Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, '" <br /> Arden Hills Council 3 April 11, 1994 <br />. relating to the cost of the improvement project. Person <br /> stated that the materials testing process, overhead <br /> items, and extra items needed in the field, historically <br /> were not included in the initial packet from the Engineer <br /> (Maier Stewart) . She further noted to refer to a memo <br /> faxed to her that day from the Engineer that explained <br /> the cost differential. These additional cost items were <br /> included in the contractor's specifications and <br /> therefore, included in the total bid price. <br /> Malone commented that since there is a slight increase in <br /> the cost as outlined in the contractor's bid, he would <br /> recommend a rate of $10.25 for the cold-in-place <br /> recycling project, and a rate of $29.50 for the <br /> reconstruction project to reflect the slightly higher <br /> cost for the improvements. He further noted that this <br /> would be allowed as outlined in the assessment manual. <br /> MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Malone to approve <br /> Resolution #94-31, establishing the assessment rates <br /> to be $10.25 for the cold-in-place recycling project <br /> and $29.50 for the reconstruction project in the <br /> matter of the 1994 Pavement Management Improvement <br /> project. Motion carried unanimously (4-0) . <br />. REOUEST FROM THOMAS GOSERUD. ARDEN HILLS NURSERY <br /> TO WAIVE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH REOUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. <br /> Probst referred to a letter received in the packet from <br /> Mr. Goserud outlining his reasons for the request to <br /> waive the fee associated with the Special Use Permit. <br /> Probst asked Mr. Goserud if he had anything to add that <br /> had not already been mentioned in the letter. Mr. <br /> Goserud stated he had nothing further to add at that <br /> time. <br /> Malone commented that as part of the Special Use Permit <br /> function, fees are involved to cover attorney costs, <br /> publications and other related expenses. He further <br /> noted that the actual cost would be higher as staff's <br /> time was not calculated in the fee schedule. These fees <br /> help to cover the costs in maintaining the general order <br /> of City Hall. <br /> Aplikowski noted that she would support refunding the <br /> fee, and staff should review the rules in the application <br /> fee procedures. She stated that as City rules change, the <br /> City should notify all parties possibly affected by the <br /> change. <br />. Hicks asked whether similar situations of that nature had <br /> previously been brought before the staff, and whether the <br />