My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-06-28 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2006
>
2006-06-28 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2006 12:02:11 PM
Creation date
6/23/2006 3:58:26 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
225
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 />City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />June 14.2006 <br />City Administrator Larson indicated that this was discussed previously to upsize the water <br />main to allow for looping in the future and the property owner's expectation was to put in a <br />six inch service from the County Road 54 to the east but the expected increase cost to make it <br />an 8 inch water main would be about $15,000 plus engineering services and administrative <br />costs. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Paar. seconded by Council ~em"er Lee. to aoorove <br />UpsiziDsr o( tv wattr II!lin plUI ucioeeriql services .. reeGlQ""dul '" ~tt. AD I, <br />favor. Motio, carri~ unanimouslv. <br /> <br />3. Mr. Jeff tI!U'pl'~ leqJlest fur s~ Improvem~ts/Watermtrin &, Sewennain <br />(Old Mill Road) <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson provided an overview of the proposed improvements and asked <br />Council to accept the feasibility report and consider approval to set a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Capra asked what could be done to lessen the impact to the larger property owners. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson indicated that there are ways to work it out to delay the impact or <br />lessen the impact and that will be discussed further at the work session. <br /> <br />Engineer Statz suggested assessing the full amount but deferring it until they want to develop <br />the property. <br /> <br />Motion bv Council Member Lee. seconded by Council Member Pur.. to aoorove <br />ResoI'lti9D ~~ A~e,tin. tlJ, ~easibilip ~Ij and Set(jnsr a ~,~i~ JI~I fgr <br />Julv 12. 2006. AD in favor. Motion carried un,nimouslv. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal indicated that they are concerned about the neighbors and everyone wanted to <br />know what it would cost and that was the point behind the feasibility study. <br /> <br />4. Sex Offender Ordinance <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser indicated that he and the Chief discussed the matter and the Chief feels <br />that there would be a public safety benefit and it should only be for level three offenders with <br />the reason being that data practices and privacy laws those are the only offenders that the <br />public is allowed to know about. He then said that the ACLU may challenge such an ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Capra indicated that she would like all three cities to do it if the City is going to. She <br />then said that this should go before the Police Commission and obtain authorization from the <br />other cities. <br /> <br />IX. ANNOUNCEMENTSIUPDATES <br /> <br />1. City Administrator. Mr. Dallas Larson <br /> <br />Page 7 of 10 <br /> <br />f <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.