02-13-2012 Council Special Work Session Minutes

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 13, 2012 APPROVED 46 a fixed rate that was clear, that took the subjectivity out of the process and also allowed 47 the city to plan financially. The council heard that the term of a spread assessment is 48 fifteen years, but that is a policy choice. The process would provide predictability to the 49 city and the public. The feasibility study portion of a project allows you to look ahead at 50 all anticipated costs and what improvements are appropriate and needed in the area. For 51 water, it has in the past been considered a safety issue by the fire department. 52 53 The mayor noted, looking at the comparison sheet that the charter commission actually 54 came back with their proposal that changes seven of the eight things on the list. Mr. 55 Grochala remarked that the charter proposal actually added more complications than the 56 existing charter language. The mayor remarked that he looked for things that could be 57 brought from that proposal and doesn't see any at this point. A council member asked if 58 things like ignoring the safety of roads doesn't make the city liable in some way and Mr. 59 Grochala pointed out an email from the League of Minnesota Cities that is included in the 60 citizen's task force report that responds somewhat to the city's responsibility in getting 61 work done. 62 63 The mayor proceeded to going down the list,reviewing each area of comparison. When 64 the mayor asked staff what they would view as the biggest problem area, Mr. Grochala 65 suggested the referendum requirement. 66 67 The mayor discussed the feasibility study element and the presumptions that occur 68 because people believe that everything in the study must be done. There has to be a 69 point where you can draw a line of what is optional and make it clear that all the costs 70 aren't necessarily going to occur. Mr. Grochala explained that in a typical process, the 71 council would be making the project decisions at the time of the public input;the current 72 charter doesn't allow that decision point. The mayor noted that it must be clear from the 73 point of the feasibility study that residents have the ability change the project. 74 75 In the area of paying for improvements,the mayor threw out the possibility of the city 76 budgeting five percent of the budget for roads. There could be a one-time question to the 77 citizens—do you want to set aside five percent of the city budget for road improvements? 78 It could be a ten year program and, if it doesn't work as needed, it could be ended after 79 that period. A council member expressed some concern that building up the money 80 wouldn't necessarily be the most sensible way financially. The mayor suggested that 81 whatever the way,the payment process needs to be understandable and feel fair to the 82 citizens. When the topic of the basic cost per mile came up, Mr. Grochala noted that each 83 improvement project is really unique so you can't really presume something like $1 84 million a mile. 85 86 A council member asked for a discussion on next steps. How would a five percent 87 proposal fit into the citizen's task force ordinance? The mayor suggested that it was just 88 a concept that revolves around the question of what do you ask the public to decide and 89 what is going to be understandable to them. A council member suggested that the figure 90 isn't static; shouldn't the request be for what is needed? The mayor remarked that it is 2