2011-11-22_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Vanderwall concurred, noting that the City Council needed to commit to fund studies, even if there was a potential that there would be no cost-sharing available if there was no final project. Mr. Schwartz advised that this was the rationale for some cities in requiring a date certain for request for an annual review and prioritization; and questioned if the PWET Commission wanted to consider that as part of their TMP recommendation. Member Stenlund noted the neighborhood petition requirements addressed in the TMP and upfront knowledge by a neighborhood of the potential costs for a prospective tool. However, Member Stenlund noted that there was no way to know the cost for assessments upfront, other than estimates from other recent or similar projects. Further discussion included if a maximum cap for outside consultants was prudent, such as a maximum of$15,000; the level of study required dictating the cost; and how best to educate neighbors requesting a tool of the costs for studies and their response upfront, while slowing down the process but keeping the levels of communication open and transparent. Exhibit 1 Flow Chart (page 23 of the packet) Members Stenlund and Vanderwall suggested including steps that would address the public input, with a decision tree to move forward; and addition of another box entitled "Neighborhood Feedback" and "Defining Study Costs" as another loop and where it occurred during the process. Mr. Schwartz noted that, under current procedures, the assessment portion didn't come in until later in the process. Members Vanderwall and Gjerdingen noted that the additional step outlined in the flow chart would educate the public on the potential of assessment or upfront costs; and provide fair warning of those costs. Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting that residents would then know the associated costs to proceed to the next step; and their 75% cost-share for the study if recommended to proceed. Member Vanderwall noted the need for residents to understand, as a group, of the necessary commitment to find an answer to their request as well as being aware of other potential costs down the road. However, Member Vanderwall opined that allowing the neighbors to get to Step 8 without a clear and concise understanding of potential costs would be inadvisable. Member Vanderwall suggested that Step 4 provided another opportunity for awareness of potential estimated costs. Page 12 of 16