Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion followed regarding the transfer of funds to <br />do this work. <br />The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who <br />wished to be heard. <br />Robert Evans, 356 16th Avenue, stated that he was not <br />against the paving of the road but 'did want an explanation <br />concerning the reconstruction of the road. <br />Mr. Davis explained that the road would be brought up <br />to proper elevation and grading; by reconstructing the road, <br />they would be improving the base of the road - it would be a <br />major road improvement. <br />Lengthy conversation took place in regard to upgrading <br />the road and the cost of asphalt. <br />Mr. Davis stated that the asphalt and base were <br />probably the major cost in the project. The drainage would <br />be done by the Road & Bridge Department and he felt that the <br />assessment was not high. He continued that the County went <br />out <br />for bids for the soil <br />cement <br />work and asphalt work, and <br />the <br />other work would be <br />done <br />by the Road & Bridge <br />Department. <br />Mr. <br />Davis <br />felt assured that the cost was much <br />less than if <br />they <br />went <br />out for bid. <br />Mr. Evans pointed out that he was not trying to, stop <br />the paving of the road. His biggest complaint was that they <br />would be digging up lawns, then the homeowners would have to <br />put in new lawns and maintain them in order to keep the <br />drainage ditches opened. Mr. Evans commented that there had <br />never been any problem with the drainage and felt it would <br />be a lot cheaper for the County if they would just pave the <br />road and not do the drainage. <br />Commissioner Lyons commented that it had been the <br />intent of the Board to improve the drainage whenever <br />possible. He realized that it would create a problem but if <br />he could live with it, in the long run, Commissioner Lyons <br />felt he would be happier with it. <br />0 CT 2 01992 FAE 675 <br />