Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />.- <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />Ie <br />I <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />March 14, 1994 <br /> <br />John Pattp-Tsp-n. 1434 Bussard Court - Mr. Pattersen asked <br />whether the engineer had considered leaving the existing <br />curb and gutter in place, and stated a recycle and <br />overlay would be appropriate and less costly. <br /> <br />Engineer Maurer stated that the cost savings to taxpayers <br />would be minimal as it would take many man hours to <br />remove the existing asphalt and base. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone noted that the City, as well as, the <br />affected residents would pay the premium to work around <br />the current curb and agreed there would not be a <br />significant savings. He further noted that if the <br />contractor would try and save the existing curb and it <br />was determined it was not working, the contractor would <br />need to start over from the beginning. <br /> <br />Engineer Maurer noted that there could be a quick <br />determination made as to whether there is clay soil under <br />this area, if it is granular and whether there is any <br />sign of vertical separation. <br /> <br />Cliff Royum. ]426 Bussard Court - Mr. Boyum echoed the <br />same concerns raised by John Pattersen. <br /> <br />Mayor Sather closed the public hearing at 8:18 pm. <br /> <br />Mayor Sather noted that since many of the questions <br />raised this evening were regarding assessment costs, he <br />asked Councilmember Malone to address the assessment <br />procedure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone outlined the mechanical part of the <br />improvement process. He noted that as the City'S <br />infrastructure aged, the City needed to formulate a <br />procedure to handle the cost of repairing roads. The <br />City pondered over the idea of raising taxes to pay for <br />these expenses. The City agreed that it would be <br />reasonable to co-fund projects and more suitable for the <br />taxpayers affected by the improvements to share in the <br />cost of the improvements. The assessment procedure <br />incorporates a fair evaluation for persons with corner <br />and odd shape lots. The City has used this assessment <br />policy for approximately four years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone noted that an average lot would be <br />assessed based on front footage and that generally the <br />cost of a reconstruction would be approximately thirty <br />dollars ($30.00) per front footage; and recycling <br />approximately eleven dollars ($11.00) per front footage. <br />He further noted that the assessment amount can be paid <br />over a five year time period, unless the amount is under <br />