Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Peterson indicated that he had figured two lots in the calculation because the lot can <br />be split. <br /> <br />Mayor Sweeney indicated it would be fair to stub in one and charge for that one if the <br />property can be split. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated she would like to ask them if they want to <br />incur the cost for the second water stub at this time and, if not, charge them for the sewer <br />and if they want to split the property in the future they incur the costs to bring water to <br />the lot at that time. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra asked for clarification on the proposed assessment to Ground <br />Development. Mr. Peterson indicated that there is room between the pond and the trail <br />for a lot or two. <br /> <br />Mr. Runkle indicated that he has been looking into the possibility of getting one or two <br />lots in the area discussed and noted that they would still meet the 20% greenspace <br />requirement if they platted those two lots. He then said that he is in the process of <br />obtaining permission from the County for access for those two lots and, if he is able to <br />get access and make them buildable lots they are fine with the assessment. But, if the <br />County will not grant access then the lots are not buildable and they would protest an <br />assessment for water that provides no benefit to the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Runkle handed out a letter explaining that they would like to work with the City and <br />accept the assessment if they can subdivide and get access from the CoUnty. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that the assessment information was given for Council <br />reference as to whether to move forward with the proj ect and there will be an assessment <br />public hearing in the future. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if water is accessible to her in the ditch and <br />whether there would be an assessment for that. Mr. Peterson indicated there would be a <br />stub there for future extension to the south but that does not require an assessment at this <br />time because it is just a jog in the pipe to miss the road. <br /> <br />Motion was made by Council Member Capra and seconded by Council Member Lee <br />}';;.. to approve Resolution #03-043 as presented. All in favor. Motion carried <br />unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson indicated that there is 30% for indirect costs and a 5% contingency and he <br />would like to ask Council to direct the consulting engineer to provide a breakdown of the <br />costs before the project and a reconciliation of the costs after the project is done as that <br />was not done last time. <br /> <br />Council directed Mr. Peterson to provide an accounting of costs before and a <br />reconciliation of those costs afterward. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 11 <br />