Laserfiche WebLink
61 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br /> 2 MAY 25, 1993 <br /> 3 PAGE 8 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Councilmember Enrooth observed that it has been forty + years <br /> 7 since the streets have been put in and they need work . He <br /> 8 feels that the Council cannot abdicate its responsibility to <br /> 9 make an informed decision on these improvements . He also felt <br /> 10 there was an advantage being first for improvements as this <br /> 11 type of project will only become more expensive as time goes <br /> 12 on . <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Mayor Ranallo noted it is important that the property owners <br /> 15 who have voiced their concerns and complaints to him regarding <br /> 16 the condition of the City ' s streets be responded to in a <br /> 17 proper fashion . <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Motion carried unanimously <br /> 20 <br /> 21 <br /> 22 B. Assessments for 1993 Street and Utility Improvements <br /> 23 (Resolution No. 93-034 ) <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Motion by Wagner , second by Marks to open the Public Hearing <br /> 0 at 8 : 33 p.m. <br /> 28 Motion carried unanimously <br /> 29 <br /> 30 The City Manager reviewed the assessment period for each <br /> 31 project and the annual interest rate. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Councilmember Fleming advised she would like to make the <br /> 34 property owners ' share of the assessment for the <br /> 35 reconstruction project more equitable and suggested that it be <br /> 36 changed from a thirty-five percent share to something lower . <br /> 37 <br /> 38 The City Manager advised that the City ' s financial advisor, <br /> 39 Springsted, Inc . , recommended the percentage for property <br /> 40 owners go no lower than thirty-five percent . He reviewed the <br /> 41 reasons given by Bob Thistle of Springsted, Inc . There would <br /> 42 be considerable risk involved if this decrease were <br /> . 43 implemented. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Dorothea Higgins , 3409 31st Avenue, felt the front footage <br /> 46 noted on her statement was incorrect . She inquired if she <br /> 47 would be charged what is stated on her invoice or would it <br /> 48 increase if it is determined that her property has more front <br /> 49 footage . She was advised her charge is what will be stated on <br /> 50 her invoice. <br /> 0 <br />