My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-13-85 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
11-13-85 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:20:27 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:50:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Nov. 13, 1985 <br />Keller this alternative as it may not be possible for some property owners <br />Parkway to get access to the LaBore Road watermain. <br />(Cont.) <br />The Engineer reported that the improvement is very expensive as there <br />is only one side of the street to assess. Therefore, Mr. Carley <br />recommended that this project be combined with another project in <br />order to bring the costs down for the property owner. <br />Mr. Fahey suggested that if the property owners want to pursue the <br />project further, they should petition for it. <br />Ms. Nardini suggested that the Engineer's report be sent to the people <br />who indicated an interest in water and that they be informed that the <br />City is not interested in alternative 3. <br />Fahey suggested that alternative 3 would be O.K, if the property owners <br />paid the equivalent of a 75 foot frontage assessment. The Engineer <br />suggested that if the City allowed alternative 3, it could cause <br />problems later on. <br />Mr. Blesener asked if the second alternative was feasible. The Engineer <br />replied that it was but that the assessment would be almost $15,000 per <br />lot. <br />Nardini suggested that alternative 1 might be something that the <br />property owners are interested in. <br />Ms. Nardini introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION ~10. 85-11-439 - INSTRUCTING THE CITY <br />CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF THE ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY <br />REPORT TO MESSRS. RADFORD AND HANSON AND INFORM <br />THEM THAT THE CITY IS NOT INTERESTED IN PLADI 3 <br />AS PRESENTED IN TNE REPORT <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by P1r. Blesener. <br />Ayes (5) Nardini, Blesener, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 12, Page 567. <br />Assessment The City Engineer reported that the assessment reapportionment for <br />Reapportion- Division Plo. 059610 was routine. <br />ment <br />Div. No. Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adopt~on: <br />059610 RESOLUTION N0. 85-11-440 - APPROVING THE <br />ASSESSMENT REAPPORTIONMENT FOR DIVISION <br />N0. 059610 AS PRESENTED <br />Page -13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.