Laserfiche WebLink
MINiJ'PES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 9, 1994 <br />properties should not pay less. <br />Morelan pointed out that the most costly projects <br />occurred in 1983. Current rate for those projects <br />would be $43.91 per front foot. Morelan felt that to <br />be fair the difficult areas that are left should pay at <br />least that much. Morelan felt each project may have to <br />be reviewed individually. <br />Scalze agreed, and pointed out that the City felt it <br />fair to assess the Edgerton water main project at $30 <br />per front foot. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the original <br />estimate was $3,800 per lot. However, favorable bid <br />prices and a lot of double frontage water main allowed <br />the City to pull that rate down. <br />Hanson felt the City would be able to justify a$4,500 <br />per lot water main assessment, but not $10,000. <br />Morelan felt it made sense to assess water main on a <br />per lot basis, asking the benefit difference in <br />assessing a 75 foot versus 100 foot lot for water main. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that that discussion <br />was made for the Edgerton project, and the result was <br />half the assessment based on front footage and the <br />other on a per lot basis. <br />Pedersen suggested that the total footage could be <br />multiplied by the $44.00 per front foot maximum, and <br />that amount divided on a per lot basis. <br />Aanson asked if there was a consensus of the Council to <br />call for an improvement hearing for water main for <br />Viking Drive. <br />Morelan felt that the proposed policy could be tested <br />for both this area and Keller Parkway. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that once an <br />improvement hearing is held, the City has one year in <br />which to order the improvement. The Administrator <br />suggested that the policy contain a$4,400 per lot <br />maximum unless the property is subdividable. The <br />Administrator suggested that property owners in <br />considering the $4,400 and comparing that amount to <br />actual costs will not think the $4,400 is unreasonable. <br />Scalze asked about street restoration costs. <br />The Administrator replied that his was proposal was <br />Page 8 <br />