Laserfiche WebLink
P^INUTFS <br />City Council <br />Apr'il 26, 19II9 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Collova, Scalze, Blesener, LaValle, Fahe,y. <br />PJaYS (~). <br />Resolutiori declared adopted. <br />Little The City Ennineer reported that the resurfacinq of Little Canada Road <br />Canada from the railroad tracks to County Road f, will cost the City $2,726.A2• <br />~o~~ The question is whether or not the City wishes to assess this cost. <br />Resurfacing <br /> Fahey felt that the project should be assessed, pointin~ out that <br />Aqenda althouqh the City never• assessed for• wor•k alonq a County Road, the <br />Item No. City has never• been r•equir~ed to par•ticipate in a County Road improvement. <br />llc Fahey felt that an 80/20 assessment policy should be used, assessinq <br />' <br /> s <br />property owners for 80% of the cost, with the remaininq 20% of the City <br /> share cominq from the peneral fund. <br /> y Fngineer reported that the County is payina for the resurfacinq <br />The Cit <br /> , <br />of dr•ivinq sur•face, and is askinq the City to pay for~ a por•tion of the <br /> shoulder work. <br /> Mr. Blesener• iritroduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: <br />RFSOLUTION N0. 89-4-170 - ACCFPTING THE COST <br />OF SHOULDFR WORK AL~NG LITTLE CANADA ROAD FR0~4 <br />~~ I THE RAILROAD TP,ACKS TO COUNTY ROAD C IN THE <br />AMOUNT OF $2,726.R2, ANO CALLING FOR A PUf3lIC <br />HFARI~.1G OM THIS IMPROVEMENT WITH THE INTFNTION <br />OF THF COUNCIL TO ASSESS THF COST ON AN R~/20 <br />~ASIS <br />The for•eqoina r•esolutiori was duly seconded by P9r•. Fahe,y. <br />Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. <br />~lays (~). <br />Resolution declar•ed adopted. <br />Ordinance No. The Mayor reported that he has discussed proposed OrAinance No. 313 <br />313 - addr•essing r•ecreational fires with the Fir•e Chief who has recommended <br />Recr~eati onal that al 1 refer~ence to per•mi t r•equi r~ements be del eted fr•om the ordi nance. <br />Fi r•es <br />After discussion, the Council was aqreeable with this recommendation. <br />Aqenda <br />Item No. 12 Council also discussed the distance established in the ordinance <br />requlatinq recrieational fires, and felt that this distance should be <br />eliminated also sirice this miqht pr•ohibit someone's ability to have <br />a r~ecreational fir•e in an outdoor fir•eplace that may be closer than <br />35 feet to their home. Council felt that all other conditions should <br />r•emai n. <br />Paqe -25- <br />