02-27-2012 Council Special Work Session Minutes

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 27, 2012 APPROVED 46 Community Development Director Grochala then explained staff's research of the 47 proposal to designate 5% of the city budget for a street reconstruction budget. He 48 recommended that the council look at the current status of road work and how much a 49 budgeted amount of work would allow. The city has been doing maintenance in the form 50 of overlay and sealcoating for many years. The Pavement Management Plan has 51 categorized all city roads and maintenance is based on those ratings. There are about 20 52 miles of roadway that fall into a category that is beyond where sealcoat and overlay will 53 help. The city does have a computer program that is used to track the streets and what 54 work is done and current conditions. A council member noted that the liability and 55 problem of not fixing roadways needs to be clear to the residents, with the understanding 56 that there will always be some roads that are in line needing to be fixed. Mr. Grochala 57 explained that the bottom line is that the percentage cap idea would greatly inhibit the 58 city's ability move in on the 20 mile number. 59 60 Community Development Grochala then pointed out that the city has spent approximately 61 $2.5 to $3 million on road work in the last ten years (not including a few areas such as 62 patching and crack sealing). There is a responsibility beyond that to get the 63 reconstruction work done,recognizing that input from the citizens through the process is 64 important. 65 66 The council then discussed the ability to do road reconstruction without any special 67 assessments and they heard that the city's bond counsel Steve Bubul will be at the next 68 work session to discuss the city's bonding ability in that area. Mr. Grochala noted that 69 state statute does contain language that allows cities to issue debt for improvements with 70 certain requirements. The mayor asked for a discussion of the possibility of the city 71 doing projects without special assessments. The council reviewed the cost of some 72 recently proposed projects;the suggestion of the cost being one million dollars a mile 73 doesn't apply for all projects. 74 75 The mayor recalled that the current charter language came to be because the council was 76 abusing its improvement power and leapfrogging to areas for development purposes and 77 thus causing costs for people along the way that didn't need or want water/sewer. Mr. 78 Grochala recalled that the Bisel amendment of the 1990's was passed to prevent that type 79 of situation. 80 81 The mayor suggested putting aside an amendment for this year but rather putting an 82 improvement project on the ballot and explaining to the citizens that approving the 83 project would mean that a portion would be assessed to the benefiting property owners 84 while not approving the project would result in all city taxpayers paying the full cost with 85 no assessments. It's important to clearly explain the situation to the citizens. The council 86 expressed concern about the ability to fully convey a proposal including through ballot 87 language. Doing a project at full city expense would also present a situation where you 88 don't want to change the process down the road so some people get their road paid 100% 89 and then there's a process change and they end up having to pay an assessment on their `.� 90 roadway. 2