05/14/2001 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 14, 2001 and it appeared there are several questions relating to the process necessary to meet the timeline. She noted she is not opposed to the project. She distributed a letter outlining her concerns and reviewed them in detail. She asked that her issues be addressed. She also asked if there will be County funds available for the improvements. She requested clarification on the City process relating to the project. Mayor Bergeson stated the City depends on staff for the right and legal order of the City process. There will be an assessment hearing relating to the stoplight. City Engineer Powell outlined the process for the public improvements (State Statute Chapter 429). He stated the City does not need to have a detailed plan to prepare a feasibility study. The feasibility study is a separate issue from the Planning and Zoning Board process. The City needs to expedite the process for the public improvements. The study will define the assessments and benefiting property owners relating to the stoplight. The cost for the study will be assessed to benefiting property owners if the project moves forward. Council Member Carlson asked for an estimate of the total costs of th- . light. City Engineer Powell stated that is why the City needs the feasibility study. The be more detailed than the funding request received. Council Member Carlson stated her concern is that there determine where the funds will come from. She under 25%, Apollo will be assessed 50%, and the remainin City Engineer Powell stated the assessment met and assessment hearing. The study is not li not a development agreement. Property oplights and the City has to marketplace will be assessed ill be to the City and property owners. roportions will be determined in the study erbiage in the funding request. The study is have a right to appeal assessments. Council Member Carlson stated th •pe" putting language in that indicates what he understood. The City Attorney advise' he has gal concerns. The fact is that the petition does not bind the City to anything. City Administrator Waite S i�' h stated Council Member Carlson's concerns are related to a letter proposing cost sharing on a different project. The City Attorney verified that the letter is different from the letter submitted on the other project. City Engineer Powell suggested the following statement be added to the resolution: WHEREAS, not withstanding the developer's claims regarding assessable costs in the May 8, 2001, letter, the City will determine benefiting properties and assessable costs and methods. Council Member Dahl asked who pays for the study if the improvements are not completed. City Engineer Powell stated there is some benefit of the study. The City may be able to assess for the cost of the study. 19