City Council Minutes 1993 10 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to approve the ordinance, but the way to do it is to say that the ordinance doesn't take effect until it is published and you might say that the ordinance would not be published until such time as the applicant paid $100 to the City. Mayer agreed with this. The secondary also accepted this wording. Dis.cussion followed. Davidson philosophically agreed with the $100, but didn't feel the amount of time spent on this was that great and it might cost more than $100 to collect this money. Hornbostel then stated that she seconded it, because she wanted people to be very careful, when they are doing their PUDs and their work. This is serious business. Mayer commented that he would like to know why it would cost $150 to cash a $100 check. Howard felt that in the normal course of City business what they are su~.pose to do is provide what remedies are possible for a city to provide as long as they do not interfere with the general well being of the city. Because of that and because it was not a general harm done to the City, I do not believe $100 is a meaningful amount, first of all, and that in fact in the normal course of City business that this is a reasonable expense by the City, so I will probably vote against it. He also added that philosophically he is with you, just doesn't think this is the appropriate venue for insuring that we do not get an extraordinary nu~er of vacations. Lathop then commented that having gone through several applications with different governmental entities, there is always a fee. In this case there is no fault to the City, we are correcting an encroachment on behalf of developments and, perhaps, a private citizen. He thought it was appropriate, because there had been some time and hard costs. Davidson called for a roll call on the motion. Yes.: Hornbostel, Lathrop, Mayer, and Hedding. Ho%'ard. 4/2, passed. Roll Call Vote. No: Davidson and Davidson asked for any further discussion on Ordinance 1128. None. Davidson then called for a Roll Call Vote. Yes: Hornbostel, Ho%,ard, Lathrop, Mayer, Hedding and Davidson, 6/0, passed. ORDINANCE NO. 1125, SERIES 1993 - VACATING A PORTION OF HARPER STreET WITHIN THE FISHER SUBDIVISION FROM THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LI~ OF JEFFERSON AVENUE TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF THE MA~TERN/PICKETT PROPERTY AND VACATING THEALLEYS IN BLOCKS 1AND 2, FISHER SUBDIVISION, AND GRANT STREET BETWEEN BLOCKS 1AND 2, FISHER SUBDIVISION - 1ST READING - SET PUBLIC HEARING 11-3-93. Griffiths informed the Council that this was an Ordinance vacating a portion of Harper Street within the Fisher subdivision from the wes.t right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue to the east property line of the Mattern/Pickett property and vacating the alleys in Blocks 1 and 2, Fisher Subdivision, and Grant Street between Blocks 1 and 2, Fisher Subdivision. 6