Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 2-10-92 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- c=e samples were not taken on Carlton Drive; the <br />success of an overlay is dependent upon the condition <br />of the existing roadway surface. Ramsey County studies <br />indicate the life span of an overlay is 8 years. <br /> <br />Maurer explained that Tiller Lane is in extremely poor condition and the existing <br />surface will not support bitwninous overlay. <br /> <br />TILLER (Cont/d) <br /> <br />- 'lhe cost differential between con=ete versus blacktop =bing is approximately <br />$1.00 per front foot; concrete is $5.00, and blacktop is $4.00. <br /> <br />- The City F=ester = the University of Minnesota woudl be contacted regarding <br />precautions and protection of the Oak trees, prior to beginning the project. <br />Specifications will be included in the contract and the homeowner will be <br />contacted with infonnation regarding the trees. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Malone questioned if any portion of Tiller Lane is in reasonable <br />condition to support bitwninous overlay. <br /> <br />Engineer Maurer stated the western portion of the street may support overlay, <br />hOltlever, since overlay is a "short-term" solution, it would not be the most cost <br />effective method of irrprovement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks questioned the difference in rating the east and west <br />portions of Tiller Lane. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Maurer explained he does not have the rating infonnation at this time. He <br />indicated an over lay is not feasible on the east portion of the street and the <br />cost effectiveness is questionable on the west portion Tiller Lane. <br /> <br />There was discussion relating to assessments of the corner lots. Engineer Maurer <br />explained the hOltl the footage is calculated. <br /> <br />There was discussion relating to the method utilized by Ramsey County in <br />reviewing market values based on street improvements. Attorney Filla outlined <br />possibly procedures for reevaluation of property values. <br /> <br />Council discussed possible methods of financing the in=eased costs for the <br />project, due to the additional costs for soil =ections. <br /> <br />eouncilmember Mahowald arrived at 8:50 p.m. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks asked the Engineer to provide an opinion on the feasibility <br />of reconstructing the street without concrete =b and gutter. <br /> <br />Engineer Maurer discussed the cost differential f= concrete =b and gutter and <br />strongly encouraged the installation, based on in=eased protection of the street <br />surface, extending the life span of the roadway and assisting with drainage. <br /> <br />It was suggested by members of the audience that Council consider obtaining a <br />second opinion on the street design, reconstruction of only the east portion of <br />the street and bituminous overlay on the west portion, and bidding the project <br />with optional con=ete =b and gutter. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by GrOltle, to adopt Resolution No. <br />92-10, ORDERING 'mE IMPROVEMENT IN 'mE MATI'ER OF 'mE 1992 TILLER lANE SI'REEl' <br />REmNSTRUCI'ION IMPROVEMENI'S. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br />