Minutes - Council - 11/07/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

bad we want the road. Mr. Schroeder stated that Staff is hoping Council says to get permits so we can bring it to Council and say here's what we have. What would bc disconc~-ning would be to start this road and never get it finished, ff DNR laws get easier in the future, we can make changes, ff the laws do not get easier, we have this to fall back on. Mr. Jankowski summarized the appeals process. Councilmcmber Petcrson stated he is in favor of protecting wetlands but this is ridiculous. He felt the City should take a stand on this. Councilmember Hardin asked for a cost estimate to go through the appeals process. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Zimmerman and Beyer. Voting No: Couneilmembers Hardin and Peterson. Mr. Jankowsld stated that the Road and Bridge Committee also discussed the signalization of the intersection of Armstrong Boulevard N.W. and Highway #10. It is scheduled to be signalized in 1996 - maybe operational by June 1996. He reported that there have been 21 accidents at that intersection from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1993. Mr. Jankowski stated he had spoken with MnDOT Staff about accelerating the installation schedule. This may allow for the signal to be operational about 12 months earlier; however, it would require up-front money from the City. He stated he was not certain what MnDOT would reimburse the City. In a worst case scenario - the up-front construction costs will be reimbursed, but we may have to absorb the overhead costs of approximately $26,000. Motion by Councilmember Hardin and seconded by Mayor Gilbertson to direct Staff to proceed to develop a joint powers agreement with the State and County to expedite the installation of the Armstrong and Highway #10 signalization. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Hardin, Beyer, Peterson and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Mr. Jankowski stated that the next item discussed by the Road and Bridge Committee was a policy for improvement projects. The current policy is based on past practices. He summarized the alternatives such as considering public improvements for entire subdivisions, establishing a minimum project size, and/or to require a laxger percentage than 35 percent of the affected property owners for initiating a sewer and water project. The Road and Bridge Committee recommended considering sewer and water extension only onth¢ basis of a full subdivision and at least 50 percent of the people affected to sign the petition for initiation of the project. Councilmember Peterson inquired how other cities deal with this to which Mr. Jankowski replied he had not surveyed other cities. It's in the best interest of the City to maximize its usage of sewer and water because it lowers the cost for all its customers. Mayor Gilbenson felt that improvement projects should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Hardin felt that the City needs to provide for an opportunity for less than a full subdivision. It should be on a case by case basis and the Road and Bridge Committee should detexmine if the project is a go or not. Councilmember Zimmerman stated he would recommend going with the entire subdivision to promote unity in each neighborhood. Requiring 50 percent of the affected properties would alleviate failure of the petition. City Council/November 7, 1994 Page 10 of 13