Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 23, 1994 <br />for a 100 foot lot. <br />The Administrator suggested that the improvement <br />hearinq inalude both options for the residents <br />consideration. <br />The Public Works Superintendent reported that he <br />preferred Option #1, the mill and overlay. The <br />Superintendent pointed out that there have been no <br />subsurface break-outs of the street, therefore, the <br />street is stable, and a mill and overlay would be <br />sufficient. <br />Morelan pointed out that doing a mill and overlay of a <br />street every 10 years is not cost-effective. <br />Scalze pointed out Olson's comments that a mill and <br />overlay would last longer than 10 years. <br />Morelan asked how much longer than 20 years Option 2 <br />would last. <br />Pedersen asked if a 30 year street life could be <br />expected with full-depth reclamation. <br />Olson replied that due to the soils in the area a <br />street would not last 30 years. <br />Scalze suggested that given the poor soils, Option 1 <br />may be the way to go. <br />Hanson asked the length of the assessment period. <br />The Administrator replied that the assessment could be <br />spread over a 10 year period or less. The <br />Administrator stated that he was not comfortable with a <br />100o assessment for an overlay feeling that a portion <br />of an overlay represented deferred maintenance. The <br />Administrator pointed out that these streets were <br />constructed to urban standards to begin with. If the <br />City were to contribute a portion of the overlay cost, <br />this may make the improvement more acceptable to the <br />property owners. The Administrator suggested that <br />perhaps this portion of the street assessment policy <br />should be reviewed again. <br />Morelan felt that the situation evened out in the long <br />8 <br />