed out that there is a statement at the end of <br />Ordinance No. 172 that states that ~ark charges may be amended 6y <br />Council resolution. <br />Mrs. Scatze stated that she is bringing this matter u~ so that the <br />park charges for Hughes Construction can be determined, <br />The City Attorney pointed out that park charges apply only in the <br />case of a subdivision. <br />The City Clerk pointed out that in the case of Hughes Construction there <br />will be a PUD Agreement between Hughes and the City and park charges can <br />be made a part of that agreement. <br />Councilman Fahey agreed and stated that the Council should be looking <br />at the City's park charge ordinance as a guidel9ne for setting the park <br />charges for Hughes Construction. fahey also stated that the Hughes <br />Construction proposal could be argued as a subdivision, as there was <br />a rearrangement of lot lines> <br />The City Attorney agreed that the City could make a good argument that <br />this was a subdivision. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 81-6-322 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNFY <br />TO INCLUDE IN RDINAMCE N0, 172 THE PARK CHARGES AS SET <br />BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DIO. 79-9-426 WHICH SET fORTH THF <br />FOLLOWING AS THE fEE SCHEbULE FOR PARK CHARGES: $300 <br />PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME, $300 PER UNIT FOR DUPLEXES AND <br />TOWNHOUSES, AND $100 PER UNIT FOR APARTMENTS ANQ CONDOMINIUMS <br />Page -20- <br />