Laserfiche WebLink
Date: 12J02f76 <br />To : I::?e;~ Brighton City Council. ,~y ~ <br />,~,,. <br />I`rom: Ken Johnson 1776 20th dive. Td.~ ' ~ j <br />Subject: Improvenent 77-1t (Ti ~. G) <br />I~'. Poad z•,as surfaced ;Fast of Silver sake oad in 196, not 1963. <br />G. Woad ~~as urfaced ~.ugust 1969, not 196£3. <br />~fnv is street reco_mriended for re-surfacing in 3 years rather than the <br />noz~a.l 15-20 years recor.~mended for bitumious overlays? There are no <br />other streets close to this age recommended for 1977 or 1973. <br />-20th avenue seems sound r~•a..th t;o exceptions - If the street structure <br />is not sound in these tiro places, an overlay z~rill not correct the <br />defect. Correct? <br />-':shy is the cost per assessable foot so high for this street? <br />%.'Divide the total. cost of this project by the total <br />assessable footage. <br />~1orn!al costs for overlays are ~„b-~8 per foot divided <br />':~by the property o:rners on 'ooth sides of the street <br />or l a3- a~i Per foot) . <br />-;'iith the above facts in ru.nd there should be a sound basis for making <br />a decision for approving an overlay for 77-~t(G); i.f not, the project <br />should be delayed at this tire. <br />I realize there is a proposed graduating scale of 0-100; (5-15 years). In <br />future years I mould be more in favor of the proposal to assess 20 z°ri.th <br />the balance fro:: general revenue taV ;ponies. I bel9_eve this is more fair, <br />even if I ti~ere to bo assessed the full amount for my street before the <br />procedure eras changed. <br /> <br />