CC PACKET 01261988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i 1 - Motion carried unanimously: 2 Executive Session with Attorneys Scheduled for .,5 : 30- P.M. , January 18th 3 Mr . Childs reported a rather unsuccessful attempt to reach a settle- 4 ment during the meeting between City officials and representatives of 5 the Army, ' Honeywell, etc . -, January 5th . which had caused Briggs and 6 Morgan to suggest the above to review what had happened at that 7 meeting and to develop some strategy for proceeding with negotiations 8 to get a settlement in conjunction with the City' s lawsuit related to 9 St. Anthony' s water contamination problems . 10 There was also agreement that the City Manager ' s contract would be 11 considered at that same meeting. 12 PUBLIC HEARING ON ST. ANTHONY BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS 13 At 8 : 02 P.M. , the Mayor opened the hearing to consider the reconstruc- 14 - tion of St.. Anthony Boulevard between the Burlington Northern bridge 15 and the southern City limits to include a new 32 foot wide bituminous 16 roadway with new curb and gutters and replacement of existing catch . 17 basins and leads at an estimated cost of $443 , 000 . 168 Mayor Sundland read the notice of the hearing which had been published 9 in the December 30 , 1987 and January 6 , 1988 Bulletin and sent to the 20 property owners within 200 feet-'::: None of the abutting property- owners 21 ( Sunset Memorial - Gardens and Minneapolis Park Board) were present to 22 object to the content of the notice nor to provide input to the 23 discussion. 24 Documentation in the agenda packet included: 25 *Notice of Hearing 26 *April 2 , 1987 MN DOT letter granting variance for 32 rather 27 than 36 foot wide street 28 *Copy of February, 1986 , City of St. Anthony Public. Improve- 29 ments Assessment policy 30 *January .20 , 1987 Preliminary Design Report from Project Engin- 31 eer Robert C. Robertson of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates , 32 *Proposed Resolution 88-007 ordering project. 33 Mr . Robertson and Mr . Hamer indicated the following about the project: 34 *that by reducing the width of the roadbed from 36 to 32 feet, 35 the project cost had been decreased from $460 ,000 to $430,000 ; 36 *the difference had not been greater because the four foot por- 37 tion which had been eliminated did not include concrete which 38 would have had to be dug up; 39 5