Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 13, 1992 <br />Dunn did not believe that it was possible to have <br />project costs increase by only 50% over a ten year <br />period. Dunn reported that he suspected the figures <br />quoted. <br />Rada pointed out that there is a much larger homeowner <br />base today over which to spread those costs. <br />The City Engineer reported that construction costs have <br />not increased at the same rate as other costs in the <br />economy. The Engineer reported that ten years ago <br />contractors had profit margins built into their prices. <br />Times are now tight and those profit margins have been <br />eliminated. The Engineer anticipated an eventual jump <br />in construction costs. <br />Dunn indicated that he knew enough about construction <br />costs to not take the Engineer's comments at face <br />value. Dunn asked what the cost of the project would <br />be on a per foot basis. <br />Others in the audience asked for this same information. <br />The City Engineer suggested a short recess so that he <br />could calculate this information. <br />At this pointed in the meeting, 10:25 P.M., the Council <br />took a short recess. The meeting was reconvened at <br />10:35 P.M. <br />The City Engineer estimated that the per foot cost of <br />the project spread out over a base of 9,900 assessable <br />feet would be $31.59 per front foot to the property <br />owners. <br />The Engineer was asked the difference between <br />assessable and non-assessable frontage. <br />The Engineer reported that lots already served by water <br />main would be considered non-assessable frontage, as <br />would the NSP property, street intersections, the north <br />side of County Road D, etc. <br />The City Administrator reported that if the City can <br />legally assess NSP for the cost of this improvement, it <br />would be happy to do so. However, the City is bound by <br />State Statutes in these matters. The Administrator <br />reported that it was his initial opinion that such an <br />assessment would be very difficult to prove benefits <br />received. This will be evaluated. <br />Tom Karon reported that he would be in favor of the <br />project if it were assessed on a front footage basis. <br />Page 20 <br />