Following up from the last meeting, the Becker city council reviewed the proposed ordinance for ATV permits on city streets during Tuesday’s city council meeting. 

Pete Wiseman, a Becker resident, once again came to give his opinion on the new ordinance. He made an argument that the permit should cost much more than five dollars, being closer to about $100-150. He also thought that the permit should be good for only one year, not three, in order to make sure the vehicles are insured every year. He also claimed that the police department, which already is low on resources, would not be able to enforce the ordinance.

Some council members agreed with Wiseman’s statements, and some disagreed. The conversation went on for a long time, and eventually the council agreed that the fee and the ordinance needed to be changed. Since they already planned to hold an open forum on the city’s fee schedule at the next regular meeting (for a developer fee regarding parkland dedication) they decided to table the ordinance adoption for another two weeks so they could review the ordinance and consider a higher fee at the same time.

Snow Removal Charges

During the winter, city staff removed snow from some individuals’ sidewalks in accordance with city ordinance. The residents were charged a fine for this service. Those who did not pay the fine will have the amount added to their property taxes.

A public hearing was held for individuals wanting to make their case before the council before the charges were added to the property taxes, but no one came to speak.

Becker Businesses

Von’s Cafe on Hancock St. requested a conditional use permit to become a smoothie shop, rather than a coffee shop. City staff helped to identify any issues with the arrangement and the proposed change was brought before council and was voted in. 

The council also approved a preliminary and final plat for VonHanson’s Snacks on First St. The plat application establishes a right of way and squares off the property.

Finally, the council released Oak Street Partners from a developer’s agreement. This action was somewhat of a formality, as the agreement for the development of two of the strip malls in the commercial district actually was set to expire in 2005. The issue came up as the owners were trying to sell the building but could not do so until they were officially released from the developer’s agreement.