02-11-1997 Charter Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Council Member Kuether stated her support to remove MSA roads from this proposal. Mayor Landers advised that MSA roadways are also assessed to benefiting properties. Commissioner Dunn noted a fairly ambitious course was set to focus on one area. He advised that within the Charter Commission, a majority, but not a consensus, felt there needed to be a test case. This was the focus of the road improvement plan; to identify five priorities. Since this is done, he believes the next step is to identify which of the five to tackle first. Commissioner Dunn agreed with the MSA issue involved with Wear Road and pointed out it also needs sewer. He suggested being more aggressive in getting a resolution so if it is deemed to not muster funding from the general fund and has to go to a Charter amendment, it can be done either before or after the November election. He urged that this meeting not conclude before there is a clear understanding of who is doing what. Commissioner Trehus stated there are two separate issues, maintenance and road reconstruction. Mr. Ahrens reviewed the policy to sealcoat every seven years. The first sealcoat done is applied within two to three years of the road construction. Maintenance, patching and small portions of thin layers of overlay are also done. He advised that funds have not been budgeted for larger overlay projects. Council Member Bergeson explained the Council did adopt a definition of "maintenance" as recommended by the consulting engineers. Chair Montain asked if definitions are included in the Charter. Mr. Hawkins stated he is unsure of the actual definitions but suggested the word "improvement" be considered. Council Member Bergeson stated it may be possible to revise the definition. Chair Montain noted this type of definition revision would still not address the top of the chart. Council Member Bergeson concurred. Commissioner Trehus commented on the importance of assuring roadways included in future phases do not further deteriorate and inquired regarding the wisdom of spending great sums of money on the first five phases if the result is that the remainder of the roads then deteriorate to a similar condition as the first five phases. Chair Montain regarding if there would be the potential for increased costs if future phases are delayed. Council Member Lyden noted another facet is for developers to be charged an "impact fee" or other type of fee. He also asked which phase would provide the best "litmus test' and fair assessment for the Charter. Mr. Hawkins advised an impact fee cannot be charged for a "road reconstruction fund." He explained if the road improvement directly benefits the subdivision then it could be assessed. PAGE 6