My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0917
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0917
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/3/2012 1:05:30 PM
Creation date
10/3/2012 1:05:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/17/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 17, 2012 <br /> Page 6 <br /> segments would be charged with the exception of development projects and./or pe- <br /> titions. Ms. Bloom noted that staff and the PWETC recognized that storm water is <br /> a crucial part of any street project. <br /> Pathway Construction Projects (Section 8) <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that this section referenced the City's Pathway Master Plan, and <br /> also had been considered as part of the Traffic Management Plan recently adopted; <br /> with funding typically provided through sources other than assessments. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom advised that the Pathway Master Plan <br /> listed twenty-five(25) different priority segments. <br /> Streetlight Installation (Section 9) <br /> Regarding street lights, Ms. Bloom advised that a policy was already in place; and <br /> while many requests for decorative or enhanced fixtures were received, few were <br /> processed once the cost for those above standard fixtures were provided, little inter- <br /> est remained. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom clarified that decorative fixtures would be <br /> assessed upfront; with the City working with Xcel and any assessable costs paid for <br /> by the City and assessed to the benefitting property owner accordingly. <br /> Definitions (Section 10) <br /> Ms. Bloom briefly reviewed this section; and provided comparisons to the existing <br /> 2001 Special Assessment Summary Attachment B) and 1986 — 2001 Policy (At- <br /> tachment C). <br /> At the request of City Manger Malinen, Ms. Bloom reviewed the accuracy for pro- <br /> jecting street light lifetimes at twenty —five (25) years; based on calculations pro- <br /> vided by Xcel Energy. <br /> Councilmember Willmus noted previous discussions in 2010 when the City Council <br /> considered a street light fee, with the public not supporting such a fee. <br /> During that time, Ms. Bloom advised that staff had performed an analysis of such a <br /> user fee for street lights. Ms. Bloom noted that the City was allowed to charge such <br /> a fee by State Statute, with the Cities of St. Paul, Shoreview, and Falcon Heights <br /> having such a fee. Ms. Bloom noted that this fee has proven successful in other cit- <br /> ies; and further noted that the City's street light budget includes street lights as well <br /> as signals. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the 2013 Not-to-Exceed Levy has a place holder for street <br /> lights to assist with future infrastructure costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.