Laserfiche WebLink
52588. <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br />FROM: Mark Be,nhardson, City Administrator <br />DATE: May 25, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: Woodhill Avenue Improvement <br />Attachements: A. Woodhill Avenue Improvement Memo Dated 11/13/87 <br />B. Woodhill Road Plans and Specifications Dated <br />4/21/88 <br />C. May 28, 1988 Bid Summary - Woodhill Avenue <br />D. Orono Letter to Woodhill Dated 6/7/88 <br />E. Draft_ Resolution ordering Project and Awarding <br />Bid <br />F. Financing Alternatives <br />ISSUES <br />1. Review process and determine appropriate means to undertake <br />the improvement based on activities to date. <br />2. Determination as to whether the project is to be undertaken. <br />3. 7f the project is to be undertaken, award of a bid to the <br />appropriate contractor. <br />1. Determination if the process is to be undertaken of the <br />financing including any possible assessment of parties other than <br />the agreed party who has committed up to 75% of the project. <br />INTRODUCTION - At the Counci l's November 23rd meeting a public <br />hearing was held regarding the improvement of Woodhill Avenue and <br />on a ?-2 vote it was directed that further work be done regarding <br />the installation of the project including preparation of <br />engineering plans, bid and specs. At the Council's April 25, <br />1988 meeting they directed that bids be taken again on a 3-2 <br />vote. This project was initially commenced as a precondition to <br />the Woodhill plat subdivision in order to upgrade the public <br />portion of Woodhill Avenue to a 22 foot standard and the City has <br />an agreement with the applicants, MSM Inc. plus Woodhill Country <br />Club that they pay 75% of the cost of the project. The original <br />cost of the project as directed to be undertaken was $55,000. <br />DISCUSSION - <br />Issue 1. Review of Process_ - Subdivision approval was contingent <br />upon an agreement for the improvement of the public portion of <br />Woodhill Avenue in order to serve a greater volume of traffic to <br />be generated by this development. Although the City does have an <br />algr,2emen� from the developer who does have 40% of the street <br />frontage on the public portion of Woodhill Avenue it does not <br />have what wou,.d be constituted as a petition. Therefore in order <br />for the project eo be ordered as an assessment project, the <br />1 <br />