12-27-82 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M7.NUTES City Cot.inci.l. i~~~. zz, 1~~sz Fe1s-.i.bility 'C11e 1>ngi.neer >ubmi.tted t:o the Counc~i.7. feasi.bi.l.i.t~ repor.ts f.or Reports Improvement Nos. 83--1, 4, 7, F1, and 9. Smp. No. 83-1., 4, 7 'Che B;n~ineer stated C7,~mt ~in the c~s~ of Syl.v~~n Iistat.es improvement, ~;, 9 there i_s a loC of waCerma~Cn to go i.n and not ~~ l.ot of people to assess. Agenda ~[tems No. 19 In the D~irinna L~in~~ improvement t.:he Engi.nee,r i.s proposin~; a compLet_e'1y and 21. new bl.aclctop as Che City hz~s kiad complai.nts i.n thea petst when a ~azit.er!nai.n ~:vas paCCluad ~in. Nir. I-lanson ~s!ced :i-.f. a b1.ad,cCOp curb eaas proposed for ~hes~~ improve~nents. 'Phe lin~~ineer rep1-i.ed Chat iC was. ~~7r. Hanson po~inted out that some ~eople may ~aant concret:r; curbs. 'Che Gngi_neer po~i.nted out th1t~~. under Lnprovement No. ~33-4 the i.inprovemenC is proposed in Cwo ,ecCtons, 'l'he f::i.rst s~cti.on inc7.ueles CounCy Road D from Payne Aven~.ie to the east ].ine of Sylvan. Cost is $39,264.91 wi.th a typical. assessment of $36.15 per LconC Eoot. 7"he second secCion :i_ncl.udes Sylvan PsCaCes, WaCCrrnain would he ^~6,947.38 ancl se~aer aind streeC woulcl be $73,51.2.02. 'Pypi.cal issessment for waf_erroa~Ln at 100% ~ssessment would bc 'S?.5.47_ and at: fi0% assessinent woul.d be $20.33. A comh>i.ned watermain assessmen~: fpr these Cwo secti_ons would be .`$27.00 per front f:oot. ~1rs. Sc11zc aslced if: the devel.oper cot.ild pi.it tP!e ~oate[mai.n ,i.n on County Road D and if the pcople on County Ro~d D ~oanted to conneci: t:hey wou7.d pay an asses>ment sC thc ti.me Che~ connccted. 'Che Engi.neer repli.ed tl~<~t the cleve7.oper would never ~et: financ~ing to do thi; and there woul.d be no cvay for the devel.oper to col.l.ect from the pcople on County F.toad D. i-0rs. Scal.ze pointed out Ch~t w~iCh Che=, 80% as>essroent po1.3.cy, tti~c general taxpayers havc to pi.cl< up 2 lar~;er stisr.e. The C~ity C7.eric sCaCed that the City cloes not h~ve to ma:ittt~in ttie 80% assessment policy. The Cl.erlc atso pointed out that in 1969 wal:ermai.n ~vas ~instr~lled at a cost of ti~6.5Q per f,ront foot and tl~e co>t: today ~is nearly ";30.00 per front foot. P4rs. Scalze astced ~okiat the C;ouncil i.ntends I:o do if tJae peop]_e on County Road D do not_ ~aant water. Mr.s. Nardi.ni. stated that. i.t is to the people's aclvantage to h~ve water. 'Ct~e Engineer suggested Chat the Council. hol.d the cvalermai.n i.mprovement heari.n~s at its Lirst Counc:i.1 meet:i.ng in l~ebruary. The $n~;ineer al.so aslced what thc CiCy's policy i.s ~oing to be regar.~di.n~ C11e assessrnent,s. The Ci.ty Clerk sud;;esCec,l C1~at er,isC,inr, streeCS be as>essed at Che gp_20 pol:icy, but ne~a streets be assessed at 100%. P4r. Pahey poi.nted out t:hat ~iri some instances combi.nin~ of i.mprovemc~nCS malces the total. cosr. Le;;s. ?'1$~= --79-