Laserfiche WebLink
October 11, 1977 Page 3 <br />before having another analysis made of the City's financial situation. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth asked how often it was best to have the study done, whether <br />it should be done every year or every other year, or whatever. <br />Mr. Chenoweth replied that his firm puts all information into their computer, which <br />is where the information from the 1973 study is, and that it is best to update this <br />information yearly. <br />MSP (Pickar - Ziebarth) to renew the contract with Ehlers & Associates for 1978 and <br />request the debt service study, as outlined by the City Administrator, from <br />Ehler & Associates. 4 ayes <br />SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION - BALK ASSESSMENT HEARING WAIVER <br />Engineer Hubbard reported that when the Balk Addition was approved, a lot was created <br />fronting County Road J. This lot contains the existing home of the Balks. Project <br />1973 -4 did not provide sewer main extension along County Road J between Eastwood <br />and Sunnyside Roads. Therefore, the Balk's lot does not have direct access to a <br />sanitary sewer connection. The matter has been resolved by securing an easement <br />through underdeveloped lots still owned by the Balks fronting on Sunnyside Road. <br />The Balks will contract and pay for the cost of a long sanitary sewer connection <br />from the main on Sunnyside Road to their existing dwelling. <br />Engineer Hubbard stated that because the sewer main was not extended along County <br />Road J, the Balk's lot did not receive an assessment under Project 1973 -4. An <br />assessment for the connection service is required and has been agreed to by the <br />Balks. Such an assessment would normally require a public hearing, however, the <br />Balks have agreed to sign a waiver of the public hearing. <br />Engineer Hubbard reported that in order to come up with an assessment figure for <br />the Balks, he had taken the assessment figure for a 100' lot from the 1973 -4 <br />project and updated it to 1977, which turned out to be $1,927 and that if the <br />charge to Mr. Balk from the contractor he chose was less than $1,927, the City <br />would assess Mr. Balk the difference. However, if it was exactly $1,927 or <br />more, there would be no assessment from the City. <br />Engineer Hubbard stated that he had spoken with Mrs. Balk during the day, and that <br />she had a verbal estimate from a contractor of $1,550 for the required work, which <br />would result in a $377 assessment from the City. <br />Mr. Balk stated that he was concerned with getting stung if the cost of the work <br />was above the estimate and he was still assessed the $377 by the City. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner asked if there would be additional connections put into <br />the line from the adjoining vacant property. Mr. Balk replied that the adjoining <br />property was already hooked into the main sewer system. <br />Attorney Meyers requested that the easements for the sewer line on the adjoining <br />property be recorded so that whoever purchased the property would know they were <br />there. <br />Mayor Pickar suggested that the Council could leave an option open to Mr. Balk that <br />he could come back to the City if he runs into trouble with the cost of the project <br />