Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2003/09/02 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA Tuesday, September 2, 2003 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Linke, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Gunn PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus _______ 1. 2003 Street Improvement Project – Introduction of Draft Feasibility Report _______ 2. Review 2004 General Fund Operating Budget. _______ 3. Setting Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Dates. _______ 4. Consideration of Referendum for Tax Levy to Add Two Police Officers. Next Council Worksession: Monday, October 6, 2003 Next City Council Meeting: Monday, September 8, 2003 Item No. 1 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: 2003 Street Improvement Project Draft Feasibility Report Submittal Meeting Date: September 2, 2003 Background: On October 21, 2002 the City Council authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering report to determine the need for repairs, scope of work, estimated costs, and feasibility of conducting a street improvement project. The street segments being evaluated and considered for this project are identified as those that are north of County Road H2 and southwest of County Road 10 (except for those street segments that have been recently upgraded or are County Roads. These include: Pleasant View Drive, Spring Lake Road, Silver Lake Road, Long Lake Road, and Country Road I). On February 10, 2003, Staff submitted a report outlining issues that will need to be addressed as part of the feasibility report. There were three general issues identified that will need to be addressed as part of this project:  Assessment Policy  Street Standards  Storm Water introduction into the sanitary sewer system The assessment policy issue was discussed and a draft policy was developed and review. The assessment issues and proposed policy are attached as Exhibit A. On February 10, 2003 no official action was taken pertaining to streets standards. However, the City Council did indicate that a streets width standard of 28 feet, measured from face of curb to face of curb for the 2003 Street Improvement Project would be acceptable. The street width issue is summarized as Exhibit B. City Administrator __________ 2 The issue of storm water introduction into the sanitary sewer system was introduced on February 10, 2003. Staff is developing an inspection program to eliminate illicit discharge of storm water into the sanitary sewer system. This will be implemented in the spring of 2004. The draft 2004 Budget has funds included to finance such a program. Discussion: The draft preliminary engineering report is attached for the City Council’s consideration. There are two significant issues that Staff is seeking direction from the City Council. These are: the street guttering system, and the assessment policy. These will both be discussed at the work session. Should the Council wish to proceed with this project, a neighborhood meeting will be held later in September. Affected property owners will be notified of the meeting directly by mail. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction, input, and comments from the City Council pertaining to the draft feasibility report. Specifically, Staff is looking for direction on the street guttering system, and the proposed assessment policy. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works 3 EXHIBIT A Assessment Policy To finance a neighborhood street major maintenance project most cities rely on assessment of the benefited properties to finance a portion of the project. However, there are State Law requirements that govern various aspects of assigning assessments: • The amount of assessment assigned to a particular property cannot exceed the increase value that property receives as a result of the street major maintenance project (or any public improvement project). • All properties that have the same land use zone are assigned assessments using the same methodology. • The amount of the assessment assigned to a particular property cannot be based on the value of that property. Given these guidelines, cities are then left to develop their own methodology and policies of assigning assessments. These often vary greatly depending on the rationale they elect to use. The City of Mounds View‘s current assessment policy as it relates to this project would require that the amount of the assessment for a particular property be based on a front foot basis. Other methods used by cities include: based on the area of the benefited property, based partially on frontage footage and partly on the area of the benefited property, based on the square footage of the primary structure on that property, etc. In many cases, after the methodology is selected, many cities then reduce the amount of the assessment by only applying a percentage of the total project cost. In Mounds View’s case, the amount of the assessment is based on 100% of the actual cost of the project, then divided on a front footage basis not to exceed $14.62 per front foot (this maximum amount is adjusted annually in accordance with the Engineering News Record -ENR). When developing street assessment policies, the paramount objective is to identify the City’s plan as it relates to street major maintenance projects. Although a formal statement or resolution has not been given by the Council on this matter, some Council members have indicated to some degree that: A. We should treat all properties fairly. B. We should apply maintenance strategies at the proper time and to the proper streets so as to minimize the overall cost to the City and increase the overall benefit to the residents. C. We should develop a street program that is supported by the public and can be supported financially by the City. A. We should treat all properties fairly. Land value appraisal studies have indicated that all properties benefit approximately the same amount from a neighborhood street major maintenance 4 project with roughly similar lot sizes and similar housing stock. This would indicate that the City should assess equal amounts to all residential properties within a project area. Case in point: assume two $150,000 homes in a project area. One house sits on a corner lot, the other is at the end of a cul-de-sac. According to a benefit appraisal, both properties would receive the same benefit; however, under the City’s current assessment policy, the first house would be assessed much more than the second. Staff recommends that Council consider an assessment policy that assigns a portion of the project cost equally to all similar benefited properties. B. We should apply maintenance strategies at the proper time and to the proper streets so as to minimize the overall cost to the City and increase the overall benefit to the residents. The general maintenance strategy of a roadway segment would be to apply a surface treatment at around the 5th year of the pavements life cycle, then perform a mill and overlay around the 15th to 20 year, then finally reconstruct in year 35 to 40 - generally. The goal of this strategy is to apply the correct maintenance technique at the proper time so as to minimize overall costs. Based on the structure of the City’s current assessment policy, a property owner would be assessed the same amount for a mill and overlay project as they would for a total reconstruction project. Given the choice, property owners may not support an inexpensive mill and overlay project that would cost effectively extend the life of their street and opt to wait for a far more expensive reconstruction project. Staff recommends that Council consider an assessment policy that assigns amounts to be assessed based on the total project cost and NOT on a fixed amount. C. We should develop a street program that is supported by the public and can be supported financially by the City. This is an objective that many cities seem to spend much time researching and fine-tuning. Many, if not most, cities assign public improvement assessment amounts base on a percentage of the total project cost. It then becomes a question as to what that percentage should be. In terms of a neighborhood street major maintenance project, the percent range which is assessed by cities in the metro area to residential properties is 10% to 75% of the total project cost. The majority falls in the range of 25% to 50%. For comparison purposes, the proposed assessment for the County Road H2 Project is 13.3 % of the total project cost. The objective is to select a percentage that is low enough to make the proposed projects appealing to the property owners. However, they need to be large enough to sustain a long-term street maintenance program. The feasibility report for the 2003 Street Improvement Project will have a mock assessment role included that will be based on the City’s current assessment policy. Staff will then 5 take this mock assessment role, which is basically a spread sheet, and add columns with varying percentage rates to illustrate impacts on actual properties with an actual project. If directed by Council, Staff can also perform a financial analysis to determine the long-term impacts the assessment percentage may have on the City’s bonding capacity. Staff recommends that Council consider an assessment policy that assigns a percentage of the total project cost to the benefited property. The percentage will need to be determined at a future date. The following is a draft roadway major maintenance financing policy. It is recommended that this policy be used as the frame work for a street major maintenance assessment policy. The percentages shown are recommended by staff. ROADWAY MAJOR MAINTENANCE FINANCING POLICY DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES The following policy sets forth guidelines for the financing of roadway major maintenance projects. I. DEFINITIONS A. Benefited Property: Property with frontage (rear, side, or front) along a roadway will be considered to receive benefit from any major maintenance projects. In the low-density residential lots, only those properties with front frontage with an access to the roadway will be considered to receive benefit. B. Major Maintenance: For the purpose of this policy, major maintenance will consist of overlays, partial or total reconstruction together with other associated infrastructure repairs, reconstruction, and construction. C. Minor Maintenance: For the purpose of this policy, minor maintenance shall consist of pothole patching, crack sealing, seal coating and minor skin overlays. Funding of these maintenance activities are not addressed as part of this major maintenance policy. D. Project Cost: Included in the improvement cost to be assessed shall be the roadway major maintenance activity cost, lateral storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main costs, engineering, administrative, legal, easement acquisition, and fiscal costs incurred to implement the improvements. 6 E. Roadway Classification: Roadway classification will be determined in accordance with the comprehensive transportation plan previously adopted by the City Council. II. COST ALLOCATION The total project cost for major maintenance is to be allocated in accordance with the policy. Excluding rural unplatted properties, it is the intention of this policy to allocate cost on a project basis rather than on a street-by-street or block-by-block basis. A. Urban Residential Streets Streets, Curb and Gutter Repairs 1. Urban/Low-Density Residential Lots a. For major maintenance reconstruction of streets 32 feet or less in width, 25% percent of the project cost will be assessed to the area benefited on a per residential lot basis. For purpose of this assessment policy the benefited residential lots will be residential lots having front yard frontages along the roadways being maintained. b. For major maintenance of streets wider than 32 feet, the per residential lot cost will be based on the average project cost of maintaining a 28 feet wide street within the municipal urban service area. c. Vacant Lots. Vacant and unplatted residential properties having frontage on the streets having major maintenance performed will be assessed based upon the number of potential lots into which the property could be subdivided. For purposes of this policy, the number of potential lots will be determined by the smallest lot allowed by zoning ordinances within the area of the improvements. 2. Commercial, Retail, Tax Exempt, Institutional, and Medium and High- Density Residential a. Commercial, retail, tax exempt, institutional and medium and high- density multi-residential frontages will be assessed actual project costs according to the following table based on the lineal footage of streets being maintained adjacent to front, side, or rear lot sides. For individually owned multi-family structures, this cost will be divided equally between the individual units. % of Cost Land Use Type Assessed Retail/Commercial 80% Non-Profit/Tax Exempt 50% Medium and High-Density Residential 50% Low-Density Residential 25% 1 7 1 Based on standard 28 ' residential streets. b. Unplatted or vacant commercial, retail, tax exempt, institutional medium and high-density residential properties will be assessed as described above based upon the land use allowed by the ordinance. 3. Public Property. Regardless of the roadway classification, public property will be assessed in accordance with the above residential street policy for low-density residential lots. The assessment will be allocated on an equivalent front foot basis over the entire frontage. For the purpose of this policy, the equivalent front foot will be determined by dividing the frontage by the average residential lot frontage within the construction area. B. Commercial Roadways Streets, Curb and Gutter 1. Commercial, retail, tax exempt, institutional, medium and high-density residential frontages will be assessed actual project costs according to the following table based on the lineal footage of streets receiving major maintenance adjacent to front, side, or rear lot sides. For individually owned multi-family structures, this cost will be divided equally between the individual units. % of Cost Land Use Type Assessed Retail/Commercial 80% Non-Profit/Tax Exempt 50% Medium and High-Density Residential 50% Low-Density Residential 25% 1 1 Based on standard 28' residential streets. 2. Unplatted or vacant commercial, retail, tax exempt, institutional and multi-family residential properties will be assessed as described above based upon the land use allowed by the ordinance. C. Urban Minor Arterial/Major Collector Streets, Curb and Gutter 1. Commercial, retail, tax-exempt institutional and multi-family residential frontages will be assessed actual project costs according to the following table based on the lineal footage of streets receiving major maintenance adjacent to front, side, or rear lot sides. For individually owned multi- family structures, this cost will be divided equally between the individual units. 8 % of Cost Land Use Type Assessed Commercial 80% Non-Profit/Tax Exempt Property 50% Multi-Family 50% Residential 25% 1 1 Based on standard 28' residential street. 2. Unplatted or vacant commercial, retail, tax exempt, institutional, medium and high-density residential properties will be assessed as described above based upon the land use allowed by the ordinance. III. ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Water main, Sidewalks, and Curb and Gutter: 1. The cost of lateral and main storm, and sidewalk / pathway, and Curb and Gutter improvements, maintenance, new, and reconstruction within the area where streets are receiving major maintenance will be included in the project cost to be assessed at the same rate as the street portion. 2. The cost of lateral and main sanitary sewer and water main maintenance and reconstruction within the area where streets are receiving major maintenance will be included in the project cost to be assessed at the same rate as the street portion. 3. The total cost of new lateral sanitary sewer and water main construction will be assessed against the properties receiving sanitary sewer and water service by the new construction. IV. FINANCING A. The cost of the major maintenance and related utility improvements will be assessed over a period not to exceed 10 years. B. The project costs not funded by assessments will be funded from general city revenues. The City Council may specify other funding sources if they are available and their expenditure is specifically authorized by the Council. C. The assessment rate will be based on the project cost including the rate of interest on bonds sold to finance the project plus a surcharge of one percent. Adopted: Date XXXXX XX, 2003 9 EXHIBIT B Street Standards Another issue that will need to be addressed with the 2003 Street Improvement Project is – “What is / should be a standard city street?” Some may correctly argue that there doesn’t need to be a “city standard”. However, at least for this project, the City Council will need to approve the standard street segment. The two main components in developing a street segment from an aesthetics standpoint are: 1) the width of the street and; 2) the guttering system. Width of Street The street widths of the segments included in the 2003 Street Improvement Project are: STREET LOCATION WIDTH (entire paved surface) Hillview East of Gloria Circle 31.0’ Gloria Circle Between Hillview & cul-de-sac 29.0’ Groveland Between Hwy 10 & Oakwood Rd 28.3’ Groveland Between Oakwood Rd & Co Rd I 29.3’ Groveland Between Co. Rd I & Bronson 28.8’ Groveland Between Co. Rd I & Bronson 28.6’ Groveland Between Co. Rd I & Bronson 28.7’ Knollwood Between Oakwood Rd & Co Rd I 29.4’ Knollwood Between Oakwood Rd & Co Rd I 29.3’ Knollwood Between Co Rd I & Bronson 28.5’ Knollwood Between Co Rd I & Bronson 28.6’ Knollwood Between Bronson & Co Rd H2 29.4’ Knollwood Between Bronson & Co Rd H2 29.8’ Knollwood F-F Curb at new radius @ Co Rd H2 29.8’ Oakwood West of Knollwood Dr 29.0’ Oakwood Between Knollwood & Groveland 29.1’ Bronson Between Pleasant View & Spring Lk Rd 28.8’ Bronson Between Spring Lk Rd & Knollwood 28.7’ Bronson Between Knollwood & Groveland 28.6’ Bronson Between Groveland & Silver Lk Rd 29.2’ The measurements include the total width of the existing paved surface. Two sets of measurements are involved in street widths: Face-to-Face (F-F) and Back–to-Back (B-B). Face-to-Face refers to the face of the curb on one side to the face of the curb on the other side. It is used in discussions dealing with the “drivable” portion of the street. Back-to-Back (B-B) refers to the back of the curb on one side to the back of the curb on the other side. It is used in discussions dealing with the total impermeable surface of the street. This is the width agencies such as the watershed district will be interested in. From functional, engineering, and public safety perspectives, local residential streets that allow for parking on both sides should have a minimum width of drivable surface of 26 to 28 feet. In a worst-case scenario, this will allow for two 8-foot parking lanes on each side of the road and still provide a minimal 10-to 12- foot one–way driving lane for emergency and other vehicles. 10 With regard to widening the street, Staff suspects that trying to maximize the street width may be difficult from a standpoint of obtaining permits from other government agencies such as the Watershed District. The Watershed will likely contend that the City is increasing the impervious surface and thus increasing runoff from this area. In the end, the Watershed may not issue a permit or they may require very elaborate and expensive techniques to address the additional runoff. In addition, a need has not been demonstrated for widening streets in the project area. What are the residential street widths in other cities? Spring Lake Park used 32- foot wide roadways in their six-year street replacement program, Blaine uses 27- foot wide streets for new development, and Woodbury uses 29 feet. Staff recommends that Council consider a street width standard of 28 feet, measured from face of curb to face of curb for the 2003 Street Improvement Project.