03/08/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

additional mileage to our City's MSA system. At that meeting the Committee recommended that both of these projects be submitted to MnDOT to solicit their comments on each of the candidate projects. Mr. Jankowski advised that he had received comment from Bob Brown with MnDOT on both projects. Mr, Brown indicated that the connection from Highway #10 north to a non-existing segment of ottr MSA system is acceptable to MnlX)T. Mr. Jankowski further reported that the second candidate project, the extension of McKinley Street east of Sunfish Lake Boulevard and then north oti the alignment of Tungsten Street to County Road #116 was not acceptable to MnDOT. The reason for this being that County Road #116 is not on the MSA system and while MnDOT has approved some segments which have terminated off system, special circumstances should be involved in granting such a request. Mr. Jankowski indicated that the segment from Highway #10 to 104 would generate greater dollar needs for the City as it involved a railroad crossing and would therefore be the preferred alternative of the City. It was the consensus of the Committee to recommend the addition of the above described segment for addition to our MSA system. Mr. Jankowski will prepare a resolution to be passed by City Council and sUbmitw, d to MnDOT. Case g2: Assessment Procedures This is a continuation of the discussion which was begun at the February 8, 1994 Road and Bridge Committee meeting on formalizing the assessment procedures to be used for the City's annual street maintenance program. At that meeting there was consensus on the treatment of comer lots. Each corner 19t not having frontage onto a County or State maintained Highway would receive 1/2 of the normal assessment for each frontage. It was decided that parks would not be included when determining the number of assessment shares. However, one item not resolved at the February 8, 1994 meeting was the treatment of projects which would result in a disproportionate assessment when compared to assessments on similar properties for similar types of improvements. It was noted that thete were no such projects included in the 1994 street maintenance program, but such projects should be anticipated in the future and it would be helpful at this time to resolve how they would be handled. Staff suggested aggregating projects by improvement types (i.e. sealcosts and overlays). The larger number of benefitted property resulting from the aggregation would create a uniform assessment among property owners. Chairperson Zimmerman pointed out that this method would also result in smaller properties subsidizing larger properties and he found this objectionable. The consensus of the Committee was that Staff should continue investigating some alternative assessment methods. COMMITTEE INPUT None. ADJOURNMENT The regular Road and Bridge Committee meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Road and Bridge Committee / March 8, 1994 Page 2 of 2