01-03-2000 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

own use can opt for additional service at their own expense. Another alternative would be to have Internet access charges submitted to the City by each member either in whole or in part depending on how much online work someone does. This would be work for each member and would be on the honor system for determining time use. I suspect the first alternative is more practical and fits best with the presumption that if the City is going to ask Council members to interact online, then that minimum requirement should be compensated for. Anyway, some consensus on this would make sense. Item 5 – Review of Wetland Buffer Permit Request for 2551 Ridge Lane: This is a follow up to the discussion at the last meeting. Staff will be on hand to respond to any Council questions. Item 6- TIF Policy Review Meeting with EDC: If the Council/EDA can commit to a meeting on January 20 with the EDC, the TIF use policies can be addressed once again. Staff has checked with the EDC and they are available that evening. Item 7 – City Authorization to Proceed with PUD Application by TOLD Development Including the City Remnant Parcel: The Walgreen’s’ developers will agree to move ahead with a PUD application that includes the adjacent city owned land if the Council agrees to this. By agreeing the Council is not agreeing to the PUD itself, instead only in having the City parcel included in their application. PUD approval itself would come later. Since it is the City’s property, some agreement to include it in the application would make sense. Item 8 – Assessment Policies: Finalizing the assessment policies should be a short-term priority of the Council in order to begin looking long term at future street improvements. Mike will be present to help go over this again. Staff will be looking for consensus on assessment terms, but also the schedule for finalizing the policies over the coming meetings. Item 9 – Engineering Statements of Qualifications: Staff moved along with seeking RFPs from engineering firms and received a small number back. Mike can review those with the Council on Monday. In general, it would appear to be the most open to simply accept all the RFPs with the policy being that for future engineering work, the City will use the best or most appropriate of these firms. This does a couple of things, first it gets the City away from the concern that one engineering firm does all the City’s work, and second, it maintains an acceptable competitive pool from which to draw from for engineering work. This second point allows greater flexibility as well and should help the City define incremental steps of a project better, or simply tailor work to fit the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of any given firm. Staff would like Council’s reaction to this. Item 10 – Review of Commercial Vehicle Parking in Residential Areas: The Mayor has received some concerns about this, as has staff. Some review of options may be in order.