My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-09-1998 CC
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
03-09-1998 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2018 7:11:55 AM
Creation date
6/18/2018 7:11:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/9/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Item No. /C.-- <br /> Staff Report No. <br /> • Meeting Date: March 2, 1998 <br /> Type of Business: W.K. <br /> WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; <br /> CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business <br /> City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br /> From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works <br /> Item Title/Subject: Information regarding Public Hearing on Spring Lake Rd. /Co. I, <br /> Assessment Policy <br /> Date of Report: March 6, 1998 <br /> Staff and SEH has prepared a response to the memo forwarded to Councilmembers by Ms. <br /> Haake (see her memo to Council dated 2-9-98). It is attached to this report. In addition to the <br /> responses, staff has prepared a list of items mentioned by either staff, residents or Council that <br /> could be considered with the current street standards and assessment policy. <br /> 1. Should the current assessment policy be revised? _5__yes no <br /> 2. What should be revised? _2_street percentage assessed <br /> _1_storm sewer assessment_1_water main percentage <br /> • _l_sanitary sewer main percentage <br /> 3.Street assess % 50 45 _2_40 35 _130 25 20 <br /> Storm sewer$$_2400 350 1300 250 200 <br /> Water main% 50 45 140 _135 130 25 20 <br /> Sanitary main% 50 45 _1_40_1_35 _1_30 25 20 <br /> 4. Should the City establish a unit price or front foot price to be assessed for all streets <br /> based on the improvement and adjust that amount annually? _2 yes_1_no <br /> 5. Should the City appraise each property within a project to establish the individual <br /> property assessment? _1_yes _l_no <br /> 6. Should MSA or Co. Tumback funds be applied to the specific roads that receive that <br /> designation, thereby reducing or possibly eliminating any probable <br /> assessments? _2_yes _2_no <br /> 7. Should the City standard allow enough width for parking on at least one side of the <br /> street MSA 32', and random parking, 30' on residential streets? _1 yes_1_no <br /> 8. Should the current construction standard of a 30 foot wide minimum street be <br /> changed?_2_yes_1_no <br /> 9. Should the City utilize MSA funding and construction standards where <br /> designated?_3 yes_1_no <br /> 9. Should the City standard design include curb and gutter?_2 yes_1 no <br /> 1 B618 1 D411 <br /> 10. Should the City utilize the existing width of every street and reconstruct to that <br /> • width, ie. not widen any streets, not have a standard width. yes _3_no <br /> 11. Should the City ask residents for street and drainage designs they would prefer for <br /> their street and construct in accordance with the residents requests? _3_yes _1_no <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.