1986-09-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 1986 Public Hearings, continued which there was no cost to the city. The project commenced in July of 1985 and is to be completed this Fall, with some restoration perhaps being carried over to 1987. Ramsey County is charging the city for curb and gutter costs and also for storm sewer costs needed to drain properties outside the right-of-way; the city is proposing to assess the cost of storm sewer and curb and gutter to the property owners on County Road D. The cost of the sidewalk is being paid for through Municipal State Aid funds. Rutherford reviewed the costs involved with this project and stated the assessable cost is $30,925.32. For the storm sewer portion, industrial and commercial property (5.34 acres) is being assessed twice the amount of residential (69 acres) because of the greater amount of run-off, or $2,768.61 (original estimate was $2,825.00) per acre for residential property and $5,537.21 (original estimate was $5,650.00) per acres for commercial and industrial property. Benke asked if, recognizing the report was written before we received the recent heavy rainfall, the current estimate is still to have the roadwork substantially complete this Fall; and asked if there might be additional costs to the project beyond this point that we are not yet aware; Rutherford responded he did not know that information. Schmidt commented that, because the staff reports are very com- plete, unless there was anyone in the audience with questions, the staff's detailed presentations were perhaps not necessary. Dave Eichers, 1330 West County Road 0, questioned the 8% carry- over from the previous year and expressed concern that the county oversold the city (stated residents had been assured they would not be able to use their driveway for only one week, Eichers has not been able to use his since July 18, 1986) and doesn't believe the road will be done until next year. Eichers felt the county should advise the city of all changes on future projects. Asked if there was a penalty clause in the contract and if there was a way to relieve the community of financial burdens (his water had been interrupted on nine occasions, natural gas line was broken twice, telephone cable was cut in half, and the power pole start- ed swaying toward the house). Benke agreed with Eichers' concerns and feels the city has learned some lessons; in terms of the contract penalties, believed there is a working day contract in affect. With regard Page Three