01/03/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 3 Date: January 3, 2012 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Street Reconstruction Issues Background At the December 5th, 2011 work session the city council requested a list of issues regarding street reconstruction. The reconstruction of city streets has been a highly debated topic for the past two decades based, in part, on the city wide election requirements contained in the City Charter and the continued degradation of public infrastructure. The City began using a computer software package to develop pavement condition ratings in 1991. In 1995 the city developed street maintenance guidelines in response to a failed charter amendment which sought to remove the city wide election requirements but provide limitations on special assessments. In 1996 the city commissioned a street reconstruction study and report. The study proposed a 5 phase street improvement program to address deteriorating street conditions. In 1998 the Lakes Addition area (phase 2) was reconstructed following a voter approved referendum. Following the defeat of a referendum in 2003, to reconstruct West Shadow Lake Drive and streets within the Shenandoah subdivision, the council commissioned preparation of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP). This study established a comprehensive plan for road maintenance and reconstruction including an evaluation of funding options and policies to implement the PMP. As a result of the study, funding, through property tax levy, was significantly increased for special maintenance activities including seal coating and pavement overlays. However, the road reconstruction component has remained unfunded following referenda defeats in 2005 and 2007. In 2007 the city council appointed a citizen committee to review the charter provisions pertaining to public improvements. The Citizen Task Force drafted a proposed charter amendment that included the deletion of the city wide election while retaining a neighborhood "Veto" process. This amendment was not submitted to voters however, due to both a competing amendment proposed by the charter commission and an amendment submitted by citizen petition. The petition amendment proposed changing the charter improvement requirements to mirror state law. As required by law the petition amendment was placed on the 2008 ballot for voter consideration. To avoid