My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-05-2000 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
01-05-2000 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2012 1:12:59 PM
Creation date
6/27/2012 12:51:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
MAYOR <br />Michael I. Fahey <br />COUNCIL <br />Beverly Scalze <br />Jim LaValle <br />Steve Morelan <br />Bob Pedersen <br />515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 ADMINISTRATOR <br />(651) 484 -2177 / FAX: (651) 484 -4538 Joel R. Hanson <br />Email: cityhall @ci.little- canada.mn.us <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Mayor Fahey & Members of the City Council <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />DATE: December 30, 1999 <br />RE: Improvement Hearing for Little Canada Road Project <br />On January 19, we will be holding a neighborhood meeting with affected property owners <br />related to the improvement of Little Canada Road in 2000. In order to keep this project on track, <br />it would be my recommendation that we hold an improvement hearing the first week of <br />February. If you want to stay on a Wednesday night schedule, then I would recommend we hold <br />the hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 2, 2000. <br />Another issue we will need to address is the rate of assessment for this project. As you know, <br />our assessment policy for commercial streets requires 80% of project costs be assessed to <br />abutting property owners with the City picking up all of the storm sewer costs. (The policy also <br />indicates that 100% of curb and gutter costs are assessed.) The Engineer is reviewing cost <br />estimates and will indicate to us what assessment would result in following this policy. We will <br />also compare that to some of our other past projects (Minnesota and Lakeshore). My concern is <br />we may need to review this policy in greater detail to ensure we are not exceeding the benefits <br />received test. This does not need to occur before the improvement hearing, but is something we <br />need to resolve before we assess the project. Your input on this matter would be appreciated. <br />JRH:kpp <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.