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. O <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: February 26, 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 assessznt policy. <br /> 1. Should the current assessment policy be revised? v yes no <br /> 2. What should be revised? street percentage assessed <br /> storm sewer assessment water main percentage <br /> sanitary sewer main percentage <br /> 3.Street assess % 50 45 40 35 0 25 20 <br /> • Storm sewer$$ 40t� 350 300 250 200 <br /> Water main% 50 45 40 35 25 20 <br /> Sanitary main % 50 45 40 35 0 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? yes no <br /> 5. Should the City appraise each property within a project to establish the individual <br /> property assessment? *N( yes no <br /> 6. Should MSA or Co. Turnback funds be applied to the specific roads that receive that <br /> designation, thereby reducing or possibly eliminating any probable <br /> assessments? yes 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? yes K no <br /> 8. Should the c rrent construction standard of a 30 foot wide minimum street be <br /> changed? yes no <br /> 9. Should the City utilize 1VJSA funding and construction standards where <br /> designated? yes no <br /> 9. Should the City standard design include curb and gutter? yes no t <br /> B618 'iNI .411 <br /> 10. Should the City utilize the existing width of every street and reconstruct to that width, <br /> ie. not widen any streets, not have a standard width. )yes 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? yes no <br /> J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.