CCP 11-29-1999 - 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 A venue does not reflect treating 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 rcduccd to a pcr-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 nwnber 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 reflected a quarter ofthis estimate. Mr. Brown statcd 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 A venue between Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane · Reconfiguration of Cannon Avenue and Tiller Lane into cul-de-sacs . Construction of Pond A . Construction of Pond B (requires vacation of Hamline Avcnuc) . Assessment rate . City funding sourccs and amoWlts . State Aid Account usage level 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 rctainage 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 project in eonjunction with the January 10,2000 Council meeting. He asked iftherc would be any other additional public meetings prior to this date. Mr. Brown stated that thc next meeting proposed to discuss the proposed improvements would bc held on November 30, 1999. Hc suggested that an additional meeting could be scheduled. With regard to the proposed assessment rate, Mayor Probst stated that he did not think that thc City could ask these residents to pay an amount that has escalated well above the rate of inflation. The previous reconstruction projcct 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 ifthe 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