Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 14~ 1993 <br />The Council discussed the wording of the second <br />paragraph of Item 1 on page 4, and the consensus was to <br />leave the wording as is since the Council may want the <br />flexibility that this wording provides. (COSts for <br />feasibility studies m~ be imposed on petitioners.) <br />Item C. 1. on page 5 was reworded to read "Assessment <br />will be against the abutting property on a front foot <br />basis subject to modifications necessary to provide for <br />a minimum and maximum assessment for residential lots <br />as well as for modified assessable footage, if <br />applicable.". <br />Council then discussed Item C. 3. on page 5 with <br />concern being expressed that the property owners on a <br />single-frontage street should not be limited to a 50% <br />assessment if that assessment is lower than a typical <br />assessment to a property owner on a double-frontage <br />street. The City Administrator indicated that he would <br />amend the wording of this section to try to ensure an <br />equitable situation. <br />The City Engineer suggested that the listing of street <br />types which begins on page 6 should be in priority <br />order. The Administrator felt that upgraded rural <br />t, street would be the top priority, and indicated that he <br />would list the street types in a ranked order. It was <br />also noted under Item E. 2. on page 6 that discussion <br />about commercial streets should include a 100% <br />assessment for the concrete curb and gutter portion of <br />the improvement. On page 7 in the discussion regarding <br />Reconstructed Urban Streets, the word "Exceeded" will <br />be changed to "met". <br />Pedersen expressed concern that the policy would be <br />difficult to explain to property owners. <br />The City Administrator suggested that the addition of <br />some example calculations on a parcel and project <br />specific basis be added. <br />Morelan asked the reasoning for a 100% assessment for <br />commercial property proposed on page 6 under E. 1. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that when <br />improvement costs are assessed, the City will have to <br />prove benefits received. The Administrator also <br />pointed out that the City has not had any good examples <br />of road improvements along commercial or <br />Page 2 <br />