Laserfiche WebLink
rir.r~u'rr,s <br />C~ity Counci.l <br />Sept. 7, 1.933 <br />Imp. No. 82-6 improvement DIo. t3?_-6 i.s the i.mprovement of Tona Lane from Ri.ce <br />Street to the cul-de-sac by watermai.n and street restorati.on. <br />P1r. Gau appeared before [lie Counc:il and reported t:hat: the project <br />i.s not compl.ete. Mr. Gau repor.ted that T.he street i.s not compleCe <br />and the landscap:i.n~ i.s not done. Mr. Gau questioned how the CiCy <br />can assess a project when i.t :is not complete. <br />The Ci.ty Attorney reported that :itatute 429.061. gi.ves the Council <br />the authority to assess a project at any t:i.me ~fter expense has <br />been i.ncurr.ed or the expense has been determi.ned. The Attorney <br />reported that i.n this case the espense has been determined, therefore, <br />the Cotutcil has the authori.ty to assess the project. <br />'..dr. t~ahey reported that the correct.i.on of defect i.s another. m~Cter. <br />n1r. Gau commented that he appeared betore the Counci.l two months <br />ago about these deEects and Chey have not been corrected. Gav <br />also was concerned that the project has been i.n the worlcs for 16 <br />months. <br />T4r. Carley commented Chat there is a sL:i.ght drai.nage problem on the <br />street and the street caill 6e overl.ai.d. A1so there are some people <br />unhappy with the sod they recezved and others who are happy with it. <br />Mr. Carley reported that there is noco a new subconcraccor on the <br />job and eoorlc wi.1.1. be~in within a weelc. Mr. Carley stated Chat he <br />wi.l.l meet: again with the horneowners. <br />Mrs. Nardi.ni. poi.nted out there are p~her streets i.n the Ci.ty that. <br />are not done. <br />~tr. Gau stated that he ~ai.ll not pay his assessment by October 7, The <br />Pngi.neer commented that a homeowner need onl.y pay the assessment by <br />October 7:i.f he ~oants to save :interest. 7'he reason t:hat tl~e hearing <br />i.s be~ing held now i.s that the assessment aust be cert:LEied by the <br />CounLy by Oct:ober 7.0. This i.s State l.aw. <br />Mr. Don Pi.erce reported that he llas a si.mi.lar. situaCion to the Ol.l~son <br />property that was previously di.scussecl in tkiat: he has a drainage di.tch <br />on hi.s nroperty. 'LhereLore, t4r. Pierce has 7.0 f.eet of: property that. <br />he cannot use< Mr. Pierce also reported that there is no record of: <br />thi.s di.tch that he can determine, <br />hlrs. Nardini asked i.[ the di.tch was on t:he property cohen Nir> Pierce <br />bout;ht it. Mr. Pi.erce replied that it was. <br />Mr. Pahey stated that the exi.stence of a drai.nage ditch would noC be <br />just.if:ication Eor any modif:i.cation in Mr. Pierce's assessments or <br />taxes. Mr. 1?ierce aslced the justi.[i.cat.i.on Eor the del.eti.on of the <br />assessments on 51 Leet o.f. the Olhson k~roperty, Mr. Fahey pointed out <br />that that property was cut oLf by a publ~i.c roa<t. <br />I'age -12- <br />