01-23-07 Council Special Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 23, 2007 if the project were approved. The City Engineer estimated that conshuction would begin in May. Blesener noted that this should provide adequate time fora 60-day notice to the renter. Keis pointed out that the houses will have to be demolished before the street realignment work can begin. The Administrator indicated that the purchase agreements addresses these issues. He noted that the McDonald's agreement needs to be finalised. Also, the City has a verbal agreement with Oasis. The Administrator again estimated that these agreements will be finalized at the February 14`x' Council meeting. The timing of the work for realignment of Viking Drive was discussed, with the Engineer pointed out that the new realignment would be cut in and graveled before the connection to Rice Street is closed. Montour asked about the average life span of a reconstructed street versus cold in-place recycle. Montour suggested that perhaps a full reconstruction would more cost effective over the long term. The City Engineer estimated the same useful life for the bituminous in a full reconstruct or a recycle. He noted the recycle will not have concrete curb and gutter, therefore, turning movements at driveways will be harder on the bituminous in the recycle portion of the project. The City Engineer also noted that in the recycle portion of the project additional storm water enhancements are not required. However, the City could chose to add additional storm water ponds in this recycle area. A property owner asked if there would be storm sewer on Minnesota Avenue as part of the Viking Drive realignment. This property owner pointed out that he has a four foot sink hole on this property. The City Engineer replied that the City is looking at improving the storm sewer that drains Minnesota Avenue. These improvements are not part of the Viking Drive plan, but part of the overall plan for the area. Blesener asked for a show of hands from those people both for and against the project. While several people showed support for the project, no one indicated they were opposed. Those people in the overlay portion of the project indicated their preference for an overlay rather than full reconstruction. There was no one else present from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Allan, seconded by Keis, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Allan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: