04-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

TO: Mayor and City Council P A FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Piministrato DATE: April. 1, 1988 SUBJECT: Todd Waters - Storm Sewer Petition Attachment A. Davenport Letter Dated 3/23/88 B. Davenport Letter Dated 1/20/88 C. State Statute 1984 Section 429.031 D. Council Minutes 11/09/8 E. City Letter Dated 11/16/87 F. Water's Memo Dated 2/17/88 G. City Letter Dated 2/26/88 H. Drainage Area APR 11 1. ... �4ATY OF Okur b ISSUE. -• Determination as to whether the Council desires a 358 participation before ordering a feasibility study in this matter. INTRODUCTION -At the Council's 2/22/88 meeting they considered the issue of the petition from Todd Waters and requested that the staff determine the number of possible property owners, involved and requesting that the property owner get at least 358 of the signatures before they considered the petition in this matter. As yoa.i may recall the City did indicate during consideration of the land use application on the matter that to the extent there was a stpOm water problem that had existed on this site that it would be appropriate that they could petition the Council for such action without specifying at that time the percentage that the Council would require that they meet. DISCU_SSION - As noted above the Counci 1's meeting on 11/9/87 the City did indicate that they could submit a petition and did not give a specific number of signatures. As noted in Attachment C the statutes require the City to respond to a 35% petition on the matter but the City is not required to have a 358 petition to act. The Citki can receive a petition for less than 358, if it choose$ if. the Council undertakes a feasibility study without the 358 petition it will require a 4/5's vote at the time it decides to actually order the improvement be undertaken should it choose to order it done. (The 358 as required by statute is 35% of the front footage on the street where the improvement is ordered. In this case the Waters and Dennis properties have a very small frontage, if any, on Casco Point Road as they are served by an interior private drive. See Attachment H.) In consideration of the issue.s related t-) this property it may be appropriate t.at the Council accept the petition ordt-rinq the feasibility study without requiring a specific percentage of property owners. ALTERNATIVES - The following rr,present alternatives in this matter.