CCMin_93May26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES ~ ,~ MAY 26, 1993 `t PAGE 2 portions of the city's Administrative Manual c. Ordinance 0-93-04 excluding guide dogs and K-9 dogs from the regulation prohibiting animals in city parks CLAIM FOR PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION AT 1603 NORTHROP Baldwin explained that the petitioner, Ms. Carolyn Collins, 1603 Northrop, had responded to the city's 1992 request to repair the sidewalk and had the sidewalk completely reconstructed. Ms. Collins is now requesting some reimbursement as the sidewalks are now included in the 1993 improvement project and the cost which would have been assessed with the project is considerably less than the price Ms. Collins paid a private constractor. During a discussion of the matter at the May 12th assessment hearing Council agreed that there should be some reimbursement. He stressed that council must be cautious that any payment does not constitute giving a gift of taxpayers' money to a private property owner and that city policy does not allow individual private residents to expend tax money as the city obtains better prices when contracting for city projects. He felt that the staff recommendation that the reimbursement be based on the estimated general tax fund cost to the city as part of the project, $690.25, would meet the guidelines. Gibson Talbot arrived at this time. A lengthy disucssion ensued regarding various formulas which might be used to determine an appropriate amount of reimbursement, such amounts ranging from $1,002.00 to the $690.00 recommended by staff, whether or not the sidewalk repair letter prompted the property owner's decision to reconstruct the sidewalk, and if the portion of sidewalk reconstructed on a neighboring property should. be included in the reimbursement. Following the discussion Jacobs moved that as a compromise an amount of $800.00 be reimbursed. Ms. Collins felt that by doing the whole neighborhood the city is giving more subsidy to the other property owners. She also indicated that she and some other neighbors did not receive the August 17, 1992 letter, but she now has a copy which she felt indicated the street project might damage an existing sidewalk, not that there might be reconstruction with the street project. She indicated that the city was premature in sending sidewalk letters, thus not giving her an opportunity to participate in the city project, and asked that council take that into consideration. After further discussion a vote was taken on the motion. The following .voted in favor of reimbursement in the amount of