My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-27-1992
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CC 04-27-1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:10 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 4:32:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />A~den Hills Council <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />F.pril 2'7~ ~992 <br /> <br />Councilmember Xahowald asked what cas is anticipated for <br />acquisition aLd easement fer thi.2 pro ect. Attorney Fi~la <br />said he expects to have mc~e def.i~ite information within a <br />week, but ant~cipates no more than $17iC0C for acquisition <br />of la~~. Filla added that he is prese~tly negotiating ~ith <br />Mr. Reiling to possi~ly allow Reiling to reconfigure the <br />pond area at some later time as long as it provides the same <br />amount of water storage. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks asked to ~hat exteLt the Reiling <br />prope~ty is ~enefitted from this project and w~ethel th~ <br />pipe installation will solve the drainage problems on the <br />Reili.ng property. Graham explained the existing drainage In <br />the Keithson area and pointed out that several lots <br />contribute drainage that flows to the ~eiling property. <br />Maurer stated that he does not believe there is ~ benefit to <br />tte Reiling property, that inztal1ati,on of the pipe will <br />ccrrect the probleffi caused by drainage from ether <br />properties. He added that a~y development of the Reiling <br />prcperty w:ll req~ire a new overall drainage plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />:n response to inquiry from Co~ncilf Graham stated that he <br />believes that al: resident questions relative to thE <br />mechanics of this project tave been answered. <br /> <br />The f,:):lov.dng comments/questions Here received from the <br />audience: <br /> <br />R0~ Ne13c~f 450~ KeithsoD Drive: The letter sent to <br />residents before the March 9 meeting referred to a project <br />cost of $140,000 and now that figure is about $46,000? What <br />constitutes "overhead" costs and why are overhead costs such <br />a large percentage? The residents in this area should have <br />had the "benefit" of proper drainage when we moved into ou:: <br />homes, so I question whether we can be assessed as <br />n~ene:itting" nOT..J. <br /> <br />Co~nc~lmexber Malone exrlained the letter referring to <br />$140,000 simply relayed the worst possibl~ scenario. Maure~ <br />explained the City's assessment manual 3110ws overhead costs <br />of u~ to 32% of construction costs and detailed what ca~ be <br />incl~ded as overhead. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mahowald said that in this particular ~aser <br />~rtual overhead costs ~ill be much higher than the 32% due <br />to the large amount of staff, engineering and legal time <br />involved, but the assessment policy limits what amount ca~ <br />be assessed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.