Laserfiche WebLink
h) Street Im~r~ve~e~ Pro~ect #83-15~ Beaudzy's 2nd Addition and <br /> Un~latted Section: <br /> <br />Councilmember Van Wagner requested that the City Engineer follow- <br />up on this project with regards to necessary repairs and noted <br />that the road is under warranty for a period of one year after <br />project completion. <br /> <br />Fred Van Krevelen inquired as to how the City will accept the <br />road, fully resurfaced or patched? He noted that patching does <br />not make a new road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter inquired if it was correct policy to <br />adopt the assessments rolls prior to project completion and at <br />what point in time is Council guaranteed that the road is a good <br />one? <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle replied that the assessment rolls must be adopted <br />at this time in order to pay back the loans on time. <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka replied that the City does not have to <br />authorize payment to the contractor until the City is satisfied <br />with the road,and noted that many cities assess property owners <br />before project completion. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Krevelen stated that he is sure the contractor did not <br />use a transit during the grading process of the road. <br /> <br />Council requested City Engineer Raatikka contact the concerned <br />property owners of the area and determine just what repairs are <br />necessary and report back to Council. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilmember <br />Sorteberg to adopt Resolution 983-161, a resolution adopting <br />assessment rolls for Street Improvement Project #83-15, Beaudry's <br />2nd Addition and Unplatted Section. (Please refer to resolution <br />file for Resolution #83-161). <br /> <br />Further,~Disdussion: Councilmember Schlueter inquired if the project <br />costs could increase because of the necessary rework. City <br />Engineer Raatikka replied that the amount quoted on the accepted <br />bid is the maximum amount the contractor can charge this City. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Sorteberg, Reimann, <br />Schlueter and Van Wagner. Voting No: None. Absent: Mayor Gamec. <br /> <br />Case 92: Amgndin9 Of Comprehensive Plan MUSA Line: <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlu~ter noted that Oakridge Estates is being deleted and inquired <br />if any SAC charges have been collected from that area. <br /> <br />City Building Official Berg stated that one SAC charge has been collected from <br />that area. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that these amendments to the MUSA line are only recommended <br />changes from Ramsey to the Metro Council. Metro Council will conduct public <br />hearings and make the final decision. <br /> <br />Sp C/September 13, 1983 <br /> Page 6 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />