Laserfiche WebLink
107 <br />COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 <br />overhead projector and showed the location of White Tail Ridge <br />and noted that at this time, only four (4) property owners are <br />involved in the assessment. He gave the background on the <br />improvement and explained that because of excessive moisture this <br />construction season, the cost of the improvement was more than <br />estimated. <br />Dennis Cheesebrow, 2121 White Tail Ridge presented a letter of <br />protest to the assessment proposed for his property. He noted <br />that on June 21, 1990, Mr. Hawkins was instructed to conduct an <br />appraisal of Lot 30, owned by Mr. and Mrs. James Katzung to <br />determine if the lot was buildable. On August 13, 1990 the <br />Council was informed by Mr. Boxrud that the lot was unbuildable <br />at this time and therefore could not be assessed. However, Mr. <br />Hawkins explained to Mr. Katzung during that meeting that if some <br />time in the future when sewer and water utilities were available <br />and Lot 30 was improved and divided an assessmen£ for the street <br />improvement would be due. Mr. Cheesebrow requested that the <br />resolution to approve the assessment for White Tail Ridge include <br />language that would allow the City to assess Lot 30 when in the <br />future the lot is divided, improved, built upon or combined with <br />Lot 31 and the assessment be refunded to the four (4) landowners <br />who are being assessed at this time. Mr. Cheesebrow also <br />requested that if Lot 31 were ever divided and built upon, the <br />assessment for the remaining 65 feet of frontage be imposed at <br />that time and the assessment refunded to the four (4) landowners <br />who are being assessed at this time. <br />Mr. Dennis Smith, 2101 White Tail Ridge presented a letter <br />protesting his assessments and explained that he has the same <br />concerns and objections. He also objected to the costs above the <br />$99.00 per front foot originally estimated. He explained that if <br />the Council would have accepted the original bid received in late <br />1990, the street would have constructed before all of the rain <br />came this summer. Mr. Smith explained that bid was lower than <br />what he will be paying now. He also noted that there were a lot <br />of delays and this has cost him higher living costs since he sold <br />his home and now is living in a town house. <br />Mr. Boxrud explained that the bid amount received last fall was <br />much higher than the bid received with the Brandywood Estates <br />improvement. The assessments include engineering, administration <br />fees, legal fees and other fees besides the actual cost of <br />construction. The bid received last fall was more than 10% over <br />the engineer's estimate and the City Charter required that the <br />Council not award the bid. <br />Mr. Boxrud noted that he was aware of the concerns regarding Lots <br />30 and 31 but forgot to include them in the resolution to adopt <br />the assessments. Mr. Hawkins explained that there are several <br />PAGE 9 <br />1 <br />1 <br />