My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-02-28_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-02-28_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2012 10:56:47 AM
Creation date
3/29/2012 10:56:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/28/2012
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Ms. Bloom clarified that it was basically a discussion of needs, with the City <br /> currently performing 3-5 miles of mill and overlay projects annually, requiring <br /> significant dollars to perform that maintenance, and currently requiring the City to <br /> dip into the PMP principal, diminishing its reserves. Ms. Bloom projected that <br /> costs would only continue to increase, and questioned the status of those funds <br /> would be within ten (10) years. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted that deferring or eliminating the mill and overlay <br /> maintenance only created the need for reconstruction sooner. Member <br /> Vanderwall concurred with the point made by Member Gjerdingen that a <br /> combination solution was probably indicated, with a levy on top of the General <br /> Fund levy, but also assessing more than currently being done. Member <br /> Vanderwall noted that this would be of immediate benefit to local residents as <br /> well as those benefitting over the long-term. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council was well aware of the funding gap in <br /> the PMP. <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted that he didn't hear any individual Commissioners <br /> supporting assessing construction costs at 100%. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that it was good to have the public pay for a portion <br /> of mill and overlay projects; and that their involvement could also force them to <br /> recognize the rationale and necessity in doing so. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted projects in the early 1980's when neighborhoods were <br /> non-supportive of street reconstructions, and unwilling to pay for them, creating <br /> deferred construction at higher costs in the future. <br /> Chair DeBenedet, from another perspective, noted that when his street was <br /> reconstruction ten (10) years ago, there were no assessment costs for him, causing <br /> him some guilt in advocating revisions to this Assessment Policy. However, <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that it was of benefit to the overall community to have <br /> all properties held to a minimum standard; and noted that often when a street was <br /> reconstructed in a neighborhood, it prompted property owners to perform <br /> additional maintenance around their homes, benefitting their neighborhood and <br /> the entire community. <br /> In conclusion, Ms. Bloom defined and clarified her direction from Commissioners <br /> to facilitate further discussion: <br /> • Get more information from the Cities of Richfield and St. Louis Park, as they <br /> were more similar to the City of Roseville; <br /> • Talk to the City's Planning Division about zoning, the breaking point for <br /> residential, and bringing forward the land use map as additional information in <br /> the future; <br /> • Review current Institutional parcels and uses in place; <br /> Page 12 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.