Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 15, 1992 <br />that it would be difficult to estimate if inflation <br />would be the only effect on project costs. Higher <br />interest rates could be a factor. The Engineer also <br />pointed out the economy of scale that the City is <br />trying to achieve by combining this project with others <br />planned during 1993. <br />The Public Works Superintendent pointed out that it <br />will take a lot of asphalt to keep the street patched. <br />Public Works indicated that the street is cracking, and <br />surface water is getting into the street subgrade which <br />will make the pavement blow out faster. Patching will <br />not solve the street's problems. <br />Hanson asked if the project could be bid as an <br />alternate and the property owners then make a decision <br />when actual costs are known. <br />The City Engineer pointed out that the City would incur <br />the cost of detailed design of the project even though <br />the project may not proceed. <br />Kutscher explained that the property owners are <br />concerned about the concrete curb and gutter proposed, <br />pointing out the poor job that was done with curb cuts <br />in the Morrison area. <br />Kausner reported that he has paid for street twice, and <br />did not need another street assessment. Kausner <br />reported that he has no trouble getting to and from his <br />home on the street that is there, and he and his <br />neighbors are happy with the street. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by LaValle, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 92-12-460 - DENYING THE EAST BROOKS <br />AVENUE IMPROVEMENT BASED ON THE OPPOSITION OF TEN OF <br />THE TWELVE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED TO THE PROJECT, <br />WITH THE REMAINING TWO PROPERTY OWNERS APPEARING TO BE <br />NEUTRAL TO THE PROJECT, WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS <br />REALIZING THAT TAE COST OF THE PROJECT MAY INCREASE IN <br />THE FUTURE, BUT HAVE STILL INDICATED OPPOSITION TO THE <br />PROJECT AT THIS TIME <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (4) Blesener, Hanson, LaValle, Scalze. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />Page il <br />