My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-2006 CC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
06-19-2006 CC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:36:24 AM
Creation date
7/7/2006 9:29:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
6/19/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Councillvfinutes <br />June 19, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Kevin Murray, 9660 178th Avenue-Questioned if I-:lidden Creek were to be removed from <br />the assessment roll, when the project could come back again for a possible improvement <br />and ho\v much it may cost. <br /> <br />lvir. Maurer stated it could possibly come back in !:\Va years. He couldn't give an estimate on <br />cost. He stated the city has been fortunate to keep the cost low because construction costs <br />have increased so much in the last fe\V~ years. <br /> <br />Nicole Bahr, 18222 Ogden Street-Questioned why everyone has to pay the same amount <br />when other streets in the improvement project may cost more to repair. She stated the <br />amount of the assessment seems astronomical. <br /> <br />Ivfr. Maurer stated everyone in the improvement pr'oject is treated equally. He stated <br />residents are paying for the contractor to lay asphalt and the city would be taking care of the <br />rest of the work that needs to be done. He stated many streets are combined into one large <br />project in order to bring the cost of the improvement down. He stated if streets were done <br />on an individual basis, then the costs \V~ould be much higher. <br /> <br />Mayor I<linzing closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />1vlayor I<linzing explained where taxes go in the city budget. She stated she believes that if <br />improvement projects were paid for from general city fund it \vould make the Council's job <br />eaSIer. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz stated he disagreed with Mayor I<linzing. He felt the assessment <br />process is a fair \vay to handle improvement projects. He stated if funds \vere taken from <br />ta..xes, then the issue becomes a political/lobbying issue by residents on who \Vill get their <br />road'repaired. He stated the property O\vner is getting the benefit and should pay for it and <br />once they pay for their road improvement they're done; othenvise everyone's taxes are going <br />up more each year to pay for all the city roads. He stated the process would be slower and <br />more cumbersome if taken from city general funds. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gumphrey questioned lvir. Maurer's assessment of 214th Avenue. <br /> <br />T\1r. Maurer stated it does need an overlay and was most likely built to a lesser road standard. <br /> <br />1vIayor I<linzing stated drainage and berrning should be revie\\ted in Ridge\vood. <br /> <br />1v1r. Maurer stated he and the street superintendent could meet \v;th residents in Ridge\.vood <br />to review the issues discussed tonight. He stated additional work should not be included in <br />the overlay proj ect. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gumphrey requested Chief Beahen be included in reviewing safety issues in <br />Ridgewood. <br /> <br />11ayor I<linzing questioned of Ridgewood roads should be rebuilt. <br /> <br />rvIr. Maurer stated an overlay \Vm extend the life of the road. He stated if it is rebuilt it \vould <br />be many years before it could happen due to many other projects that are in front of it. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.