03/08/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that once ~ pro~ect is defeated, il drops to thc end of thc schedule and thc City will not participate in th~ cost of the project. Case #2: 1994 Street Maintenance Program City Engineer Jankowski stated that the purpose of thc 199,4 Street Maintenance Program is to maximize street life, Hc presented the proposed program which includes sealcoating plus overlays o.n three projects. Mayor Gilbertson arrived. Mr. Jankowsk/:stated that thc City can budget for only about 15 miles ef street paving a ),car, but by th~ year 1997, there will be a slight dec'tease in the mount of streets that will need to be budgeted. He stated his proposal is based upon miles. Councilmember Zimmerman a~eed that a street program is needed because streets w-ill not last forever. He stated he would like to see this analysis based upon dollars instead of miles and added that if the sealcoats can be "made to last", the City can catch up with its ma_/ntenancc pr0~am. The consensus~of the Committee was to recommend that City Council direct Staff to prepare a feasibility stud), to be presented ro Council in January to initiate the street maintenance prOgram. Case //,3: Consideration of Moclifying Assessment Procedures Applicabte to the Annual Street Maintenance Program City End'meet 3imkowsk/stated that since irs inception, the street maintenance pro~m-'n was 5nanced throu~ special assessments. V~nen the fn-st maintenance or~ecrs we~ in/flared in !981 and continuing through 1990, the Cir),~s poi/cy was to assess 100% of the costs associated with the maintenance pro,am. Projects were se~egated by subdivision and assessed individually. In 1990, fine pohcy was modified by the City conu'Sburing 50% of the indiv/dual project cos~ The purpose of this case is to consider an), modifications desked in the Ssessmem process. Past policy ior comer mad double :~ronrage lots was to assess a full si/are for the improvement to the street on wi'rich the property's dr/veway accessed.. He s,mted that in the past two street pro,'ams, assessments to comer lots were made on the b~is of assessing one-ha.L~' share of each street benefiued. "Fnis has become si~maff'~cant in th~.t a number of cases have occun~ where one street has received a sealcoa, while the second street received a more expensive overlay, h~. Jankowski exoressed his preference for ~e 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 ]ors having double access onto both streets. Mayor Gilbertson felt that the "haL' and hal~' asscssing idea sounded most faL-. City Adrn/rfisrrator Schroeder felt that was most fair also.... Councilmembcr Zimmerman felt that was fak except that the CiD' would have to keep track of who was assessed for a sealcoating to make sure the), were not assessed for an overlay in a couple of ),ears. ]VL-. Jankows~ explained that the City would not have to keep n-ack because the prope~), owner would o~ly be charged for half. Road and Bridge. Committee/December 14, 1993 Page 2 of' 3