Laserfiche WebLink
<br />He noted that MSA streets make up about 15% of our total mileage and noted that over the past <br />few years, the City has spent fairly large amounts of money for sealcoating. He stated that staff <br />is anticipating MSA revenue around $7 million or $8 million over the next 10 years. He stated <br />that he would like to see a sustainable policy and would like to see the City leverage the MSA <br />monies as wisely as it can, including assessing benefiting properties. He noted that there may be <br />a way to differentiate the assessment amounts depending on the type of MSA Street. He <br />reviewed the different types ofMSA streets. He stated that currently, when a developer comes to <br />the City to build a street, they are required to pay the equivalent costs of a normal residential <br />street and the City pays the excess for an MSA street. He stated that he would also like the <br />Committee to discuss sidewalks and possible assessments. He stated that one of the City's goals <br />is to create a walkable community and feels this issue needs discussion. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Dehen stated that sidewalks are easy to put in for a new development, the problem is <br />when there is an existing neighborhood, there is fighting about where it should go. ' <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that sidewalks seem to be a very polarizing issue with people <br />feeling very strongly on both sides of the issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson thanked staff for putting this information together because she has wanted <br />to see this information quantified for a long time. She stated that it confirms what she has been <br />thinking, that if the City wants to upgrade the roads, it cannot afford to pay for the whole thing <br />ourselves and there will have to be assessments of some sort. She stated that she feels anytime <br />roads have an MSA designation, there should be sidewalks and should also be assessed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked how this information relates to the preliminary proposal given to <br />Andrie Street residents. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that it differs substantially because of the suggested assessments. <br />He stated that staff is recommending that, because of the history with the Northfork project, that <br />the City follow through on the offer made to the residents for project costs. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Dehen stated that he didn't think any offer had been made to the residents because <br />there hasn't been a feasibility study. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that he thought the offer was that the residents would pay the same <br />assessment for an overlay of a residential street, not an MSA street, and this policy seems to be <br />assessing a larger amount. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Dehen stated that his recollection was that the Northfork residents did not want a <br />sidewalk included in the project, so the City was going to give them options for the project and <br />the whole Council was going to have discussions after the feasibility study was completed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated that the Council has never voted on this issue and stated that, in her <br />opinion, there has never been a firm offer made to residents. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee / July 15, 2008 <br />Page 4 of 13 <br />