My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7079
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7000
>
res_7079
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:13:41 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:05:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7079
Resolution Title
Receiving Report and Providing for Public Hearing on Improvement No. ST-80-22
Resolution Date Passed
11/20/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />10 <br /> <br />stated. I mean, with and without certain road improvements. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: I can talk about the kind of materials. The <br />roadways are what are determined as a road mix material. By that <br />I mean - if you're familiar with the area you know the Brenner <br />cul-de-sac - that's a particular kind of road that was put down <br />with hot mix material and paving machine. Most of the other <br />roads are road mix. They have been put in in bits and pieces, <br />taken up when we put in the sanitary sewer and water and the <br />seal coats have occurred throughout the years. We would be <br />replacing them with what is called a road mix specification. <br />That's a hot material because we don't feel it's appropriate to put <br />large quantities of cold material in the road although it may <br />have been how the road started. It's not designed, however, to <br />change the crowns of the road and change the slopes of the road <br />(inaudible) take out any low points where it meets the driveways. <br />It pretty much matches what's there and tries to put it back into a <br />reasonable pavement. That pavement is not necessarily designed <br />to be a 20-year (inaudible) design because it's a storm project, <br />not a paving project. Depending on the particular roadway,in <br />some cases to make the patch (inaudible) there's a thin overlay <br />placed over the entire roadway, and I guess I can't tell you whether <br />we would do that until we get some more sophisticated design on <br />it. I hope that answers your question. <br /> <br />As far as the costs, I guess I would ask Mr. popovich to <br />once again go through it. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: Assuming no restoration of Lydia, the storm <br />sewer total cost is $560,968. Per unit it's $1,927, and at the <br />25% rate it's $481.93. With Lydia the cost is $646,625 and <br />the unit charge is $2,222. At the 25% rate that's $555.52. <br />So you have $555 with the whole project, $481 without. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Mr. Honchell, we have a petition for Clarmar. <br />Do we ~ntend to hold a hearing on that? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: At this point our current schedule would be to <br />have thathearing on January 26. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Then assume - and I don't know if Brenner is <br />coming in, and we have Arona that we haven't addressed, so if <br />those were to go through, would we eliminate some restoration <br />costs there also? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: We have done some rough calculations, because <br />until we get the actual petitions from Brenner it's not possible <br />(inaudible) Generally speaking, about $70,000 of restoration <br />would be saved if those roadways were done. That would obviously <br />reflect back in a reduction in the storm sewer assessments. <br />That would probably take another $50 or so off each assessment. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: It would be a little cheaper if that was done <br />also. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.