Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - ____________n__ <br /> - " <br /> Arden Hills Council 6 March 14, 1994 . <br /> John Pattersen. 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Cliff Bovum. 1426 Bussard Court - Mr. Boyum echoed the <br /> same concerns raised by John Pattersen. <br /> Mayor Sather closed the public hearing at 8:18 pm. . <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 /> 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 /> 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 />