My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-92 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
10-13-92 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:23:48 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:39 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.
/
23
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 />OCTOBER 13, 1992 <br />Hanson asked the cost of the water main improvement <br />when it was proposed in 1981. <br />The City Administrator reported that from his review of <br />the previous minutes on this matter, it appears that <br />the total cost of the improvement at that time was <br />$335,763 a5 compared to $485,127 today. Assuming the <br />same number of lots and an 80/20 cost sharinq <br />arrangement, assessments at that time would have been <br />$3,275.44 per lot as compared to $3,813.45 per lot <br />today (an increase of only 16.4% for assessments while <br />total project costs are up 44%!). <br />McCumber asked the cost of the project per foot. <br />The Administrator indicated that the minutes from 1981 <br />reflect a$22 per foot cost, however, the hearing was <br />only an improvement hearing, and it is difficult to <br />determine was exact costs were from the minutes. <br />Hanson noted that senior citizens effected by the <br />improvement would be eligible for a deferment of <br />assessments. <br />The City Attorney explained that Code provides for a <br />deferral of assessments for homestead property owned by <br />people 65 years of age or older, or retired by <br />permanent disability. A financial hardship must be <br />present, and the average annual payment of the <br />assessment must exceed 1% of the adjusted gross income <br />as determined by a Federal tax return filed in the <br />previous year. <br />Jim Revoir, 3028 Edgerton Street, asked if interest <br />would continue to accrue on a deferred assessment. <br />The City Attorney replied that interest would accrue at <br />the same percentage of interest. <br />Revoir reported that there is a requirement that <br />sanitary sewer lines and water lines must have a 10 <br />foot separation. Revoir asked if there would be a <br />waiver of this rule for the properties that already had <br />copper lines run in the same trench as their sanitary <br />sewer. <br />The City Engineer replied that water can be in the same <br />trench as sewer. The 10 foot separation applies to <br />lateral lines, and not services. <br />The City Administrator did not believe that the City <br />required such a separation for services, but stated <br />that he would verify this. <br />Durand asked if partial payment of the assessments were <br />an option. <br />Page 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.