My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-94 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
01-26-94 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:43:31 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:49 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.
/
17
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
NCIlYUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />7ANi7ARY 26, 1994 <br />Morelan asked if these agreements result in on-going <br />maintenance issues for the City. <br />The Administrator pointed out that the City has traffic <br />signs to maintain, and this is not a big cost item. <br />Vandalism would be the only concern associated with the <br />cost of maintaining the bus stop signs. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 94-1-31 - APPROVING THE MTC AGREEMENTS <br />AS SUBMITTED AND AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY <br />ADMINISTRATOR AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY <br />ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE TIIESE AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF <br />THE CITY <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Pedersen. <br />Ayes (4) LaValle, Pedersen, Hanson, Morelan. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />SINGLE The City Administrator reviewed his memo dated <br />FRONTAGE January 21, 1994 regarding single frontage water main <br />WATER MAIN policy and the City's options for the assessment of <br />POLICY costs associated with such improvement. The <br />Administrator outlined five assessment options for the <br />Council to consider. The Administrator stated that <br />considering factors such as benefits received, equity <br />to property owners based on past project assessment <br />rates, and overall costs to the City, it was his <br />opinion that Option #3 was the most workable. <br />Morelan commented that the last areas of the City <br />without water main are, for the most part, the more <br />difficult projects. Morelan stated that he did not <br />feel the property owners in these areas should pay less <br />than anyone else has paid for water main. Morelan was <br />not sure that the Edgerton water main project was a <br />good representation, and asked if any other areas in <br />the City paid more for water main. <br />The City Administrator did not think there were any <br />other water main projects paying more than Edgerton, <br />and felt that the Edgerton project was representative <br />of the type of projects that are left in the City. The <br />Administrator pointed out that shoulder restoration <br />costs increased the cost of the Edgerton water main <br />project. <br />Morelan felt that future water main projects should pay <br />at least as much as the most costly past water main <br />project. Morelan asked about areas that are currently <br />Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.