1985-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 10, 1985 In response to Wilke's question, Blomquist stated that Silver Lake Road is a County road. Wilke suggested pulling off the assessment against individual property owners and assessing the project city- wide or county-wide, whichever is appropriate, because the work is on a County road. Blomquist asked for a comparison of the assessment rates for the curb on Silver Lake Road versus the rates for residential streets; Proper indicated the cost for the Silver Lake Road construction would be about $400 per SO-foot lot, and that the assessments for the Pike Lake Area street rehabilitation last year were $2,000 per 80-foot lot for curb and street. Harcus indicated that Silver Lake Road is different from residential streets because of the volume. In looking at the total cost, Benke wondered what the cost would be if the cost is put on the tax roles and maintained over a nine-year period; perhaps it's a question of whether or not we should go through the process on such a small amount. LeFevere stated the City can't use bond proceeds without a special election; it could be financed from another source. Harcus suggested deferring action until the points raised by the residents have been examined. Blomquist questioned the criteria used when residential streets are updated and how that criteria compared with the Silver Lake Road construction. Proper indicated the Silver Lake Road project's criteria was moving traffic and congestion at the bridge, concerns for pedestrians over the bridge; if matched against the City's criteria, the work would not have been scheduled for this time. Benke noted that if the assessment is deferred for one year, it would add another year's interest to the cost; suggested that per- haps we do not want to assess this project, given its nature. Blomquist asked if we could defer the assessment until next year, pay for it from another source, and then reconsider this amount next year. LeFevere responded the Council may wish to continue the hearing for purposes of allowing additional input, close the public hearing in which you would have six months to adopt the assessments, or close the public hearing and make a decision at a later date. As there were no further comments or questions from the public, Harcus moved, seconded by Blomquist, to ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4 AYes ~ 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Page Three