My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-05-1981 CC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
01-05-1981 CC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:34:48 AM
Creation date
4/19/2005 2:21:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
1/5/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />January 5, 1981 <br />Page Five <br /> <br />17. Peterson Addition Lawsuit and Possible Appeal <br /> <br />The City Administrator informed the City Council that the City's motion for <br />ammending findings has been denied by Judge Dablow and further indicated that, <br />as previously discussed, the City Council has two options, either appeal <br />the case or let the decision stand. The City Administrator indicated that <br />the City Attorney indicated that the City has a good chance of appealing the <br />decision of the judge regarding the railroad crossing and further indicated <br />that it was the City Administrator's recommendation to appeal the decision, <br />as it establishes a precedent for future City operations. <br /> <br />Councilman Duitsman indicated that he favored an appeal, as the City approved <br />the improvements at the request of the residents in the Peterson Addition. <br /> <br />Ms. Elaine Anderson questioned the cost of an appeal. The City Administrator <br />indicated that the cost would depend on the ruling of the Supreme Court. Mayor <br />Hinkle asked how the attorney would approach the Court regarding the assessing <br />of the cost of the improvements. The City Administrator indicated that the <br />attorney would approach the project like any other street project in a <br />development. The costs are assessed to the benefiting property owners even <br />though the streets maybe used by everyone. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED TO <br />AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO APPEAL THE JUDGE'S DECISION REGARDING THE PETERSON <br />ADDITION LAWSUIT. COUNCILMAN SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED <br />4-0. <br /> <br />18. Non-Con Items <br /> <br />A. 3.2 Beer License for Dino's Pizza <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED APPROVAL OF THE 3.2 BEER LICENSE FOR DINO'S PIZZA. <br />COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />B. Bank Resolution <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the bank resolution was necessary to <br />substitute Mayor Hinkle's name for signatures on documents rather than <br />Ex-Mayor Madsen's name. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE BANK <br />RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR HINKLE'S SIGNATURE. COUNCIL~Jrn TOTH SECONDED <br />THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />19. Administrator's Update <br /> <br />A. Sanitary Sewer Interceptor <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that he, Mayor Hinkle, and Lyle Swanson, <br />the City Engineer, met with Mr. George Dietz regarding the location of the <br />sewer interceptor along Mr. Dietz's property with the leg across to the <br />Barrington Place. The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Dietz in- <br />cated that at the present time, he did not have plans for the site and <br />that he approved of the proposed plan submitted by Mr. Swanson. The City <br />Administrator indicated that Mr. Swanson would proceed with the preparation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.