Laserfiche WebLink
Session <br />June 4, <br /> <br />1813 <br />2001 <br /> <br />CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS - PERMIT; SUPERVISION; BOND," SECTION <br />12.04.070 STREET, ETC., EXCAVATIONS-GENERALLY; PERMIT; BOND," <br />AND SECTION 12.04.170 STREET USE PERMIT-BOND; DEPOSIT," SO AS <br />TO INCREASE PERMIT FEES TO PERFORM EXCAVATION, <br />CONSTRUCTION OR SIMILAR WORK ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, AND SO AS <br />TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN RULES AND AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF <br />PUBLIC WORKS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AN <br />SUPERVISION OF THE WORK; CONTAINING A SAVING CLAUSE AND <br />PROVIDING A PENAL'P(. <br /> <br />The bill was given its second reading. <br />The bill was given its third reading. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Ollendorff said that he believes this just pertains to <br />public right-of ways and not to p~rivate subdivisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer moved approval. Mr. Munkel seconded the motion. The roll call vote <br />was as follows: AYES: Mr. Munkel, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Schoomer, Mr. <br />Sharpe, Ms. Colquitt and Mayor Adams. NAYS: none. Bill number 8527 passed and <br />became Ordinance number 6303. <br /> <br />3. BILL NO. 8528- AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, <br /> RELATING TO STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING GENERALLY, BY <br /> REPEALING SECTION 10.40.210 THEREOF, RELATING TO PARKING <br /> TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION <br /> "10.40.210 - PARKING TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES PROHIBITED <br /> - EXCEPTIONS;" SO AS TO PERMIT THE PARKING OF TRUCKS UP TO <br /> 6,000 LBS. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND <br /> ALLEYS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; CONTAINING A SAVING CLAUSE <br /> AND PROVIDING A PENALTY <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that this is the bill that was subject to the earlier public hearing. The <br />subcommittee of Council did reseamh with the County and State Municipal League on <br />this issue and also looked at ordinances from other cities around the County and the <br />state. The changes made, he believes, are improvements. From what we have heard <br />tonight, we have not gone far enough to improve the ordinance, on the other hand, <br />many people in the city think we are going to far. He recommends passing this and <br />leaving the option open to revisit it again in the future. <br /> <br />Ms. Colquitt moved amending the ordinance by removing the $25 inspection fee <br />requirement. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />