11/22/1999 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Staff distributed a copy of the utility plans and a copy of the estimated costs and reviewed them in detail. The approximate assessment cost to each lot for the Nancy Drive Utility Improvements is $28,000, which does not include SAC charges, permit fees, and installation of a meter. Staff also noted that the project was initiated by residents in the area because of the utilities that were installed along Lake Drive. If the appraisal does not cover the cost of the assessment for each lot, the City will have to find alternative funding to move forward with this project. The residents in the area can determine whether the project should proceed. Council Member Neal asked if it is possible to only install sewer. He stated that water is not a problem in the area and the road is still in good shape. If a water pipe was installed, residents could hook up to the water service when they see fit. Staff advised they would not recommend installing sewer only. Part of the roadway would still have to be removed. Therefore, a street restoration cost would still be added to the assessment charges. Council Member Lyden asked about the final figure, which is different from the lateral benefit figure. Staff advised trunk assessments, unit and area assessment, and system wide improvement costs are added to the lateral benefit figure. Mayor Sullivan noted the assessment charges are very high du tr onstruction costs. Mayor Sullivan opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Richard Kelly, 7951 Nancy Drive, asked if th come in at a lower figure than the assess forward with the project, another fund' have to cover the costs or reduce t as leaving out curb and gutter Mr. Kelly asked at w advised that the Coun owners. ther path to take if the appraisals ed if the City chooses to move have to be identified. The City would ject further. There are options to look at such City would determine the project should be dropped. Staff e that decision based on petitions received from property Mr. Richard Urbis, 7940 Nancy Drive, stated he is concerned that the project will cost even more for the few residents that want the project to go forward. Ms. Janelle Wouness, 719 Vicky Lane, asked why the City couldn't identify an alternate -funding source before the appraisals are ordered. Staff advised they are unaware of any other funding source that is available. Staff may not be comfortable with any other variation of the project. Staff noted the assessment cost is based on construction costs. Mayor Sullivan advised that the City does not typically pay 100% of road improvements. There is an assessment process that has to be followed. Mr. Keith Peterson, 761 Vicky Lane, stated he has never had a problem with drainage. He asked if the project could be completed without storm sewers. Staff advised the storm sewer 6