CCMin_93May12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 PAGE 3 0 3 ~~ part of the project, but following informational meetings with residents indicated that many desired sidewalk replacement. He explained that residents are being assessed contract costs only for sidewalks, minus driveway width, with no charge for overhead or removal of old sidewalks. Albert Yonas, 1576 Vincent St., owner of a unique lot objected to the method used to determine front footage of his lot resulting in a much greater width than if measured at the street and requested that council reduce the footage by one-half. He also said he had repaired the sidewalk last year after it was marked by the city. Council discussed the request and agreed that the front footage be reduced to 81.5 feet and the sidewalk be assessed at the frontage along the street minus the 12 foot driveway or 69.5 feet. Council concurred that this would be more in line with other assessments in the area. Donna Senauer, 2292 Folwell, asked if sidewalk replacment is required and why each property owner could not make the decision to replace or not replace their sidewalk. She objected to paying a $400 assessment when her sidewalk has no cracks, undulations, etc. Maurer explained that during the inspections they look not only for cracks and other obvious problems, but also for wear, and that the majority of the walks need replacement. He stressed that constructing sidewalks with the street contract makes the cost of sidewalk replacement considerably less than if each property owner contracted individually for the work. Baldwin commented on the fact in the past sidewalk repair/replacement has always been left up to the property owners, however, now the city is investing a large deal of money in these sidewalks and must think of the entire city when using taxpayers money. Ms. Senauer indicated she wanted her sidewalk reinspected and reconsidered. A discussion ensued regarding benefits of sidewalk replacement as proposed, i.e. cost savings, deleting the need for annual sidewalk repair letters in this area, a savings in the long run as homeowners would not have to cover complete cost of replacement in the future. Baldwin asked if councilmembers wished to change their minds about proceeding with the sidewalk project and all responded in the negative. Ms. Senauer asked if the commons sidewalk would be part of the project. Maurer said this is University property and including it at this time would require another public hearing.