CC 06-10-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 6-10-91 Page 2 HEARING (Cont'd) Engineer Graham explained that O1atham Avenue was scheduled fer bituminous overlay in 1991 arxl at the in'provement hearing fer the 1991 Pavement Maintenance project, residents on O1atham Court arxl O1atham circle expressed an interest in ext.ero.ing the project to include bituminous overlay of both cul-de-sacs. He stated that Council advised the residents it would be necessary to suJ:xnit a petition with signatures from 100 percent of the affected property owners arxl requesting 100 percent of the assessment costs to include both streets in the project at this time. He advised that both cul-de-sacs had been rated in the 1988 Pavement Management Report arxl are scheduled for bituminous overlay in a future project. Councillnember Mahowald questioned the actual cost of the ilIlprovement versus estilnated cost arxl if both streets are included in the project will the cost of the ilIlprovement exceed the actual b.1dgeted amount. Graham stated he estilnated the cost for the project at $3.44 per front foot arxl after the actual bids were received the cost was reduced to $2.82 per foot. He advised the costs should not exceed the Wdgeted figure. Councillnember Hansen questioned if the assessment rate for the two cul-de-sacs is established at $2.82 per front foot, versus 100 percent of the cost, would the project still remain within the budgeted amount. She recalled discussion relating to the cost of the project remaining within the budgeted amount due to the fact that Valentine Avenue would be deleted. Graham explained the recently adopted assessment policy states that petitioned ilIlprovements may be assessed by the City at 100 percent of the cost, er at any rate set by Council action. He stated the project would remain within the budgeted amount if the two petitioned streets are assessed at the 50 percent rate. Councillnember Malone questioned the bid quotation versus the estilnated cost of the project. The Engineer noted the estilnated cost of the project was approxilnately $229,000 arxl the City budgeted $225,000; the estimated cost anticipated the bid quotes received being lower than the estilnate or the city retaining the ability to delete certain streets from the project if the bid quotes were higher than anticipated. eouncillnember Malone arxl the Engineer discnssed financial information, relating to the project, to detennine whether or not including the two additional streets would increase the project costs arxl exceed the amount b.1dgeted by the City for the 1991 Pavement Maintenance Project. Malone questioned if the contractor has suJ:xnitted an estilnated cost fer a change order to include O1atham Court arxl O1atham Circle. He asked the Engineer for the assessment amounts anticipated for the two streets. Graham stated he has received verbal confirmation that the two streets would be included at the same contract price listed on the bid quotation. He advised the assessment calculations for O1atham Circle are approxilnately $3,400.00 arxl O1atham Court are approximately $4,100.00; total $7,500.00.