My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-12-16
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2002
>
2002-12-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2004 2:49:33 PM
Creation date
1/15/2003 1:50:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
12/16/2002
SESSIONNUM
1863
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Session 1863 <br />December 16, 2002 <br /> <br />CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. <br /> <br />The bill was given its second reading. <br />The bill was given its third reading. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman moved to adopt and seconded by Mr. Sharpe. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch believed that the proposed ordinance should apply to the entire city <br />and not just a specific area. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel stated that it would unnecessarily add unrecoverable costs to the <br />developer. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieberman responded that the Inspection department could waive this <br />requirement if the developer had a good record. <br /> <br />Mayor concurred with his second ward colleagues. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe said that developers might view it as a negative but it would be <br />positive for U. City. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff stated that the language having to do with $150,000 should be <br />stricken. That was not intended to be in this bill. If the Council wants to move <br />forward, it would have to be amended to strike out this phrase. The intent was to <br />give the inspectors the tool of requiring a fence, but only from those contractors <br />who don't do a good job of keeping their site clean. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Ollendorff replied that the building inspector <br />would require it unless he or she was sure that the contractor would do a good <br />job. The contractor would pay for it. The estimate was about $3,000 to build a <br />fence on a large lot. Most contractors do a really good job, but a few, especially <br />on North Central have been a total disaster. The residents should not have had <br />to put up with that. Mr. Lieberman said this could be viewed as an incentive for <br />the contractor to do better. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Ollendorff said that contractors would look at this <br />as a definite negative, but positive for the citizens. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch understands the intent, however we would have to depend on the <br />inspector's judgment of what contractor's were or were not being diligent. This <br />will open the door to contractors saying their lots or no worse than that <br />contractor's lot and why they are being penalized and the other ones aren't. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff stated that the City will continue to enforce all the ordinances, <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.