CCMin_93May12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES O ~'`~ MAY 12, 1993 PAGE 4 Senauer expressed concern that Northern States Power will be replacing gas lines and meters and might damage trees on her property and the fact that she was not made aware that there might be utility work done. Maurer replied that the utility companies make their own desisions regarding their utilities. Brenna Quebbemann, 1564 Fulham, wanted to know if there are any other costs connected with the project other than the assessment such as charges for utility work, to which Maurer replied in the negative. Ms. Quebbemann asked why Hoyt residents are being assessed, to which Maurer replied that some are assessed for sdewalks only, others on corner lots are assessed for the project and will not be assessed again if Hoyt is reconstructed. Frederick Cooper. 2190 Folwell, felt that the project was not a prudent use of tax money as the repairs are not necessary. He explained he was out of town for informational meeting and did not realize the expenses involved. He felt his assessment, $4,317.68, was a disproportionately heavy burden compared to other assessments in the area. He objected to the determination that his front footage was 116 feet when he paced it off at approxmately 75 feet. Maurer explained that the lot is triple sided and the assessment policy is not clear on how to address as the Grove neighborhood is the only area in the city with these unique types of lots. It was determined that there were four lots on Burton St. which have similar problems and council determined that all four lots should be charged at an 85 foot frontage which represents an average in that area of the Grove. Baldwin felt this would be consistent with the philosophy of the assessment policy. Carolyn Collins, 1603 Northrop, asked how her lot's front footage was determined. Maurer replied that it was measured at the set back line as were the others but in this case the front footage was reduced by 10 feet by measuring at the set back line. Ms. Collins stated that after receiving the city's July 13, 1992 requiring repair of the sidewalk, they had the entire sidewalk replaced in conjunction with another home improvement project. Arrangements had already been made prior to receiving the August 17, 1992 letter informing that a possible 1993 street/sidewalk project was being considered. She said it cost considerably more than the city is charging for sidewalks with the street project ($22.00/ft. compared to $8.00/ft.) and she asked for some adjustment. Council discussed possible partial reimbursement based on the cost the city would have assessed had the property been included in the 1993 project and agreed that some reimbursement might be considered. Maurer explained that if the Collins property had