Laserfiche WebLink
City Admin' istrator Sehroeder stated that this would provide for a four-year program with <br />an assessment cap of $4,000 with a four-year cost of approximately $71,000. <br /> <br />Mayor Gilbertson agreed with Councilmember Peterson that the street lighting is also <br />important. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski felt that a lot of the projects would happen without subsidy but some will <br />not because of the high cost. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hardin inquired if Mr. Jankowski had spoken with any of the affected <br />residents: to which Mr. Jankowski replied that no formal survey had been done. <br />Councilmember Hardin then suggested that the f~st course of action should be to send a <br />letter to ~11 the people in the projects and see what the response is without offering a <br />subsidy. He suggested this program be pursued and that the easier projects be "tackled" <br />first. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder felt that it is very beneficial to the City to get these streets paved. The intent <br />is to eliminate the high cost of road maintenance. The program will not eliminate a road <br />grader but it will keep from having to replace one. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated he has a problem with the subsidizing. He stated that <br />money will be taken from people who have already paid full price for their projects. <br /> <br />Council~ember Zimmerman stated that the unpaved roads have contributed to a street <br />sweeper and the paved roads are contributing to the grader. He suggested going with the <br />$4,000 cap. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hardin stated that the ultimate goal is to get all the streets paved and that <br />they should be pursued based upon interest. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Hardin to direct the <br />City Engha~ exta' to solicit information about the willingness to proceed with the paving of <br />streets. Have the residents respond within 30 days and enclose a self-addressed, stamped <br />envelope for their convenience. This case should be brought back to the Road and Bridge <br />Committee in March and then reported to City Council. <br /> <br />Motion carded. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Peterson, Hardin, Beyer <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that the Road and Bridge Committee also discussed the selection of <br />an alignment for Sunwood Drive and that there are environmental issues involved with the <br />wetlands'. He summarized the alignments and alternatives. The Planning and Zoning <br />Commission, the Road and Bridge Committee, and the Department of Natural Resources <br />have indicated a preference to go with the northern alignment. Mr. Jankowski asked for a <br />recommendation so the consulting engineer could proceed with the permitting stage and <br />obtaining the right-of-ways. <br /> <br />Mr. schr°eder stated that the Road and Bridge Committee's recommendation is to not <br />provide for the lowest priced option. There is a chance the lowest priced alternative would <br />not get the permits needed. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to <br />recommend Alignments lA and 2B for the purposes of permitting and to direct that the <br />process proceed. <br /> <br />City Council/January 18, 1994 <br /> Page 13 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />