Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 8, 1992 <br />until it takes a position on responsibility. <br />Scalze noted that it is July, and the property owners <br />in the park need some help. Scalze felt that the road <br />improvement will have to be done before Ryan Industrial <br />Park can be made an important part of the City. Scalze <br />stated that she did not want to be discussing a <br />solution to the problem in October. <br />Hanson pointed out that the Ryan Industrial Park <br />business owners are taxpayers, and perhaps the only way <br />to get improvements in the park would be for the City <br />to participate in a cost-sharing arrangement. Hanson <br />asked what City policy for assessing street <br />improvements was when the park was first developed. <br />Hanson suggested that it may have been an 80/20 split <br />with 80% of the cost assessed against benefitting <br />properties and 20% put on general taxes. Currently the <br />City's policy is to assess 100% of the cost of road <br />improvements. Hanson pointed out that until the road <br />improvement is done, landscaping and other issues in <br />the park cannot be identified. Aanson also asked to <br />what degree the City can afford to participate in a <br />road project for the park. <br />The City Administrator stated that he is advocating <br />that the City clarify what its position will be on the <br />road improvement. The Administrator noted that the <br />City could be looking at some litigation on the issue <br />of benefits received. The Administrator recommended <br />that should a road improvement proceed, the City pursue <br />obtaining waivers of rights to appeal. The <br />Administrator stated that the City is not in a position <br />to order a project at this time, and additional <br />research is needed at this point. <br />Scalze noted that the buildings in the park are made of <br />metal and do not have a high value. Therefore, to <br />assess a project and show that the project provides <br />additional value to the property is a difficult <br />situation. <br />Hanson pointed out the various options presented by the <br />City Engineer in his feasibility report, and suggested <br />that the property owners may not want to go with the <br />most costly option. <br />The City Attorney stated that he should be able to <br />review the information in this matter and be prepared <br />to comment by the first Council meeting in August. The <br />Attorney suggested that at this point the Council may <br />want to close the public hearing. The Attorney noted <br />that the property owners have not appeared to have <br />Page 11 <br />