res_6664 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

existing homes, would be assessed for their proportion of that half of'the roadway only. I might also note that in each of these cases this is what's described as a side lot, namely that the dimension along Western is shorter than along Sandhurst or County Road B. As such, only one-tenth of their distance would end up being assessed. As an example, if this were 150 feet, they would only have 15 assessable feet. It's 135, so it would be l3.5 assessable feet. And in the case of the prior ~roject, on existing roadl'lays with existing homes, the Council then only assesses 25% of the actual cost to the property owners so the roadways would be as shown in this particular drawing. The proposed utility system would be to tie into the existing watermain which is already in Western Avenue and along County Road B. This watermain would go into the cul-de-sac and terminate at a hydrant. It's a short distance so we did not determine it necessary in this case to loop the watermain because it's so short. Services would be brought off that to the various lots along the cul-de-sac and new services brought in from County Road D off the existing watermain. Sanitary sewer would be provided by going to the existing sewer in County Road B, coming northerly along the plat line and into the cul-de-sac area with services being brought off to serve each of the lots. Lots 8 and 9 have sanitary sewer services built. Lot 7 does not, so there would be a single sewer service brought across the roadway. Storm drainage from the cul-de-sac area and the rear of the yards would be northwesterly, and then north to the state trunk line open swale system. The reason this roadway is not being brought on up to the north is because it's not envisioned in the foreseeable future that there ~,l1ill ever be a vehicle bridge built over Highway 36. At one time that was thought to be a possibility, but the Highway Department has revised their standards for where they will put these roadways and this is just half a mile from nale where there is an overpass, and Rice, and they are not constructing bridges to this standard any longer, and it does not appear that would he built so we did not determine it would be necessary to construct a roadway here and charge the people for something on each side for something that was needless. HR. POPOVICH: The total estimated and puhlished cost of this ?roject is $55,840. It's the third page from the rear of your feasibility report. Sanitary sewer mains will be lOO% assessed which will raise some $l5,GOl at $23.32 a foot. On the sanitary sewer services - and there are 7 - those costs will be at $425.09 per lot. ~aternains, 100% assessed, will raise $5,737. The page you have has a cost of $18.23, but the engineer has revised that to $IO.74. The water services - and there will be 9 - will he assessed at lOO%, or $263 per lot.