Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 21, 1994 <br />Scalze asked if the 50/50 split would apply to a grind <br />and overlay project as well as a full-depth reclamation <br />project. Scalze also asked about rehabilitation on a <br />street that might be 30 years old. <br />LaValle pointed out that Windrow Drive is nine years <br />old, and felt that property owners should not pay as <br />much for a rehabilitation project on this street as <br />property owners would pay on a street 15 to 20 years <br />old. <br />Hanson suggested that the City attempt a 50/50 split <br />and see how the numbers work out. <br />Scalze asked if any property owners had paid 100% of a <br />street rehab project. <br />Hanson replied that Payne Avenue was the only project <br />thus far and those property owners did not pay 100%. <br />Scalze stated that a 50/50 split sounded fine, but she <br />did not know what the ramifications would be especially <br />if the City did three street improvements per year. <br />LaValle felt that a 50/50 split was a starting point <br />and that the Council would still have to consider each <br />project individually. <br />Morelan stated that he liked a 20/80 split, but would <br />support 50/50 in order to get moving on the matter. <br />Scalze asked the costs associated with the <br />Westwind/Windrow Drive improvement. <br />The Administrator replied that the Engineer has <br />estimated a mill and overlay project at $14.24 per foot <br />and full-depth reclamation at $18.69 per foot. <br />Morelan pointed out that a 50/50 split would bring the <br />cost of a mill and overlay project down to <br />approximately $7.5o per foot for the property owners or <br />approximately $750 for a 100-foot lot. <br />Mrs. Parrish felt that paying for improvements through <br />general taxation rather than assessments would cause <br />property owners to look at long-term community value. <br />12 <br />