07/08/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 8, 2002 City Engineer Studenski indicated this project would have interim funding out of the Area and Unit Fund with the ultimate replacement of those funds through assessments to benefited properties. The City Finance Director would determine whether there would be a need to issue bonds for this project. City Engineer Studenski stated the residents affected by this project would be those owning property on Marshan Lane and the travelers along Lake Drive. The utilities would be extended on the east side of Lake Drive to Marshan Lane, therefore, there would be a minor affect on the vehicular traffic on Lake Drive. City Engineer Studenski stated, as with all other City assessed projects, trunk area and unit charges would be applied for both sanitary sewer and water, as well as lateral charges for the sanitary sewer and water main and Surface Water Management charges. City Engineer Studenski stated the extension of sanitary sewer a feasible option for the City and residents. This project has bee project is to move forward, it would follow with their recomme would be assessed appropriately. water main down Marshan Lane is ted by the residents and, if the do so and the residents City Engineer Studenski advised City staff recommends that ty Council close the public hearing for the Marshan Lane Utility Improvements and begi 6 -day comment period. Councilmember Carlson requested confirmation one last fall with nine signatures, and another Studenski stated this was correct. He indicat feasibility report for the extension of sani Lane. The second petition received in forward. petitions had been received on this project, ith four signatures. City Engineer e initial petition had requested the completion of a d water main to serve the residents on Marshan equested that the process for this project move Councilmember Carlson noted the ` . er requires at least 25 percent of the benefited property owners to have signed a pet • rder • project to continue. She expressed concern that the number of residents who signs e . itio s dropped from nine on the original petition to only four on the second. She requested c firmation that if during the 60 -day comment period, another four benefiting property owners petitioned against this project, then the project would not move forward. City Engineer Studenski stated this was correct. Mayor Bergeson suggested that the City Attorney address what would make this project move forward or be abandoned. He noted at this point the City has four out of 10 residents asking that the project move forward. It was City Attorney Hawkins' opinion that, unless a petition is filed within the 60 -day comment period with four or more signatures opposing the project, then the project could be ordered by the City Council.