Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Cook inquired if the Council was to decide to proceed with the asphalt option <br />where would those funds come from and what are the total costs for the three projects. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the first project would cost around $600,000, the <br />second project would cost around $320,000, and the third project would be approximately <br />$570,000 for a total project cost of $1.4 million including the paving. Of that 1.4 million there <br />would be easement costs necessary and there would be a 50 percent assessment to the benefited <br />properties on the street costs. Most of the funds for the project would come from the sewer and <br />water enterprise fund. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook to recommend that the City Council schedule a public heating <br />for the proposed improvements, send out a copy of the updated feasibility studies for the three <br />projects to the respective residents and initiate negotiations with the appropriate homeowners to <br />acquire the easements necessary to complete the projects. <br /> <br />Motion failed for the lack of a second. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman stated that he can appreciate the bigger picture of all three <br />subdivisions, but he felt that the City should tackle the issues on a project-by-project basis. He <br />stated that the City should get a consensus of the property owners as to who wants the <br />assessments and who does not because there was no reason for the City to force the <br />improvements down their throat. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook replied that the only way to give the property owners the option is to <br />provide them with a copy of the feasibility study and let them speak at the public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that seems to be a lot of opposition to the projects so he questioned <br />why the City would spend money to redevelop an area when there is a lot of new development <br />occurring in the City. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that he keeps heating that there is a lot of opposition, but he <br />did not believe that was the case. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig replied that the minutes reflect that there is a lot of opposition. That being <br />said he did agree that they needed to hear the position of the property owners. He suggested that <br />staff provide the property owners with a copy of the feasibility study and then let them come <br />forward requesting the project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that typically you only hear from people who are opposed to a <br />project and if they hold the public hearing they can hear from everyone. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she felt that the Pondvale project could be delayed, but the <br />other project where safety is an issue because the road may be become impassable needs to be <br />addressed. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/May 20, 2003 <br /> Page 15 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />