CC 05-30-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, May 30, 1989 '.Page 3 OAK AVE. (Cont'd) The Engineer estimated the total project costs at $15,815.00. He reminded Council the homeowner at 1680 Oak Avenue would incur the costs for his driveway repair and based on the bids received that cost estimate would be $2,598.00; the balance of $13,216.00 would be the amount to be specially assessed. He referred Council to the revised costs table and explained the approximate area, 4.64 acres of land, which contribute to the drainage problem. Peters stated the assessment rate would be approximately $2,848.00 per acre. Malone asked for clarification if the city would repair the driveway at 1680 Oak Avenue. Peters advised the costs are currently included in the cost for driveway repairs and the bituminous berm to keep water on the driveway; if the homeowner assumes those costs the amount of $2,598.00 would be deducted from the project costs. Mahowald noted the cost difference in the hearing notice and the figures quoted by the engineer this evening. Peters stated the figures in the hearing notice did not include the engineering, legal and administrative costs. Mayor Sather asked if there were any questions or comments from the floor. Michael Daub, Attorney representing the Albjergs, stated Albjergs had received a price quote for driveway repair in the amount of $4,000.00; he questioned if the $2,600.00 cost estimate shown in the engineers report for the driveway repair is a low estimate or if that cost would be over and above the $4,000.00. Peters stated the $2,598.00 cost estimate includes replacement of the area disturbed by the construction and placement of a bituminous berm; the $4,000.00 estimate Albjergs received should be reduced somewhat after the project is completed. He advised he could not estimate the amount the $4,000.00 would be reduced without reviewing the bid Albjergs received on the driveway repair. Majorie Benjamin, 1605 Oak Ave., spoke in opposition to the assessment. She read a statement prepared by her husband Walter which listed reasons for his opposition to the proposed assessment (as summarized): 1. It fails on the basis of equity or fairness and will not enhance the properties on Oak Ave., rather it will take care of the erosion of a private road; 2. Property owners should not be held liable for water following its natural course; 3. The estimate from $13,000 to $15,000 is far too expensive for the benefit of one property owner, there are less expensive ways to treat the problem; and, 4. The City should pay the costs from General Revenue. Doug Vanderheiden, 1655 Oak Ave., contribute to the erosion problem; engineer's diagram are inaccurate. disagreed that the property at 1680 does not he stated the drainage boundaries shown on the Engineer Peters explained the property at 1680 Oak is lower than the street and no water flows into the storm sewer systems; the driveway is located on an easement and not owned by the resident at 1680 Oak. He stated the drainage boundaries were identified from a city contour map and most of the parcels do drain toward the street. Peters commented this is not an assessment hearing and he could review the property at 1655 Oak to determine the drainage pattern and lot size prior to the assessment hearing, if the Council decides to assess for the improvement.