My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/13/2003 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2003
>
10/13/2003 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2015 2:59:25 PM
Creation date
2/9/2015 2:41:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/13/2003
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 OCTOBER 13, 2003 <br />APPROVED <br />•458 Director Grochala added that is the amount that would be assessed for any road project next year; it is <br />459 not project -specific. <br />460 <br />461 ii. Public Hearing, West Shadow Lake Drive Area Improvements <br />462 <br />463 Curt Kinghorn, West Shadow Lake Drive, stated he has a lot of confusion. He asked if it is the City's <br />464 position that no matter how big your lot, the assessment will always be $3,150. City Engineer <br />465 Studenski indicated that was correct. He stated at the public meetings they talked about different <br />466 ways road projects get assessed, either per lot or per foot. He indicated they advised during that <br />467 meeting the costs could be between $3,000 to $5,000, so they are staying consistent. <br />468 <br />469 Mr. Kinghorn indicated West Shadow Lake is a lot more rural with rural -sized lots. He asked how <br />470 they can be charged the same. He stated the City web page says if the referendum passes the City <br />471 will raise taxes, so owners here will be paying more taxes and the assessment. Community <br />472 Development Director Grochala agreed. Mr. Kinghorn asked how his lot could be considered the <br />473 same as rural lots. Community Development Director Grochala stated the City looks at it per lot. <br />474 Mr. Kinghorn asked if it is, then, he believes it is an artificial assessment, not based on cost. <br />475 Community Development Director Grochala indicated it is not artificial, it is based on precedent. <br />476 <br />477 Mr. Kinghorn went through the timeline that has taken place, and asked when resident input would <br />478 take place. He stated that in talking with the neighbors they would like to consider sidewalks. He <br />479 asked when they would be able to give that input. Community Development Director Grochala <br />•480 advised that once they get over the 60 -day comment period and then if the referendum passes they <br />481 can do the plan design. He indicated what they have done with other streets is during the design <br />482 phase they meet with residents and get ideas of what the neighborhood may want. Mr. Kinghorn <br />483 indicated the plan they vote on in November will not have those items included. Community <br />484 Development Director Grochala stated what taxpayers are voting on in November is to allow the City <br />485 to levy up to $3.6 million for road improvements. Mr. Kinghorn stated they would not know the <br />486 scope of the project they are giving the City $3.6 million to do. Community Development Director <br />487 Grochala agreed, indicating they would know the general scope. <br />488 <br />489 Mr. Kinghorn stated the report says unknown circumstances could take significant time and money. <br />490 He asked how comfortable Staff is with the $3.6 million cost. City Engineer Studenski indicated <br />491 when they say the plans will be ready next spring, they are talking about the 2004 plans for <br />492 Shenandoah. He indicated they have until spring of 2005 for the West Shadow Lake issues. Mr. <br />493 Kinghorn asked again how confident Staff is in the $2.375 million estimated cost for West Shadow <br />494 Lake. <br />495 <br />496 City Engineer Studenski advised that as with any feasibility study they use their professional <br />497 knowledge to determine costs, and add contingencies for unknowns. He indicated the feasibility <br />498 study is the engineer's estimate, and he feels very confident with that estimate barring any unforeseen <br />499 costs. Mr. Kinghorn indicated when they say `significant additional time and cost' there really is <br />500 none because those factors have already been figured in. City Engineer Studenski indicated they had. <br />501 <br />11102 <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.