Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />October 22, 1984 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />in the Heavenly Hills Addition gave easements to the City for the improvement <br />project. The City Administrator indicated that one property owner would not <br />give an easement and it required the City to purchase the easement necessary for <br />the road improvement project. <br /> <br />Ms. Georgia Goulet submitted a written objection to the assessment along <br />jection forms signed by six other residents in the Heavenly Hills area. <br />written objections were submitted from the floor. <br /> <br />with ob- <br />Five more <br /> <br />Mr. David Sellergren, Attorney for the City, indicated that an assessment hearing <br />is scheduled to allow the City Council to determine costs of an improvement project <br />and assess those costs fairly and appropriately to the benefited properties. Mr. <br />Sellergren indicated that the homeowners preserved their right to objection by <br />submitted written notice of that objection at the assessment hearing. Mr. Sellergren <br />indicated that the written objection allows the homeowner to contest the legality <br />of the assessment in District Court if they so choose. <br /> <br />Mr. Tim Ostrom indicated that the objection submitted by Mrs. Himes is invalid, as <br />she does not own property in the Heavenly Hills Addition. Mr. Ostrom further in- <br />dicated that he felt the fact that the City had to purchase an easement from <br />Mr. Nystrom was unfair as the rest of the property owners in the addition voluntar- <br />ily gave their easements. <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on between the City Council and the residents in the Heavenly <br />Hills area regarding legal costs and that if the assessments were contested in <br />Court, the legal costs would be added to the cost of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Larry Sitts indicated that if a property owner protested the cost of the <br />assessment, they would have to pay their own attorney as well as legal costs in- <br />curred by the City, as the City's legal costs would be a cost to the project. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the projected assessment costs do not in- <br />clude a contingency for legal costs and further indicated that the City Council <br />could add a contingency for legal costs to the total cost of the project prior <br />to assessment. <br /> <br />Ms. Rita Hirschey questioned the grade of the hill on Ulysses in the Heavenly Hills <br />Addition. Mr. John Gilbertson, engineer from Consulting Engineers Diversified, <br />indicated that the grade of the hill was within the City's ordinance and further <br />indicated that the hill was shaped to allow for visability and safe driving. <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on regarding curves within the project, signage and the <br />construction of the shoulders. Ms. Kitty Omitt indicated that they had a washout <br />problem in front of their home. Discussion was also carried on regarding the <br />width of the road, the blacktop and the shoulders. <br /> <br />Mr. Mike Goulet questioned the requirement of a 30 foot roadbed in the Heavenly <br />Hills Addition and something less than that was required by the City on 211th <br />Avenue. The City Administrator indicated that 211th was an extension off of an <br />