My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-13-89 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
12-13-89 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:57:00 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:52:56 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.
/
26
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 />December 13, 1989 <br />Blesener asked if the estimate included refacing the <br />existing building with brick. <br />Mickelberg reported that the $40 per square foot <br />remodeling costs included some improvements to the <br />exterior of the building, but not a major overhaul with <br />brick. Mickelberg estimated that brick might cost <br />between $7 and $12 per square foot. <br />Fahey again commented that the citizens committee on <br />the expansion of the City Center will meet on Monday <br />morning at 8 A.M. <br />Mickelberg suggested that one of the first issues that <br />needs to be resolved is whether to include a City <br />Center complex with the new Fire Station. Mickelberg <br />pointed out that this decision needs to be made before <br />the two projects can proceed much further. <br />Blesener felt that the Committee would be able to make <br />that decision on Monday morning by reviewing the cost <br />estimates that have been presented. <br />PARADEE Blesener reported that on October 25, 1989, the City <br />ASSESSMENT Council reviewed past history regarding the sewer and <br />CONCERN water assessment for 2875 Jackson Street. Blesener <br />reported that when utilities were put in this area in <br />the late 1960's and early 1970's, the property owner of <br />2875 Jackson requested not to be included in the <br />improvements. Therefore, no utilities stubs were <br />provided for the property. However, in researching <br />past assessment records, the property was assessed for <br />a sewer stub. <br />The City Engineer agreed that the property was assessed <br />for a sewer stub. However, pointed out that there is <br />no special assessment charge for water stubs, <br />therefore, the property was not assessed for a water <br />stub. <br />Collova asked how stub locations were determined. <br />The City Engineer replied that at the time these <br />improvements went in, his office asked property owners <br />where they would like the stubs. The property owner at <br />the time did not want the stubs unless the improvement <br />went in on Jackson Street. <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.