My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989-04-25
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1989
>
1989-04-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 6:31:22 AM
Creation date
8/10/2005 1:29:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />April 25, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />Public Hearing, continued <br /> <br />The total estimated project cost is $280,708, with Ramsey County's <br />share being $233,758. The right-of-way cost is estimated at $14,800 <br />with sidewalk cost at $9,400. Both costs arc proposed to ~e paid <br />by MSA funds. The remainder of $22,750 would be special assessed. <br />The $22,750 wi 11 be a combi nati on of $19,200 for curb/gutter cost <br />and $750 for storm sewer cost. The assessment rate woul d be <br />$11.05/per front foot. <br /> <br />There are a few vacant lots which do not have water service stubs. <br />These water service stubs would be installed under the project to <br />avoid future excavations in the new road surface The cost of the <br />water service stubs would be specially assessed to the lots <br />receiving the service stubs. <br /> <br />A special assessment hearing will be held in August, 1990. Meeting <br />notices would be mailed to residents and assessments would be levied <br />at -:hat time. <br /> <br />Brandt asked if senior citizens 'Nould be able to defer these <br />assessment payments. Proper veri fi ed the Ci ty has an assessmer,t <br />def~rment policy for qualifying senior citizens. <br /> <br />Benke read a letter from Mr. <br />whi ch expressed hi s concerns <br />benefi t from such a proj ect. <br />possible redevelopment of this <br /> <br />A. J. Bumbee, MacGill"is and Gibbs, <br />and feels the residents would not <br />The 1 etter made reference to the <br />area. <br /> <br />Rudy Shellum, 560--5th Avenue NW, asked if his property would be <br />acquired for redevelopment. Mr. Shellum acknowledged that he is in <br />favor of the project, but has heard rumors that pertain to the <br />redevel'opment of this area in possibly two years. <br /> <br />Benke said it is very speculative that redevelopment would occur and <br />he is not aware of a proposed redevelopment proj ect. Benke <br />explained to Mr. Shellum that his property is zoned Industrial, but <br />it does not necessarily mean that his property would be redeveloped. <br /> <br />Brandt commented that the assessment could prove to be an investment <br />on a property, which would be recouped if it is sold sometime in the <br />future. <br /> <br />~~r. Shellum asked if parking art'angements could be made during <br />construction since his dl'ivewny will be blocked. Propel' said <br />arrangements could be made for nearby parki~g. <br /> <br />Mr. Leonard confirmed that the standard for a 50 foot road, such as, <br />5th Avenue NW requires a parking ban on both sides. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Upgrading of 5th <br />Avenue Project <br />Report 89-120 <br />Resolution 89-65 <br /> <br />9:27-10:05 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.