Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />January 27, 1982 <br />Watershed Mr. Fahey asked i£ the Watershed District would get more funding because <br />District of these boundary changes. Mr. Drake replied that the Watershed gets <br />(Cont.) $7y,000 each year from the Legis7.ature no matter what its boundaries. <br />The Council questioned why the Watershed District was resisted by the <br />City in the past. Mr, Drake replied that in the past the Watershed <br />was looked at as another ~,z~~er of government that was not needed. <br />However~ attitudes about the Watershed District have changed in <br />recent years. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />HESOLUTION N0. 82-1-49 - AMEDiDING TAE WATERSHEU DISTRICT <br />BOUNDARIES IN THE CITY OF ILTTLE CANADA TO CORRE3POND WITH <br />THE 4dATERSHED DISTHSCT REVIEW AND MAY DATEA DECEMBER 30~ 1981 <br />The fore~oing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Fahey, <br />Ayes (5) Scalze~ Fahey, Hanson, Forsberg, Nardini. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Hesolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book ~Io.B, Page 29, <br />Hanunond The Engineer reported that there is nothing the City needs to do <br />Grad3,~xg with regard to the Hammond grading and excavating permit, The Engineer <br />and stated that work did begin before a permit was issued~ but the Watershed <br />lxcavating District reniewed the permit request at its January bth meeting and <br />Permit approved the permit. <br />The City Clerk asked what the statement in the Watershed District~s <br />letter about co~npensating excavation meant. The Engineer explained <br />that about 932 cubie yards of £ill was brought in and the City removed <br />905 cubic yards. The Hammond~s must take out the remaining difference. <br />The Engineer also stated that the City is doing notYtingfor the Reid~s <br />and they must resolve their own problem. <br />Assessment The City Clerk and Engineer recommended approval of the following <br />Reapportion- assessment reapportionments. <br />ment <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the Pollowing resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 82_1-50 - ArrxUV1NG THE REAPPORTIONMENT <br />OF ASSES ME TS FO D YISION N0. 057150 AND DIVISION N0. <br />057155 <br />The fpregoing resolution was duly seconded by t~Ir. Fahey. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Fahey, Hanson, Forsberg, Nardi.ni. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution -ook No, 8, Page 30. <br />Page -].L~- <br />