CC 11-08-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 8,1999 13 . Mr, Brown noted that some of the Tiller Lane drainage from Lexington Avenue was currently diverted to a pond or wetland behind the houses on Dellwood Street and back into the system. He indicated that the pond size shown with the vacation of Hamline Avenue does not ret1ect treati ng this water. Mr. Brown explained the rationale behind the assessment rate shown in the report. Once the scope of the project was determined, the estimated cost was reduced to a per-foot cost for both street and storm sewer reconstruction. The street estimates ranged from $170 to $210 per foot, depending upon the width of the road and the number of driveways, and an average cost for street reconstruction of $190 per foot was considered. The typical cost for storm and drainage systems was $40 per foot, for a total of$230 per foot. The assessment of$57.50 ret1ected a quarter of this estimate. Mr. Brown stated that the estimate for 1998 was approximately $50.00 per foot and the actual cost to the residents was approximately $40.00 per foot. He indicated that the estimates in the report were conservative and believed that there may be some cost savings. Mr. Brown stated that the following issues required decisions from the City Council in order to proceed with final plan preparation: . Scope of streets to include in reconstruction . Width of streets to be reconstructed . Vacation of Hamline Avenue between Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane . Reconfiguration of Cannon A venue and Tiller Lane into cul-de-sacs . . Construction of Pond A . Construction of Pond B (requires vacation of Hamlinc Avenue) . Assessment rate . City funding sources and amounts . State Aid Account usage Icvcl With regard to the reconfiguration of Cannon A venue and Tiller Lane, Mr. Brown stated that he had found it more expensive to build cul-de-sacs, due to the requirement of retain age walls. He did not feel that this effort would provide any benefit to the City and would not make sense to pursue. Mayor Probst noted that the Resolution requested that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement projcct in conjunction with the January 10,2000 Council meeting. He asked if there would be any other additional public meetings prior to this date. Mr. Brown stated that the next meeting proposed to discuss the proposed improvements would be held on November 30, 1999. He suggested that an additional meeting could bc scheduled. With regard to the proposed assessment rate, Mayor Probst stated that he did not think that the City could ask these residents to pay an amount that has escalated well above the rate of int1ation. The previous reconstruction project resulted in a $47.50 assessment and the proposed assessment for this project would be approximately 5% above that amount. He was concerned . by how the scope of the project would be effected if the assessment was lower. With regard to the public meeting, Mayor Probst stated that he would not want to suggest that decisions have been made on the street widths. He was concerned about presenting deviations