04/02/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I i I I I I Payor Beitman procee~-~c~ to explain M~. l~ta's alternative ~etho~ in a~roxi~te n~ ~ folios: ~e ~] ~st of ~e ~oject J~ $234,000; additional area ~e Ct~ ~s r~st~ng ~ng a6~ ~ ~e ~oject, ~s $151,000; ~at leaves m r~ai~er of $82,000; ~ ~arter, ~e C~ ~n ~r~ci~ in ~e ~st of ~ns~llat~on ~ 20% ($43,000); ~at ]eaves a r~ai~er of $39,000; ~e 190 uni~ pro~ for Fl~n~ ~] should ~ add~ to ~e 43 existing ~]~ ~n Flin~ I as ~ey will ~ a ~rt of Water~ District 843; ~1 un]~ ~uld ~en ~ 233 ~ ~at $39,000 ~hould ~ distribut~ ~ng ~o~ 233 uni~; ~ere ~uld ~en ~ a $12~$140 as~s~nt ~r ~it ra~er ~ ~84 ~r ~it; ~n addition, ~e Ci~'s ~0% ~rtic]~tion ~~ ~ $16 ~r Ci~ resident. ~yor Re]~ s~t~ ~at ~e ~lic hearing h~ ~en held ~ ~e 60 day clock is r~ing ~ he ~uld like ~ s~ ~ ~i~le ~lution ~fore ~ o~sing ~tition is s~itt~ and ~e project is ~ut ~. John Lichter - Stated that if the City would adopt Mr. Data's proposed alternative, a majority of the citizens in Flint3~ I would not oppose the project. Mr. Lichter also stated that there are some situations that Council should be aware of that ler~d credence to the City participating 20% in the project cost: 1) existing drainage is from water upstream and upstream areas are not proposed to be assessed; 2) the project is necessary for P.U.D. develotm~ent and the City has resolved that P.U.D.'s are in the City's best interest for tax base; 3) City stands to gain significant benefit and therefore should participate in the (Dost of the storm drainage project. Mayor Beitman suggested that a more specific proposal be prepared and reviewed by Council and affected residents. Councilmerber Cox stated that Council should first discuss whether or not it is appropriate for the City to participate in the project cost prior to expending monies for engineerin9 time to prepare another proposal; suggested that participating in project oost could set a precedence. Mayor Beitman replied that it would only be a precedence if you choose to view it that way and is the City allowing develolmnent of land which should not have been considered for building on at this point in time, but now we are oommi tted? Mr. Goodrich stated that by law, the City is not bound if they participate by 20% in this case. Councilm~r Cox noted that this is the Citizen Input portion of the agenda arK] this storm sewer project should be added to this or a following Council agenda for discussion. Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to place 'Discussion Of Assessment Methods For Storm Drainage Improvement Project 185-1 Watershed District ~43' on the Council agenda as Case #5.lq. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor ]~eitman, Councilpersons Cox, Sorteberg, Schlueter and 1qeimann. Voting No: None. February 26, 1985 Page 7 of 26