Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 23, 1990 <br />Fahey pointed out that only the back half of the <br />properties were downzoned to residential, the frontage <br />along County Road C remains commercial. <br />Dr. Krienke, property owner on County Road C, reported <br />that the properties hit the hardest are those who have <br />already paid assessments on County Road C and now are <br />being assessed in the back for Rosewood Drive. Krienke <br />stated that he would find the $11,634 per lot <br />assessment as proposed by Boosalis acceptable. <br />Pierce reported that as part of the project there is a <br />fence and sodding that need replacement as well as some <br />grading work that needs to be done. Pierce stated that <br />it was his understanding that this work was to have <br />been completed by today. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City has not made final <br />payment for the project. This final payment will be <br />withheld until all the necessary work is completed. <br />Pierce asked how the City can assess a project that is <br />not completed. <br />Blesener replied that the project can be assessed <br />because the City knows the final costs. This <br />assessment will go on the tax rolls for 1991, however, <br />the property owners have 30 days from this evening to <br />pay the assessment in full, thereby saving interest <br />charges. <br />Scalze asked when Boosalis will complete planting the <br />pine trees that he was required to do. <br />Boosalis replied that this planting will be completed <br />this year with the Administrator pointing out that the <br />matter is addressed in the Development Agreement so <br />Boosalis is contractually required to complete the <br />planting. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved <br />its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 90-10-473 - REJECTING THE CECELIA PIERCE <br />OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 89-16 ON <br />THE BASIS THAT IT IS COUNCIL'S OPINION THAT AN <br />ASSESSMENT UP TO $13,000 PER LOT WOULD BE REASONABLE <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Collova. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, Collova, Blesener, Scalze, LaValle. <br />Nays (O). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />Page 6 <br />