My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-18-1995 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
01-18-1995 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2014 2:23:26 PM
Creation date
1/10/2014 2:22:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Viking Drive Property Owners <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br />DATE: December 12, 1994 <br />RE: Water Main and Street Improvements <br />At the neighborhood meeting held on November 21, 1994, we <br />discussed the proposed installation of water main along Viking <br />Drive. As you will recall, when this project was initially <br />proposed, we were looking at an assessment rate of $8742.00 per <br />lot. Based on a new assessment policy adopted by the City <br />Council, we would expect the assessments to be in the range of <br />between $4500.00 to $4600.00 per lot. <br />The question then becomes how should the water main be <br />constructed. On the enclosed map, you will note two alignments <br />are indicated. Alignment #1 was proposed as part of the initial <br />report. The pros to this location are as follows: <br />• Minimal disruption to the street <br />• Lower total costs <br />• Shorter distance from curb stops to connection within <br />homes <br />The disadvantages with this alignment are as follows: <br />• Need for dedication of easements to allow construction <br />• Substantial disruption to existing yard areas and <br />driveways <br />• Loss of mature trees along the route of the water main <br />Another alignment was also evaluated. This is indicated as <br />Alignment 2 on the enclosed map. The advantages of this <br />alignment are as follows: <br />• Minimal disruption to private property <br />• Preservation of existing trees <br />• No need to acquire easements from private property owners <br />The disadvantages of this approach are as follows: <br />• Higher total costs <br />Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.