Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />LA W OE'FtGE: <br />Page 3 <br />October 1, 2009 <br />agreement. In addition the City should consider whether it is necessary to retain utility easements <br />within the boundaries of the vacated streets. <br />At the Public Hearing on October 6, 2009 the City has the following decisions to make: <br />In its current form the First Street Petition is not a valid petition under the road <br />vacation statute because a majority of property owners have not joined the Petition. <br />Therefore the City needs to decide whether or not it will join the First Street Petition <br />(by motion) as the City is the fee owner of the lots that abut the east side of First <br />Street. <br />2. Assuming that the City joins the First Street Petition then the City needs to apply the <br />road vacation standard and make a decision regarding whether or not it will adopt a <br />resolution vacating that section of First Street. <br />3. With respect to the Second Street Petition, in its current form that Petition is valid and <br />therefore the City must apply the road vacation standard and make a decision <br />regarding whether or not it will adopt a resolution vacating that section of Second <br />Street. <br />If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. <br />Very truly yours, <br />- < T <br />Paul J. Sandelin <br />psandelinC&sandelinlaw.com <br />PJS:jdf <br />Enclosures: as noted <br />SA\LAW\TEXT\25000.094 \City Council Itr.doc <br />