CC_Minutes_2012_0917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 17, 2012 Page 5 At the request of City Manager Malinen, Ms. Bloom advised that the three (3)-year stipulation for new developments (Section 5.d) had been a carryover from previous policy. City Manager Malinen advised that his only concern with that period was that land use change may take longer to grow into something demanding higher ca- pacities. Mayor Roe concurred,using phased development as an example. Ms. Bloom advised that she and City Attorney Gaughan would further research how that length of time had been originally determined. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bloom reviewed rationale for mill and overlay. Ms. Bloom noted that due to the City's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) funds to address street infrastructure needs being in place, and staff's experi- ence with other communities (e.g. Falcon Heights and Arden Hills) that had at- tempted to assess 50% for mil and overlay projects, subsequently challenged and determination made by the court system that a cost benefit was not evident, the rec- ommendation of the PWETC and staff was not to pursue such a provision. Ms. Bloom advised that the City had been successful to-date since 1985 in using the PMP to fund projects by the City as a whole rather than through the assessment process, taking up considerably more time. Ms. Bloom advised that the PWETC discussion found the current set-up versus proving special benefit for roadway maintenance projects, such as mill and overlay, should remain within the PMP funding,providing that fund be maintained at the level needed to do so. City Manager Malinen referenced the Final Assessment Survey percentages under column 5 (Attachment D) showing the overlay rate, and questioned if that was based on staff's experience from challenges; and further questioned how the per unit versus front footage rates had been arrived at. Ms. Bloom advised that each community had a special benefit, history, established thresholds set at the beginning of the year, but not based on project costs such as done by the City of Roseville. Ms. Bloom noted that the City of Roseville based their costs on actual costs, not projected costs as done by some communities. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of maintaining the PMP established in 1985, as it provided a service to residents. Storm Sewer(Section 6) Ms. Bloom reviewed storm sewer requirements based on new regulations and re- quirements with reconstruction projects. Ms. Bloom advised that this is requested by the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, other regulatory agencies and watershed. However, for street projects, following considerable dis- cussion at the PWETC level, and standard practices prior to 2001 and storm water infrastructure funding for area drainage projects, Ms. Bloom advised that no as-