12/14/93 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that once a project is defeated, it drops to the end of the schedule and the City will not participate in the cost of the project. Case #2: 1994 Street Maintenance Program City Engineer Jankowski stated that the purpose of the 1994 Street Maintenance Program is to maximize street life. He presented the proposed program which includes sealcoating plus overlays on three projects. Mayor Oilbertson arrived. Mr. Jankowski stated that the City can budget for only about 15 miles of street paving a year, but by the year 1997, there will be a slight decrease in the amount of streets that will need to be budgeted. He stated his proposal is based upon miles. Councilmcmber Zimmerman agreed that a street program is needed because streets will not last forever. He stated he would like to see this analysis based upon dollars instead of miles andadded that if the sealcoats can be "made to last", the City can catch up with its maintenance program. The consensus of the Committee was to recommend that City Council direct Staff to pre.pare a-feasibility study to be presented to Council in January to initiate the street mmntenance program. Case #3: Consideration of Modifying Assessment Procedures Applicable to the Annual Street Maintenance Program City Engineer Jankowski stated that since its inception, the street maintenance program was financed through special assessments. When the first maintenance projects were initiated in 1981 and continuing through 1990, the City's policy was to assess 100% of the costs associated with the maintenance program. Projects were segregated by subdivision and assessed individually. In 1990, the policy was modified by the City contributing 50% of the individual project cost. The purpose of this case is to consider any modifications desired in;the assessment process. Past policy for comer and double frontage lots was to assess a full share for the improvement to the street on which the property's driveway accessed. He stated that in the past two street programs, assessments to comer lots were made on the basis of assessing one-half share of each street benefitted. This has become significant in that a number of cases have occurred where one street has received a sealcoat, while the Second street received a more expensive overlay. Mr. Jankowski expressed his preference for the more recent method of assessment, as it alleviates the need for a visual inspection of the lot to determine where the property owners' access is located. It also avoids the issues of how to assess vacant lots, and whether to assess two shares to comer lots having double access onto both streets. Mayor Cjilbertson felt that the "half and half" assessing idea sounded most fair. City Adrrdnistrator Schroeder felt that was most fair also. CouncilmCmber Zimmerman felt that was fair except that the City would have to keep track of who was assessed for a sealcoating to make sure they were not assessed for an overlay in a couple of years. Mr. Jankowski explained that the City would not have to keep track because the property owner would only be charged for half. Road and Bridge Committee/December 14, 1993 Page 2 of 3