Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support of that philosophy; however, he questioned <br /> how priorities for which projects on which to spend money would be initiated or <br /> determined. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding whether to include this section, even though it was <br /> added in the 2001 version, or whether it was more applicable in a separate storm <br /> water document; staff s concurrence that, whether the language was included or <br /> not, the City could assess for public improvements; with Chair Vanderwall and <br /> Member Felice supporting the language remaining in the new policy. <br /> Ms. Bloom reviewed the intent of the statement remaining in the policy based on <br /> if and when a project was assessable; current watershed district requirements <br /> today versus those when this policy was originally developed in 2001 or in <br /> documents preceding that policy; and when only a portion of a project was <br /> assessable to meet requirements and additional improvements to mitigate or <br /> improve other issues in a reconstruction project area. <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that she would further clarify the section based on this <br /> discussion. <br /> Member Stenlund suggested more positive language for this, such as: "There shall <br /> be special assessments if required by watershed permits;" to bring something up <br /> to standard or code. Mr. Schwartz suggested language such as: "Storm sewer <br /> costs required for road construction permits shall be included in roadway <br /> assessments." <br /> As discussed further, Ms. Bloom suggested removing the language entirely, <br /> since the definition section would address "required drainage" in three <br /> different areas. Members concurred to remove Section 4 in its entirety. <br /> Remainder of Document <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that the remainder of the document had few changes other <br /> than formatting; since it seemed consistent with previous discussions of PWETC <br /> members. <br /> Page 4, Section 8.d <br /> Chair Vanderwall questioned the twenty-five (25 year maintenance evaluation for <br /> "enhanced street light" areas; whether the assessment period actually exceeded <br /> the benefit. <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that Xcel Energy charged for twenty-five (25) years, thus the <br /> City's twenty-five (25) year assessment, basically a transfer of costs for <br /> installation of ornamental street lights. Ms. Bloom concurred that this was an <br /> interesting discussion point for staff with Xcel Energy staff <br /> Sidewalk Assessment Research <br /> Page 7 of 14 <br />