CC_Minutes_2011_0822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 22, 2011 Page 20 Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation for the CIP study and recommendations of the Task Force to fund the CIP partially by reducing operating costs to make it more reasonable for taxpayers so not everything was funded through increases to the tax levy. Mayor Roe noted the need to take into consideration the large items represented by the fire station and Parks Implementation project; with the under- standing that the City Council didn't wish to hurt the ongoing success of the City in attempting to do its job. Further discussion included lessons learned in past budget cycles; increases in in- frastructure base fees; and increased costs for additional debt service. Recess Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:38 p.m. Mayor Roe announced that agenda items 13.c and d would not be considered to- night due to the current time; and with Council consensus and no objection from the public in attendance, those items were deferred to a subsequent meeting. 11. Public Hearings 12. Business Items (Action Items) a. Update on Pole Relocations for Dale Street Reconstruction Project City Engineer Debra Bloom provided an update to the City Council, as previously requested, on pole relocations for the Dale Street Reconstruction Project; as de- tailed in the RCA dated August 22, 2011. Ms. Bloom specifically addressed the repeated requests of the Mr. and Mrs. Hadlich at 2782 Dale Street and the existing power pole and its location on their property. Ms. Bloom reviewed the policy of Xcel Energy as addressed in the franchise agreement between them and the City of Roseville; original staff consideration and assumptions that there may be up to nine (9) poles that would be in conflict with the Dale Street project, but later actually found not to be in conflict; and sub- sequent staff discussions and attempted negotiations with Xcel Energy for relocat- ing the pole in the Hadlich yard. Ms. Bloom reviewed the City's policy for relocating poles; and the inability to as- sc;ss costs for such relocation, and without any other funding source. Ms. Bloom reviewed the history of these parcels, noting that the lots under dis- cussion were subdivided from one (1) parcel into three (3) parcels; and at that time there were no new utilities installed and no policy in place that poles be placed on the edge of a property line. From staff's perspective, Ms. Bloom opined that the City had done their due diligence and was not recommending that the City pay to relocate the poles, in an effort to avoid setting a precedent for fu-