Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(. <br /> <br />(. <br />\ <br /> <br />i. <br />~ <br /> <br />Elk River City Council Minutes <br />May 7, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />for the sidewalks. This proposal is outlined in the City Engineer's <br />4/4/90 memo. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that staff has concurred with the <br />recommendation of the City Engineer that the cost of the sidewalks be <br />split 50/50 with the City and the property owner. He indicated that <br />according to the Engineer's estimation, at an estimate of $10 per <br />running foot, the cost to the individual property owners would be $5 <br />per running foot for the replacement of a sidewalk or pathway. <br /> <br />The Council also discussed the recommended 1990 improvements from staff <br />and the City Engineer. The improvements consist of establishing 4th <br />Street as a pathway corridor and replacing this existing pathway; <br />removing all residential sidewalks unless the property owners petition <br />for the project and agree to the assessments, and patch the existing <br />sidewalks on King and Lowell. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmgren arrived at this time (6:45 p.m.) <br /> <br />After further discussion by the Council regarding the sidewalk policy, <br />it was the consensus that an informational meeting be held for property <br />owners that abut sidewalks and the 4th Street pathway wi thin the old <br />village area. Councilmember Schuldt stated that this would allow the <br />property owners to become aware of the Ci ty' s new sidewalk policy and <br />to decide whether or not a residential sidewalk should be reconstructed <br />at the approved assessment rate. It was agreed that the residential <br />sidewalks would cost the property owner $5 per running foot for <br />reconstruction and the pathway would cost the property owner $4 per <br />running foot for reconstruction. The City would pay the remaining <br />costs. The different costs were based on a pathway property owner <br />having no choice and a residential property owner being able to decide <br />if the sidewalk should be replaced. All new construction would be 100% <br />assessed with no City financial participation. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO ADOPT THE CITY'S SIDEWALK POLICY AS <br />OUTLINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER WITH AN ASSESSMENT RATE OF $4 PER LINEAL <br />FOOT ON PATHWAYS AND $5 PER LINEAL FOOT ON SIDEWALKS. COUNCILMEMBER <br />SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Council to authorize staff to proceed with <br />setting up an informational meeting regarding sidewalks. <br /> <br />5.3 <br /> <br />Consider School Street Sidewalk Feasibility <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the City Council had discussed <br />the sidewalks along School Street at a Capital Improvement <br />Worksession. He indicated that at the 3/28/90 Capital Improvement <br />Worksession, staff was instructed to proceed with the feasibility study <br />for a sidewalk on the south side of School Street between Gates Avenue <br />and Proctor Avenue. The City Engineer indicated that he had prepared a <br />resolution ordering a preliminary feasibility report in the matter of <br />the School Street sidewalk improvement. <br />