CC 07-31-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. - . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL-JULY 31, 2006 7 Councilmember Pellegrin asked where the disagreement was between staff and the contractor. Ms. Giga responded there was no disagreement. They were still looking at alternatives to get the temporary line in at a lower cost, is possible. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Change Order #2 for the 2006 PMP project in an amount not to exceed $13,420.00. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). H. 2006 PMP Assessments Ms. Giga stated a portion of the costs for the 2006 PMP proj ect are assessed to the benefiting properties. In order to assess these costs, the City must follow the public hearing steps outlined in State Statute 429. The first step in the assessment process is consideration of a resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of assessment rolls. Next, in order to comply with the statutory assessment process, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution setting a hearing date for the assessments. Public hearings are required in order to assess the cost of public improvements. The proposed assessments have been prepared in accordance with Arden Hills' assessment policy previously adopted by the City Council. She recommended Council hold the assessment hearing on August 28, 2006 for the 2006 PMP Ridgewood Neighborhood improvements. She reviewed the financial implications. She recommended Council approve Option 1, based on the contractor's bid price. Councilmember Holden asked what the average increase was of the PMP projects as they went forward. Ms. Giga responded she was not sure what the average increase has been in the past. Ms. Wolfe stated on previous proj ects the street portion, which was the part the City assessed for, was actually close to what was estimated. The increases happened due to changes in utilities and stormwater. Councilmember Larson asked the assessment per unit rate compared to Edgewater. Ms. Giga responded it was a wide range. She indicated the average was right around $5,000.00 but that does not consider inflation or significant increases in construction costs over the last few years. Councilmember Larson stated the most important thing for the City to adhere to was the idea that they base their assessments for the street improvements that are assessed as closely to the actual costs as possible, and therefore he was in favor of Option I. He believed it was a good idea to come up with some estimates early on, but he believed they should always try and base the assessment on the bid costs if they could do it. He suggested adding a sentence to the assessment policy stating if they had the costs, those costs would be used. Councilmember Holden stated she was in favor of Option I also. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve Resolution 06-41: Resolution Declaring Costs to be