Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 24, 2014 <br />A property owner asked how long the reconstruction project would take. <br />The Engineer reported that once the contractor begins work, the project <br />would take 1 'A to 2 months. He indicated that the City does not dictate <br />the start date in bid specifications, so the contractor could start as early as <br />mid -May or as late as mid -July. However, once the contractor begins, <br />he /she must make continual progress on the project. If a bid is awarded, <br />the project would be completed in 2014, with the final lift of asphalt <br />installed in 2015. The Engineer also noted that once bids are received, if <br />they are substantially over estimate (15% or more), the Council would <br />likely reject the bids and rebid the project for 2015 construction. <br />With regard to the cost of bringing a water service into a home, the City <br />Engineer estimated the cost at $2,000 to $5,000 depending on whether the <br />service is brought to the back or front of the house. The City <br />Administrator estimated the cost of City permits and fees at $500 to $600. <br />The Engineer reported that most licensed plumbers can do this work. One <br />property owner asked if the homeowner could do the work. The City <br />Administrator did not think so, but reported that he would check the City <br />Code in this regard, noting the need to work around gas lines, etc. <br />One property owner asked about the style of the decorative lights. The <br />City Engineer indicated that the style proposed is an acorn or lantern style <br />similar to what has been used in other areas of the City. The <br />Administrator indicated that there were other options that could be <br />considered. The property owner felt it may be better to utilize the style <br />that has been used on other areas of the City. One property owner <br />indicated his desire to have the cobra -head street light at the corner of <br />Little Canada Road and Schletty Drive removed as it shines into his <br />bedroom window. This would be the fourth Light discussed. The City <br />Administrator stated that the City would have to check with Xcel Energy <br />to determine what additional charges they may impose for removal of a <br />street light. <br />Montour noted the results of the neighborhood survey was that 4 property <br />owners supported a delay of the improvement, 10 supported <br />reconsideration of the improvement, and 4 did not respond. One property <br />owner felt the option to "reconsider the improvement" did not necessarily <br />indicate a support for moving forward at this time, and felt the Council's <br />decision whether or not to order the improvement should not be based on <br />that survey question. The property owner felt the question was poorly <br />written. The City Administrator indicated that the survey question was to <br />serve as an indication as to whether or not there was support to call for <br />another improvement hearing. Montour noted that this evening is that <br />improvement hearing, and also noted that the improvement scope was <br />modified to include decorative street lighting. Montour also noted that if <br />3 <br />