01-09-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION December 5, 2016 DRAFT 2 transit and arterial bus rapid transit): he reviewed the findings on each option, noting bus 45 rapid transit as the option identified; 46 - Recommendation is BRT on County/Rail right/of/way to White Bear Lake/Connector 47 Bus to Forest Lake; would be further refined and look to be competitive for federal 48 funding. 49 Mr. Rogers further explained that the Policy Advisory Committee directed their staff to 50 bring the concept forward seeking information and reaction. He reviewed an open house 51 schedule, presentations to city councils and pop up events at retail areas, etc. He also 52 reviewed the planned schedule for the coming months. Long term view would be 53 opening in about 2025. 54 55 Mayor Reinert noted that the line wouldn’t come into the City so this is an informational 56 review. He also confirmed that the function of the line would be subsidized as this type 57 of transportation is not self-supporting. 58 59 Council Member Manthey noted that it is good to see the comparison of the different 60 options; it’s good to see where something like light rail transit doesn’t make sense. He 61 also asked if the route would include addition of any trails and Mr. Rogers explained that 62 trail work proposed at this point would only be for movement around the city of St. Paul; 63 there is discussion in the area of White Bear Lake and Hugo also. 64 65 The Metropolitan Council provides the ridership estimates using comprehensive plan 66 information. 67 68 There was no action or direction by the council. 69 3. Utility Connection Fee – Community Development Director Grochala noted that 70 a need to look at the city’s connection fees has led staff to have a professional review. 71 The fee has been in place since 1988 and this proposes a retool. He introduced Erin 72 Heydinger of WSB & Associates and she explained how the study was done and results 73 developed. She reviewed: 74 - How fees (SAC/WAC) are charged, based on residential or commercial use; 75 - The City’s existing sewer and water connection fees, noting that all the fees are charged 76 up front but they can be assessed. 77 78 She explained an alternative connection fee option: a trunk utility fee that is collected at 79 the time of plat and based on a usage estimate; and then a WAC/SAC fee. The total of 80 those two wouldn’t be higher than existing fees and examples were shown for different 81 types of development. The commercial use change does indicate a lower fee level based 82 on charging only a connection fee. The noted benefits are more equity for a beginning 83 user, fees are proportionate to current amounts, and a more competitive structure for 84 development. 85 86 The council asked if other cities are using this system and Ms. Heydinger noted the City 87 of Hugo. Director Grochala suggested that, if the council is interested, staff would look 88