Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 12, 1993 11 4 1r <br /> PAGE 4 ;r <br /> fi b' <br /> Senauer expressed concern that Northern States Power will be <br /> replacing gas lines and meters and might damage trees on her <br /> property and the fact that she was not made aware that there <br /> might be utility work done. Maurer replied that the utility <br /> companies make their own desisions regarding their utilities. <br /> Brenna Quebbemann, 1564 Fulham, wanted to know if there are any <br /> other costs connected with the project other than the assessment <br /> such as charges for utility work, to which Maurer replied in the <br /> negative. Ms. Quebbemann asked why Hoyt residents are being <br /> assessed, to which Maurer replied that some are assessed for <br /> sdewalks only, others on corner lots are assessed for the project <br /> and will not be assessed again if Hoyt is reconstructed. <br /> Frederick Cooper. 2190 Folwell, felt that the project was not a <br /> prudent use of tax money as the repairs are not necessary. He <br /> explained he was out of town for informational meeting and did <br /> not realize the expenses involved. He felt his assessment, <br /> $4,317.68, was a disproportionately heavy burden compared to <br /> other assessments in the area. He objected to the determination <br /> that his front footage was 116 feet when he paced it off at <br /> approxmately 75 feet. Maurer explained that the lot is triple <br /> sided and the assessment policy is not clear on how to address as <br /> the Grove neighborhood is the only area in the city with these <br /> unique types of lots. <br /> It was determined that there were four lots on Burton St. which <br /> have similar problems and council determined that all four lots <br /> should be charged at an 85 foot frontage which represents an <br /> average in that area of the Grove. Baldwin felt this would be <br /> consistent with the philosophy of the assessment policy. <br /> Carolyn Collins, 1603 Northrop, asked how her lot's front footage <br /> was determined. Maurer replied that it was measured at the set <br /> back line as were the others but in this case the front footage <br /> was reduced by 10 feet by measuring at the set back line. Ms. <br /> Collins stated that after receiving the city's July 13, 1992 <br /> requiring repair of the sidewalk, they had the entire sidewalk <br /> replaced in conjunction with another home improvement project. <br /> Arrangements had already been made prior to receiving the August <br /> 17, 1992 letter informing that a possible 1993 street /sidewalk <br /> project was being considered. She said it cost considerably more <br /> than the city is charging for sidewalks with the street project <br /> ($22.00/ft. compared to $8.00 /ft.) and she asked for some <br /> adjustment. <br /> Council discussed possible partial reimbursement based on the <br /> cost the city would have assessed had the property been included <br /> in the 1993 project and agreed that some reimbursement might be <br /> considered. Maurer explained that if the Collins property had <br />