1979.05.07 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MAY 7, 1979 Wer ,1 Superintendent - cont. MOTION: Schletty made motion, seconded by Irsfeld, that the water Superintendent be requested to draft a separate proposed. Resolution increasing the minimum sewer rate by 500 per month for submittal to the Metro Waste Control Commission for their concurrence. This Resolution to be pre- sented at the meeting of 5/21/79. VOTING FOR: Spitzer, Schletty, Irsfeld and Vail MOTION CARRIED MOTION: Irsfeld made motion, seconded by Vail, that the Water Superintendent be authorized to purchase 12 water meters in an amount not to exceed $600.00. VOTING FOR: Spitzer, Schletty, Irsfeld and Vail MOTION CARRIED Mr. Burkard stated that Nadeau's Market has been draining their coaling water into the sanitary sewer. According to Ordinanee 262-13, Subdivision A, this is not allowed. Spitzer suggested that Mr. Burkard discuss the matter with Leon Nadeau to see if he can, in some way, divert the cooling water. Mr. Burkard questioned the fact that there was nothing in the ordinance relating to the reclassification of REC'S (changing of duplex to single family dwelling). Spitzer directed the Ordinance Committee to review the water and sewer ordinance to invest- igate the development of a procedure for the reduction of minimum billings to one structure. The matter can be discussed with Mr. Burkard. 1!IISCELLANEOUS Mr. Rick Burr was present at the meeting and asked the process to file a complaint against the Hugo Police Department. Spitzer stated that if he wanted only a reprimand, a letter of complaint should be addressed to the City Council. If he wanted criminal or money damages, it would have to go through the courts. 6.4 Building Inspector Mr. Crever submitted his monthly report. MOTION: Schletty made motion, seconded by Irsfeld, approving Mr. Crever's attendance at the Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Seminar sponsored by Rice Creek Watershed District - registration fee $11.00. VOTING FOR: Spitzer, Schletty, Irsfeld and Vail MOTION CARRIED Mr. Crever asked if the construction of a garage in the RB district would be considered intensification of a non-conforming use. Spitzer stated that a roof over a car would not constitute intensification, but that Mr. Crever should use some amount of judge- ment.