My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24-95 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
10-24-95 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:38:14 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:13 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.
/
35
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 24, 1995 <br />precedent established. Therefore, from a policy <br />standpoint the City has already defended its assessment <br />policy, and feels comfortable with it. Fahey noted <br />that while he does not mean to minimize property <br />owners' concerns, he wanted them to be aware that the <br />assessment policy has been reviewed and upheld by a <br />district court judge. <br />Fahey informed those present that the initial <br />assessment roll did not contemplate an assessment for <br />the railroad property abutting Jackson Street. It was <br />initially indicated that this was City property. Upon <br />further review in preparation of the final roll, it was <br />noted that this was not City property and, therefore, <br />withheld from the assessment calculation. Staff is now <br />recommending that a supplemental assessment hearing be <br />held to include the railroad property. Such action <br />would decrease the assessment amount from $43.67 per <br />front foot to $41.27. <br />It was the consensus of the Council to add the railroad <br />property to the assessment roll. <br />The City Administrator cautioned that there could be a <br />benefits received issue in doing this, therefore, some <br />exposure to the City. If the railroad contests the <br />assessment, it could be difficult to prove benefits <br />received. The Administrator felt, however, that the <br />matter was worth pursuing. <br />The City Engineer reported that he would like to <br />address issues with regard to execution of the project <br />and quality concerns. First, the Engineer apologized <br />for the inconvenience that property owners had to put <br />up with over the course of the project. The project <br />did not proceed as expeditiously as everyone would have <br />liked. One delay was caused by the manner in which the <br />gas company addressed the existing gas line. There <br />were also concerns and frustrations with the <br />contractor's execution of the project. <br />The City Engineer reported that the wear course for the <br />street will not be paved until 1996. This procedure is <br />used quite often since letting a road sit over one <br />winter to settle out and go through a freeze/thaw <br />process results in a better project. The spring is <br />when the subgrade of a road is at its weakest. Any <br />problems that exist will become apparent, will be <br />repaired, and the street then overlayed. <br />The Engineer noted that concern has also been expressed <br />over storm sewer drainage. The storm sewer which was <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.