Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Buckbee moved to approve the City of CentervilIe payment of claims. <br />Motion seconded by Councilmember Brenner. Wilharber aye. Powers and Sweeney <br />abstained. Motion carried. <br /> <br />SET AGENDA <br /> <br />2. Council Pay <br />1. Goals and Objectives <br /> <br />Councilmember Buckbee moved to approve the set agenda with the noted additions. <br />Councilmember Brenner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS <br /> <br />Thanksgiving Issued Parking Tickets <br />Mr. March reported the City received a complaint about several parking tickets that were issued <br />on Thanksgiving night. The complaintant requested the City purchase and install "No Parking" <br />signs on the streets. <br /> <br />The Council noted the associated cost to install "No Parking" signs, the responsibility of residents <br />to know the ordinances and the city's effort to inform citizens via the newsletter. The Council <br />noted receipt of the complaint. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> <br />Buechler Estates Final Plat Approval <br />Final Grading Plan, Development Contract, Drainage and Utility <br />Mr. Peterson gave an overview of the BuecWer Estates final plat, grading plan, development <br />contract, and drainage and utility plans. Moreover, no change has been made to the final plat or <br />grading plan. The grading plan still includes a ditch along Mound Trail that will drain toward the <br />lake. Mr. Peterson noted the plan represents that the developer made minor adjustments to the <br />drainage and utility plans. Mr. Peterson commented the development was in order for approval. <br />Mr. Hoeft discussed the development contract and suggested changing the terminology but <br />leaving the logistics. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brenner disagreed with the $25,000 park dedication fees in the development <br />contract. Also, she thorougWy explained that the ordinance states that a subdivision is subject to <br />$950 per lot or 10% of the land value. Therefore, the developer should have paid 10% of <br />$500,000, thus costing $50,000 not $25,000. Councilmember Buckbee commented that the <br />current ordinance allows for the fair market value is negotiable and the subject had been <br />discussed, majority ruled to charge $25,000. Furthermore, the development was unusual and it <br />may have been difficult to justify charging $50,000 for five lots. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />-- - -- - - - - --- - - -- - - - <br />