Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1999 <br />currently working on the legal descriptions describing the <br />easement area. <br />Gordon Forbes reported that he attended all the neighborhood <br />meetin~s and there are some distinct ambiguities with the project. <br />Forbes also asked about the development deferral option for <br />assessments. Forbes reported that he has a 38-foot wide driveway <br />and asked how the width of that driveway affects his curb and <br />gutter assessment. Forbes also asked if the purpose of this <br />statutory hearing was to adopt the concept of the $72,000 project <br />cost. <br />Fahey reported that the purpose of the hearing was to consider <br />whether or not to order the improvement and if ordered, accepting <br />the estimated cost of the project and authorizing the City Engineer <br />to prepare plans and specifications. The Council would not be <br />acting on assessments for the improvement. Fahey noted that the <br />$72,000 cost is only an estimate at this point. Actual costs will be <br />known when formal bids are received. If those bids are too high, <br />the Council has the option to reject them. <br />Forbes asked if a public hearing would be held when the Council <br />considers the bids. Fahey noted that no public hearing is required, <br />however, the City could send notices to the property owners when <br />acceptance of bids is scheduled on the Council's a~;enda. <br />The Administrator again pointed out that the County will not be <br />preparing plans and specifications for the recycle project as it is <br />field designed. With regard to the Forbes property, the <br />Administrator noted that it appears this property is subdividable. <br />As a result, it would be assessed as two lots. However, there is the <br />development deferral option available, which would defer the <br />assessment for the second lot until such time as the property is <br />actually subdivided. However, interest would accrue on this <br />deferred assessment. Another option would be for the property <br />owner to agree never to subdivide the property that would result in <br />the assessment for the second lot being deleted. A deed restriction <br />needs to be filed if this option is chosen. These choices would not <br />need to be made until the assessment hearin~ is held this fall. <br />Nardini pointed out that there is the potential for senior citizen <br />deferrals. The Administrator agreed that this was another option. <br />The City would carry the cost of senior deferrals that would <br />continue to accrue interest. Assessments would go back on the <br />propeRy in the event of sale, subdivision, or death of the property <br />