10-16-1978 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hr. Lundberg questioned the City Council on the actions by the City Council on the urban and rural t.axing districts in the City. The Council indicated that no change had been maii!:e in the urban and rural districts and the City Administrator explained how the tax levies 'ivere calculated for 1979. I-ir. Lundberg questioned if the City had in fact acted illegally in approving the Consolidation Agreement "lith areas he con- sidered to be urban in nature, located in the rural taxing district. Councilmembers atto and Toth both responded to Iv1r. Lundbert s comment indicating that Mr. Lundberg did not eA~ress any opinion as to the illegality of the Consolidation Agreement in this respect, ~",hile serving as the past Hayor and during the negotiations for the Consolidation Agree- ment. As such both Councilmembers felt that Mr. Lundber's charge of illegality VIas unappropriate at this time. 4. The City Administrator addressed the City Council during the apen Mike to point out and e}~lain certain descrepancies in ~ neVIspaper article dealing with the City's budgeting process. Hr. Niddaugh explained problem areas :fun the article and informed the Council of correct numbers and statements lihere they itJ0lae in error so that the Council ~",ould have the appropriate information should a question arise. 5. Consider Petition for Peterson Addition. The City Administrator explained the resolution befor the City Council ltJhich "JOuld certify the percentage of sig- natures on a petition submitted for a road improvement in the Peterson Addition. The City Council asked the City Admini- strator if hearings vJOuld be conducted during the improvement process. The City Administrator indicated that the Council could hold hearings at whatever time they wished during the process and that at least two hearing were disirable and called for some time in the improvement process. Mr. Casperson, a resident of the Peterson Addition, indicated that an additional factor to consider IDn improvement pro- cess was that the railroad had communicated to the nomem"'llers in the area, that the railroad crossing would be closed. The homeowners also indicated that rather than_hav~ the road in< the particular alignment that it is no, that of a hook as it approaches the railroad tracks, the home- owners would prefer to have the road straightened at the track crossing. The City Administrator indicated that the City would pursue the railroad's intent and the actions that they intended to t~{e on the railroad crossing. Some questions were raised by the homeo'~ers and Councilmembers as to what would happen should the railroad close the crossing, and thus alndlock the residents. CaUNCILHAN TaTH HaVED APPROVAL OF RESaLUTIaN 78-10' CERTIFYING THE PERCENTAGE aF SIGNATUF.F.B aN THE RaAD Ir.PROVEHENT PETITIaN FOR THE PETERSON ADDITIaN. HaTION SECaNDED BY CaUNCIU1AN ENGSTRaM. MaTIaN PASSED 4..JJ. -.,