Loading...
ST8703-CS 890103January 3 1989 TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager FROM: Russell R.~%le, P.E., City Engineer RE: Reconsideration of Capital Bond Funds for Street Maintenance From Item 17 on the City Council Agenda for December 15, 1988 As you will recall, the City Council, on December 15, 1988, approved items 1, 2 and 3 of the attached memo (memo only), and held up consideration of item 4 until it was determined whether or not a prospective purchaser for Gateway Park would be improving Southwestern Boulevard, as required during the final plat approval. Also the City Council requested a detailed break-down for the $450,000 funded for the traffic signals. To the best knowledge of this office, there is a new purchaser that should have closed on Friday, December 30, 1988. However, through preliminary discussions with this "new" owner, they intend upon developing the southern portion of the tract first. They do not have any definite plans as yet. I understand that they are very receptive to satisfying the City of Coppell's requirements related to the final plat, but further discussions would be necessary to better determine when they will improve Southwestern Boulevard. Therefore, we recommend that the City Council delay their decision on that item for one to three months, until we can get better infomation on the intent and direction of the new owner of Gateway Park. Actually, to give that new owner some time to better define his plans. Also requested by the City Council, was the breakdown of $450,000 funded for traffic signals. Attached is a copy of the breakdown for that figure in the bond program furnished by the Finance Department. You had also requested information regarding the widening of Samuel Boulevard. Please be advised of the following information. Total Length of 1/2 Street Section 1202 + L.F. @ $80/L.F. Total Cost $96,000 Subtract 440 feet Funded By Bond Program Approved 2-9-88 30,000 Total Funds Then Needed: $66,000 An assessment program could legally yield up to 90% or $86,400, but more likely not, because the amount assessed would have to enhance the property that much, and a property valuation wou]4 have to be conducted to determine the actual assessments. However, if the needed $66,000 was spread over the 1202~feet, the assessment would be $54.91/L.F. RRD/lsg CIPFUNDS.