My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/07/2000 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1999-2020 Park Board Packets
>
2000 Park Board Packets
>
02/07/2000 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2014 12:31:57 PM
Creation date
7/24/2014 11:29:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
02/07/2000
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 <br />Per the Council's direction, this project has been split into two (2) separate projects. One project <br />will serve Twilight Acres (generally Vicky Lane) and the other will serve Twilight Acres 2 °d <br />Addition (Nancy Drive, south of Vicky Lane). The original study and the construction cost and <br />assessment impact of splitting the project will be discussed at the public hearing. <br />The improvements discussed at this hearing are those affecting the Twilight Acres Addition <br />(generally Vicky Lane) properties. <br />Staff distributed a copy of the utility plans and a copy of the estimated costs and reviewed them <br />in detail. The approximate assessment cost to each lot for the Vicky Lane Utility Improvements <br />is $17,700, which does not include SAC charges, permit fees, and installation of as meter. Staff <br />noted that if the appraisal does not cover the assessment charge, the City would have to find an <br />alternate- funding source to cover the difference to move forward with the project. <br />Council Member Lyden asked staff to explain the addition of 30% to the assessment fee. Staff <br />advised the City typically adds 30% to the estimated construction cost to determine the project <br />costs. Ten percent (10 %) covers a contingency for construction and 21 engineering and <br />administration fees. If the project runs smoothly and is on time, t 0 of needed and <br />won't be added to the assessment fee. <br />Council Member Lyden advised it is the intent of Coun <br />the appraisal does not at least match the assessme <br />request to Council could be made to order the p1 <br />owners would not have the final cost of as <br />project. <br />mforward with a project that <br />wised that after 60 days, a <br />cations and appraisals. The property <br />er the bids are received on the <br />Mayor Sullivan opened the p 6 p.m. <br />Mr. Mike Adamczak, <br />He also asked if federa <br />does not include hook <br />funding is available due <br />ane, asked if the assessment fee includes hook up to the house. <br />available for the project. Staff advised the assessment fee <br />bing costs will vary. Staff advised it is unlikely any federal <br />the size of the lots. <br />Council directed staff to investigate the possibility of any federal funds or grants. <br />Ms. Joan Delrio, 785 Vicky Lane, asked if the projects include curbing and who is responsible <br />for the appraisal cost. Staff advised the project does include curbing. The City pays for the <br />appraisal cost for the project. If the property owner desires an additional appraisal, it is the <br />property owners cost. <br />Ms. Delrio asked if there is anything available for those who have had their septic fail and have <br />to do something about sewer. Staff advised an evaluation would have to be made if systems have <br />failed. If many have failed it would be an emergency situation and the project would become <br />more important. <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.