Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 16, 2008 <br />One property owner indicated that there are some bad spots on the street, <br />but felt that with a little maintenance the street could last for a number of <br />years. This property owner indicated that he does not want City water. <br />Keis indicated that based on the City's goal of getting water main to all <br />properties in the City, it is not likely that the road would be improved <br />without the water main. Eventually the road will get so bad that it will <br />have to be done. Keis noted that the longer the improvement is put off, <br />the more costly it becomes. <br />One property owner indicated that it was his understanding that the City <br />would no longer maintain the road. The City Administrator replied that <br />potholes will be repaired, however, significant patching, crack filling, and <br />sealcoating will not be done. This level of repair on a road in poor <br />condition would not be a good investment of taxpayer dollars. The <br />Administrator indicated that while it may be possible to put off the road <br />reconstruction for a couple of years, significant freeze/thaw cycles could <br />speed up the road deterioration. The Administrator noted that he can <br />understand the property owners' desire to put off the road improvement, <br />but noted that there are advantages to doing the work this year given the <br />market and the fact that the City will be doing a large water main project <br />in another area of the City. Combining with that water main project could <br />bring some economies of scale. <br />One property owner indicated that while the property owners would like a <br />new street as well as the option of City water, they have sticker shock over <br />the level of assessments. The property owner indicated that he would like <br />to wait a few more years with the improvement. <br />Of the six Lakeside Court property owners present, all six indicated <br />opposition to the improvement at this time. <br />There was no one else present wishing to comment on the proposed <br />improvement. <br />Upon motion by Allan, seconded by Montour, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOL UTION NO. 2008-I -16 -REJECTING PROPOSED <br />IMPROVEMENT NO. 2008-03 FOR LAKESIDE COURT BY <br />RECONSTRUCTED ROAD SURFACE, CONCRETE CURB AND <br />GUTTER, WATER MAIN, AND DRAINAGE ENHANCEMENTS <br />4 <br />