My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/13/2002 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2002
>
05/13/2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2014 2:40:39 PM
Creation date
2/4/2014 12:59:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/13/2002
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 8, 2002 <br />• City Attorney Hawkins advised if the final cost of the project is equal to or less than the City <br />Engineer's estimate, then the developer cannot appeal the assessment. <br />• <br />• <br />Mayor Bergeson expressed concern regarding the issue of ownership of the property and whether the <br />developer or the future homeowners would be responsible for payment of the assessment. <br />City Attorney Hawkins indicated the assessment must be paid in full prior to a building permit being <br />issued on the project. <br />Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 02 -28, Ordering the plans and specifications <br />for the West Shadow Ponds Street Improvements. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. <br />Councilmember Carlson stated she respects the opinions of the other Councilmembers and staff, <br />however, she would not be voting in favor of this project. She noted the project was not included in <br />the City's annual budget, nor the draft five -year plan. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan has <br />numerous references to requiring infrastructure improvements to be paid by developers. She <br />acknowledged that the City would receive back the money invested in this project, however, she <br />noted the City does not install the infrastructure for all residential projects and she was concerned <br />about fairness to the other developers. She added that the City was not allowing some other projects <br />to go through due to road issues. <br />Councilmember Dahl asked what the normal repayment schedule is for an assessment. City Attorney <br />Hawkins stated this depends upon the project and some assessments schedules can run for up to 30 <br />years. <br />Councilmember Dahl asked Councilmember Carlson to elaborate on her concerns regarding this <br />project. <br />Councilmember Carlson stated she has reviewed the City's Charter, which requires the Council to <br />approve projects according to the budget and this project was not included in the budget for this year. <br />Additionally, the project was not included in the five -year plan and the Comprehensive Plan specifies <br />that the City should not fund infrastructure improvements for private developments. She added the <br />City does not do this type of work for all developments and has not agreed to this type of project for a <br />number of years. <br />City Administrator Waite Smith stated this project would not affect the City's operating budget, only <br />the debt service levy. She questioned what would happen if the City, after approving the <br />development agreement, failed to follow through with the installation of infrastructure as called for in <br />the agreement. <br />It was the opinion of City Attorney Hawkins that because the City is contractually obligated to <br />perform this work, there would be no option for the City to not follow through. He stated if the City <br />failed to order the proposed improvements, this would result in a breach of contract. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.