Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lift station which is a poor way to do it, and it's expensive. <br />So when we did the calculations of bringing a road all the way <br />to the back of these lots, which is also the back of these lots, <br />we found we could open up six new lotso potentially at leasto <br />The reason this one isn't shown is because it's in government <br />ownership - not the cityo but other government agencies and <br />they're not in the house building program so they would have <br />no interest in having that lot improved. When we looked at <br />(inaudible) bringing the various utilities down because we would <br />have to loop the water main {inaudible}, carrying the storm sewer <br />over a now filled street, we found it a very expensive proposition - <br />like $120000 a loto as I recall. This didn't sound like a money <br />making proposition for anyone. <br /> <br />The second alternate would be to try to serve just the <br />northerly lots. Once again looping the water main, bringing the <br />sanitary sewer main across this lower back lot section resulted <br />in high costs. There would be three lots affected, possibly <br />four. Very high cost - in the $12,000 to $13.000 category and we <br />don't feel this is a feasible solution. <br /> <br />The third alternative C would be merely to provide the neces, <br />sary road frontage that the code mandates to this lot. In doing sOo <br />we would put a pump (inaudible) put some curb and gutter and pave <br />that section and would be providing this to the lot. It would <br />be possible to (inaudible) some day may happen back in this area <br />or this open space on the other side - the county open space owns <br />all the land from here to Lexington. I would not recommend vacating <br />those at this time, but I do recommend the paving of this small <br />portion of roadway which would make this lot then buildable - <br />probably for one lot. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Mayor, members of the Councilo The original <br />matter carne in by a petition and in the process of studying it the <br />engineer obviously had to add more to the petitioned area to give <br />you these alternatives. <br /> <br />The published cost was $73,812, \Jhich is Alternate A which <br />would have ended up with the six lots, or roughly $12,000 assessment <br />per lot. <br /> <br />Alternate B which ends up with three or four lots comes to <br />$39,653.00. <br /> <br />The last alternate C is for a total cost of $4,080. If you <br />decide to go that route, that would be the total cost of the <br />improvement which would be assessed over a 20 year period with an <br />8% carrying charge. <br /> <br />2 <br />