My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-24-91 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
07-24-91 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:09:49 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:00 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.
/
21
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 />JULY 24, 1991 <br />hearing is held prior to commencement of a project. In <br />this case the project is very near completion. The <br />Administrator reported that in this instance the County <br />did not inform the City of the project until it was <br />fairly well along in the planning process. Due to this <br />fact as well as publication and notification <br />requirements, the improvement hearing is being held <br />after the project is nearly complete. <br />Jim Mitsch stated that he was disappointed that the <br />hearing is being held after the project is underway. <br />Mitsch pointed out that Little Canada has one of the <br />highest tax rates in the Metro area and he does not <br />appreciate the additional taxes this improvement will <br />generate for his property. Mitsch also reported that <br />the quality of work along his property is poor. <br />Scalze again reported on the County's timing in <br />notifying the City of the improvement, and pointed out <br />that this is not typically the way an improvement is <br />handled. <br />Mitsch felt the County should bear the brunt of the <br />cost of the improvement. <br />Blesener pointed out that the County is bearing the <br />majority of the cost of the improvement, that is, the <br />cost of the overlay as well as 250 of the cost of the <br />shoulder improvement. <br />Mitsch reported that along his property the road was <br />not widened to include a paved shoulder. Mitsch <br />reported that the road grade was built up along his <br />property and curbing replaced, but no shoulder added. <br />The Administrator pointed out that there is 1,640 feet <br />of assessable frontage, and it may be that the Mitsch <br />property will not be assessed. The Administrator <br />reported that before the assessment hearing, staff will <br />look at the improvement and determine which properties <br />are actually benefitted by the improvement. <br />Mitsch asked if any City-owned parcels are effected by <br />the improvement. <br />The Administrator replied that there were and reported <br />that the City would have to pick up its share of the <br />assessments. <br />Mitsch asked who he should contact to make sure the <br />work is finished correctly along his property. Mitsch <br />reported that his mailbox needs to be replaced, and <br />there is a wash-out on County Road B that is directing <br />run-off from the street into his property. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.