Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/13/1988

Home Browse Search

demonstrable, many do not directly abut on the public portion of the roadway. In addition to the concern with the present 16 foot width and condition of the road that an improvement project to the area will be necessitated in the next 5 to to year aryway regardless of the increased traffic. Issue 3. Bid Award - The present bids received have a project total of $47,900 which is approximately $7,000 under the modified Engineer's estimate from the previous project. Such would lower the costs of all parties involved (apart from the City) depending on the scenario that the City chose to undertake for financing if the project went ahead. Issue 4. Method of Financing -- As srated above the developer, at this point, has committed to 75% of the cost. It is his expectation to pay it as a lump sum. It then becomes a question of whether there is an assessment on the three abutting property owners. Prior to the subdivision the three abutting owners particularly the one furthest, had the advantage of being on a quiet, almost private road, as there was no traffic through there since the voluntary blocking off of that access by Woodhill in about 1975. While having the quiet repose of a private toad the property owners have not had to pay any of the costs to date for the maintenance of the road. (other private road owners have had to pay the ongoing snow plowing and upkeep of their roads and in the case of Nol lander Road are facing about a $2,000-3,000 cost to just bring the road up co City standards should the City choose to take it over.) While the increased traffic on Woodhi l l would not necessairly be considered s benefit from the property owners standpoint the additional width and stability of the road, as far a a,.,cess is concerned, is to some degree a benefit, and is the fact that a future improvement to this road may cost those property owners substantially more, should the Cite choose to assess a portion of it. The City would not have in the future a guarantee from the new subdivision as to its share of the payment. Please review Attachment F regarding potential financing alternatives. The layout as presented in the revised alternative should provide a means to limit the adverse impact on the property owners. ALTERNATIVES Issue_1. Review and Determination of Procedure A. Go through the steps in order to limit the needed vote on ordering the project to 3/5's as outlined above. B. Go ahead with the vote on ordering the project to determine if a 41/5's voty is avai 1<ihle. C. order the project on a 3/5's vote requiring the developer to 1