Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />City Council <br />April 7, 1993 <br />Pedersen felt the statement lets the bad roads continue <br />indefinitely because we can choose to live with the bad road <br />and let the residents pay for maintenance. He felt it lets <br />the City off the hook for making a decision since it is not <br />costing the City anything. Mayor Hanson felt the City still <br />has the liability to maintain the street in a driveable <br />condition for police and fire protection. Pedersen agreed <br />stating it should not be an option to fix the road, it must <br />be reconstructed. LaValle felt the statement just gives the <br />City the flexibility of letting the improvement slide if the <br />City wants it to. Morelan stated that maybe the statement <br />could be re-worded to state that it is at the ultimate <br />discretion of the Council by request of the property <br />owners. LaValle felt there will be situations when the City <br />may want to just "bandage" a road. <br />The City Administrator indicated that Page 11, number 2 is <br />setting residential and commercial rates. Morelan asked if <br />park land is considered residential or commercial. The <br />Engineer stated that the policy does address that issue. <br />The City Administrator stated that Page 12, C1a referring to <br />the minimum/maximum assessment is basically saying that a 75 <br />foot minimum will be used and a 125 foot maximum. Mayor <br />Hanson stated that on a lot of record, they would pay the 75 <br />foot frontage whether they had it or not. The Administrator <br />stated that the 125 maximum was set to address lots which <br />may have more than 125 feet front footage, but for some <br />reason cannot be split. Morelan felt that a 150 foot <br />maximum was more reasonable. Mayor Hanson stated that he <br />felt comfortable with 125 feet since there were probably not <br />many lots in existence that would fall under this <br />circumstance. <br />The City Administrator stated that the assessment for a <br />cul-de-sac lot is very similar to the current policy. <br />However, a 75 foot minimum would be set on pie shaped lots <br />and large lots would be divided by 10,000 square feet to <br />achieve more than the 75 foot minimum. Pedersen felt that a <br />wedge shaped lot on a curve should be assessed the same way. <br />Scalze asked if a small driveway access to a lot is covered <br />under the assessment policy. The Administrator stated that <br />lots such as that would receive a 75 foot minimum. The <br />Engineer stated that property such as this should be <br />examined to determined if there is more than one buildable <br />lot. If there is more than one, each lot should receive the <br />75 foot minimum. <br />-11- <br />