Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />July 22, 1987 <br />Twin Lake the State may be inclined not to participate in the cost of the <br />Trail Berm project if they know that an public hearing is being held to <br />(Cont.) consider assessments to the property owners. <br />Scalze felt that the City should find out what the property owners <br />are willing to pay. <br />The Engineer reported that he would expect an ans~ver from the State <br />within 30 days. <br />Jerry Bergeron suggested that the property owners in the area would <br />agree to a~1,000 to $1,500 assessment for the berm. <br />Fahey stated that assuming that, the project appears to be unfeasible <br />unless there is State participation. <br />Fahey suggested that the Engineer pursue the project with the State <br />and report back to the Council. <br />Recess At this point in the meeting, Council took a short recess. <br />Windrow Blesener reported that the City has received a petition from the <br />Drive residents of Windrow Drive for ornamental street lighting similar <br />Street to what is on !~estwind Drive as well as additional street lights. <br />Light 4lestlund Construction has agreed to pay the cost of the ornamental <br />Petition lights and the property owners have agreed to pay for the cost <br /> of electricity for the extra lights. Blesener reported that <br />Agenda Public i~orks is recommending approval of the request, and suggesting <br />Item No. 23a the cost of electricity be charged to the property owners on their <br /> quarterly sewer and water billings. <br /> Ken Wehrle, 848 Windro~a Drive, reported that he did not sign the <br /> petition due to some concerns that he had the first being whether <br /> the property owners would be credited for the number of lights <br /> allowed under the City's standard street lighting policy. <br /> Blesener replied that the City will pay for what the street <br /> lighting policy provides and anything over that will be paid <br /> by the developer and property owners. <br />Wehrle pointed out that there are existing streets in the City with <br />more street lights than what is permitted under the City's street <br />lighting policy, blehrle also felt that the 800 feet between street <br />lights as provided for in the policy was unacceptable in a residential <br />area. <br />Blesener felt the 300 feet between street lights being requested <br />was too close. Blesener stated that the purpose of street lights <br />was for safety at intersections. <br />Page -19- <br />