Laserfiche WebLink
120 <br />Mrs. Reiber said they felt the 50q, per front footage method followed their <br />grants of easement and would give them a total of $500.00 in the account but <br />they would agree to amend it to include; "...for a total of $500.00". The <br />average lot has 100 front footage, the total front footage is 1,080 feet. <br />Mr. Carmen commented that their letter included basically what Council asked <br />for, and feels they will not let the street deteriorate to this condition <br />again. Council cannot promise a different Council will not decide to assess <br />in the future and feels the residents cannot promise that future residents will <br />want to contribute to the escrow account and they do not want to be responsible <br />for sharing the burden between just a few residents instead of the majority. <br />He thinks the purpose of their agreement is right and they should be given <br />permission to go ahead and pave their street. <br />Mrs. Hanus felt if they included the total of $500.00 in their agreement they <br />should be allowed to proceed with their plans. <br />Mayor Beebe commented he feels this is an important matter and should be done <br />but regarding the third item of their note which states that future property <br />owners are.bound by this procedure in accordance with the Grant of Easement, he <br />cannot see that holding up. He recommended that Council allow them to go ahead <br />since the contractor is ready but suggests these amendments be noted and a new <br />draft of the form be prepared and signed by each individual. He questioned why <br />there were only eight signatures.on the agreement as he understood there were to <br />be nine. <br />Mrs. Reiber stated it would be diff icult to get all the signatures now because <br />several people are on vacation. She explained.at the time these signatures were <br />gotten, the Caputo property was still under negotiation. As far as she knows, Mr. <br />McPhillips does not have the title to the property but he has agreed he will be <br />responsible. They have a signature form from him but it is not with them at this <br />time, and would not be valid until he has the property title. <br />Mayor Beebe said he feels it would be best for a new agreement to be written to <br />include the amendments mentioned and to be signed by all residents at their <br />convenience. <br />Mr. Feneli said the reason this project has taken so Iong to come to a decision <br />is because of the lack of specif.icity in previous documents and communications <br />detailing the type of road. He does not understand why the present agreement <br />reads as it does. The motion made by Council on July 25 stated two contingencies <br />which he feels were rewritten and does not understand why it does not read <br />exactly as Council passed it. <br />Mr. Carmen suggested that Council establish the wording.of the.new agreement to <br />be signed by all property owners so there can be no variation. Also, the <br />resolution passed was subject to two conditions, so it should be amended to <br />incorporate.the changes. Mr. Carmen stated, if everyone agrees, the wording " <br />should be; <br />(cont.)