Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pavement, would be to construct some catch basins and, of <br />course, the curb and gutter and catch basins near the Snelling <br />Avenue area (inaudible) where it would then go into the state <br />drainage basin. There are catch basins, but not at the right <br />elevations to accommodate the roadway - take up the old road <br />and put in a new road. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Mr. popovich, would you care to present a <br />summary. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the <br />estimated cost of the project is $58,246, and when we pub- <br />lished the legal notice, we published at $58,746. A typographi- <br />cal error made it more, but I wish to point it out in this <br />case because it was pbb1ished at more, which is immaterial, <br />because the Council has a right to exceed the published cost <br />by 25% by virtue of the statate. <br /> <br />The $58,246 estimated to be the cost - it is proposed <br />that based on assessable footage of 1,978 feet, that only $7.36 <br />a front foot be assessed against the property because this <br />is up-grading existing street work - and the balance would <br />be collected by general taxes spread throughout the village. <br />That would result in $l4,558 being divided into the 9' lots. <br />The general taxes would be $43,688 because of general benefit <br />to the city as a whole. It is proposed that this be assessed <br />over 20 years of time and, as usual, after the assessment <br />hearing is held, the property owners can either prepay in <br />full within 30 days after the assessment hearing, or other- <br />wise it's our recommendation that it be spread with an 8% <br />carrying charge on the assessment with the right to prepay at <br />any time during that 20 year period of time. Unless there are <br />any questions, that's it. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I would like to have the Manager read a <br />statement from citizens in regard to this project. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: We have received a petition signed by l3 of <br />the 24 property owners opposing the improvement. Of thOse <br />13, 8 of those had initially signed the petition requesting <br />the project. <br /> <br />2 <br />