CCP 06-26-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. ..~C()UN~12.1995 '3 Mr. Cliff Aamoth, 1748 County Road F West. indicated he suppota:dall thl:,~....".'r"r~previously I made by the residents. I Mr. Aamom indicated the. CountY bad o:ffeted to n:surfac;e and the City refused. Mr. Aamom indicated he felt the reason the road is in need of reconsttUCrion was due to the buses I and heavy traffic from the high schoo!. Mayor Probst indicated the County did have a level 90 condition on the road, but could not do the I "reject so they decided. to do a recycle and resunace. This would not have addressed the draiDage issues and me life cycle would have been very short. The n:surfac;ing may have bought some time. I but the funds from the CountY would not have been available when it came time to improve the road. I Mn. Schacht inquired as to who will OvetSee the project. With various digging going on, how do the residents know when someone will be on their propertY' and if they are in the ccmect =- I Mr. Mauer indicated in regards to the utility co~es such as the gas. electric, phone or cable; they are not responsible for their actions when they are within the right of way. Mr. Mauer indicted they would make a note to make sure to contaCt them and review meir actions. I. Sharon Turgeon, 1777 Yenus A venue., inquired as to howtb.e 532.50 per from foot assessment was established. She indicated she did not want this amount to set a precedent for furore improvements. I Ms. Turgeon felt tb.e Bus CoIfl.ll3I1}' should pay approxiInateiy :580 per from foot and the School pay 360 per :front foot. I Ms. Saily Jones. 1691 C.ry5t3.1 Avenue, indic:ued she felt it was hard to believe tIlis improvement would create :55,000 additional curb ~ or increase value to her home along the b:u;lqard. I Ms. Jones felt a per lot assessment would have been more :J?propriate. I Ms. Jones noted a flyer with the phone numbets of the project inspector and othcrimportan1 numbers regarding the project. She indicated each resident should have received one. I Mr. Taven:rier indicated according to the cost and funding snmmary presented earlier. the cost has gone down by 370,000. He inquired as to where the reduction appears. I Mr. Stonehouse indicated the estimaIe included CW1, and gutter for the entite road and now mere will be a section of the road without curb and gutter. He noted the cost of the improvements did not I actually go down. but some Qf the variable funding retCm:d to earlier was aiIected. I. I