Laserfiche WebLink
MINO'PES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 9~ 1994 <br />Parkway. However, the County has indicated a <br />willingness to coordinate their project with the <br />City's. <br />Hanson asked if the City should hold the Keller Parkway <br />water main improvement hearing if the County is not <br />proceeding until 1995. <br />The Administrator thought that once an improvement <br />hearing is held, the City would have one year within <br />which to order a project. The Administrator felt that <br />perhaps the water main improvement hearings would help <br />focus the single-frontage water main policy. The <br />Administrator suggested that the Council work through <br />the process using the Keller Parkway and Viking Drive <br />projects as examples. <br />Scalze felt that assessing single-frontage water main <br />projects as if there were two sides of the street, or <br />at 100% of the cost was not equitable, but perhaps <br />somewhere in the middle was. <br />Morelan suggested that the City use its current <br />assessment policy and include a maximum assessment <br />value to ensure equitableness. <br />Pedersen pointed out that developers of projects such <br />as Frederickshaven II, for example, pay 100% of the <br />cost of utilities. Pedersen asked why individual <br />property owners were not expected to pay the full cost. <br />Morelan pointed out that in assessing individual <br />property owners the City has to deal with the benefits <br />received issue. <br />Scalze suggested that the argument can be used that if <br />a water main project is too expensive, it should not be <br />done. <br />Morelan pointed out that there is benefit to the <br />general tax payer as a result of fully watering the <br />City. Those benefits are a decrease in fire equipment <br />necessary, a decrease in training necessary for fire <br />personnel to fight fires in unwatered parts of the <br />City, as well as an improvement in the City's fire <br />insurance rating. <br />Pedersen asked what the decrease in the need for fire <br />equipment meant, pointing out that if it meant a <br />reduction in the amount of hose needed, the benefit <br />would be minimal. <br />The Administrator reported that the difference in <br />utility projects in built up areas versus new <br />Page 6 <br />