07-08-1992 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 11, 1992 spread out over 5 years, and under Option B assessments would be spread out over 10 years. Birch suggested that Option C was not a viable option if the City will not then take ownership of the road. Blesener pointed out that just because the City takes ownership does not mean that if a reconstruction is necessary some time in the future, that the costs would not be assessed. When the City assumes ownership of the road, the City assumes the normal maintenance and repair of the road. City policy is to assess reconstruction projects. A property owner stated that it was his opinion that there was responsibility on the part of the City as well as Art Ryan, and not the property owners. It was suggested that the property owners need to give some thought to the situation. A property owner asked if the choices would be different if the City owned the road. Collova replied that he supports Blesener's position and did not believe the City should assume any responsibility for improvement costs because the property owners never paid for a road in the first place. A property owner pointed out that they have all paid their share to Art Ryan. The City Engineer pointed out that he has presented the property owners the alternatives as a starting point. The Engineer suggested that a committee of City staff and representatives of the property owners get together to pursue these alternatives further. The Engineer felt that the committee could work out a solution, and suggested that details about cost could be worked out later. A property owner asked if the City will accept maintenance of the road under any of the three alternatives. Blesener agreed that the City would accept general maintenance responsibility under each of the three options. Harris reported that general maintenance includes snowplowing, crack - filling, repair of pot holes, sweeping and sealcoating. Page 14 Page 20