My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10.01 - Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2010
>
08-03-2010 Council Meeting
>
10.01 - Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2014 9:48:41 AM
Creation date
4/28/2014 9:47:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
We understand that the residents obtained a quote about 5 years ago, or so, to pave <br />this roadway. We have not obtained this quote, but have been told it could have been in <br />the $45,000 range. We also do not know the scope of the quote (just pave over the <br />gravel that was there, or what ?), but we do know that even with the recent recession, <br />bituminous prices have increased fairly substantially over the last 5 years. <br />Thus, it would not be surprising, depending on what the resident's "cost baseline" is, <br />that they would not consider the estimated project costs in this report to be cost- <br />effective. <br />While they have at least considered that a paved road may be cost effective, they <br />may decide that continuing to pay for maintenance and snow plowing year after year is <br />more cost - effective. <br />Are the improvements feasible? <br />There is technical / engineering / construction feasibility, financial feasibility, and <br />procedural feasibility. <br />From a technical / engineering / construction perspective, there are no <br />insurmountable problems apparent. Thus, from this perspective, the improvements <br />appear feasible. <br />Financial feasibility has been discussed in the cost effectiveness section above. It <br />should also be NOTED that the City will need to obtain bonds and provide funding for <br />this project, even if it is 100% specially assessed. The City has to pay various project - <br />related and construction costs before special assessments are paid to the City, either by <br />lump sum payments from the residents usually towards the end of the project or over <br />time on their taxes. While discussions and decisions on this question still need to occur, <br />we believe the improvements appear financially feasible. <br />With special assessments, there is a process, including involving public input. At any <br />time during this process, the project can be deemed unfeasible. However, at this initial <br />stage, we are not aware of any major obstacles from a procedural perspective. Thus, <br />from this perspective, the improvements appear feasible. <br />If made, would it be best for these improvements to be made as proposed or in connection with <br />some other improvement? <br />There was discussion about making pavement improvements to North Sluetter Road <br />from Wildlife Trail down to the paved County Road 168 — why go from pavement on <br />Pequot Lakes — Wildlife Trail Improvements Study <br />WSN No. 0130130044.000 Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.