Laserfiche WebLink
Subdivision 1. (a) 1. does not specify what cost is being assessed 50%, an overlay or a <br />sealcoat. <br /> <br />Subdivision 1 references "existing platted area", Subd. 2. references "new development, <br />Subd. 2. references sealcoating, and Subd.4. maintenance. One might argue an unplatted <br />parcel is not subject to this part of the code. <br /> <br />Subdivision 1. (b) 3. refers to MSA Street when the section deals with residential streets. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that it would appear re-codification of this section of code would <br />be in order. He felt that that should be done before the program is ordered in May, 2002. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman noted that in subdivision 3 of the finance policy it states that the <br />initial cost for sealcoating will be assessed totally to the homeowner, but the City collects the <br />funds from the developer to pay for the first sealcoating. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that was correct, which is why he was recommending review of <br />the policy to make those necessary corrections. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired as to how much the City would be assessing for MSA streets <br />since they are typically larger streets and have few driveways. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained that homeowners along MSA streets would be assessed the <br />average assessment for a similar project for that year. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he had received a phone call from a developer/resident of <br />a subdivision in the City and had explained that he had paid the cost for the first sealcoating as <br />part of the development and then the City turned around and assessed the residents for half of the <br />cost. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained that there was one instance where the funds held in escrow <br />were not enough to cover the sealcoating project so what was done was the amount in escrow <br />was subtracted from the total cost of the project and then half of that amount was assessed to the <br />benefited property owners. In subsequent years it has been determined that if it has been <br />escrowed they will not assess the property owners for the project if there is a shortfall. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if staff was saying that the City does not assess for the <br />sealcoating projects if the City has funds in escrow for the project from the developer. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that that was correct. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson noted that staff is looking at including the five year street maintenance plan <br />in the City's C.I.P., which would include costs. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/January 15, 2002 <br /> Page 4 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />