Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/01/19 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOR. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 19, 2016 The meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Gregg Lindberg, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Tim Brausen. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Communications Coordinator (Ms. Larson), Operations Manager (Mr. Stevens), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guest: None 1. Assessment Policy Discussion (continued) — Sidewalks, Streetlighting, Maintenance Mr. Hatmening reviewed the discussions that have taken place on this topic over the course of several meetings and summarized the consensus that was reached by the Council at the November 23`d Study Session. Mr. Harmening provided an example of an alley being improved. Under the City's current policy the owners along that alley would pay, as direct or indirect contributors, 100 percent of the project cost tlrrough assessment. He stated it was his impression that the Council wants to incent people to improve the alleys by reducing their assessment contribution to 50 percent of the project cost, noting that direct and indirect access would be split 70/30. Councilmember Sanger agreed that was the consensus of the Council. She stated that she struggles with the indirect access charge. She suggested implementing a connection fee, similar to sewer connection charges, where a property owner would only be charged a fee if they obtain access to the improved alley in the future. Mayor Spano asked for additional information on what Councilmember Sanger would be suggesting. Councilmember Sanger stated that the project cost would be assessed to the direct contributors and, in the future, if someone were to build a garage with access onto the improved alley, they would then have to pay their equal share of the assessment. Councilmember Mavity stated that while she understands the fairness of what Councilmember Sanger is stating, she does not believe that would be enforceable. She stated that people could still use the alley and use loopholes to get out of being classified as a direct contributor. Councilmember Lindberg stated that alleys are still public roads, acknowledging that they provide different type of access to homes. He stated that his priority is to have unimproved alleys replaced. He did not believe a 70/30 split would be enough to incentivize the residents to support the improvements. He stated that property taxes could be levied and the alleys could be improved and the discussion would be done; it was noted that the cost to do so would be $3,200,000. Study Session Minutes -2- January 19, 2016 Councilmember Miller referenced the unimproved streets in the City and it was determined that the cost to improve the unimproved alleys and streets would be around $4,000,000. He asked how much the City designates to the pavement management program annually. Ms. Heiser stated that the pavement management plan has an annual budget of $2,400,000, which is allocated to improved roads. She also provided information on how those road projects were selected. Mr. Heintz stated that currently the franchise fee is $3.50 for each CenterPoint and Xcel customer, with an increased fee for commercial users. He stated that in order to generate $1,000,000 the franchise fee would need to be raised by $1.25 per utility per month. Councilmember Miller stated that it seems that it would be simpler to pull the unimproved roads and alleys into the pavement maintenance program and they could then be budgeted in for long- term planning with the other roadways in the City. Councilmember Hallfin stated that some of the commercial streets have not been maintained on the same cycle as residential streets and suggested that the commercial streets, alleys and unimproved roadways be inserted into the pavement management plan. He noted that another option would be to improve the alleys and unimproved streets when the City is in that area doing road projects. He stated that the residential street maintenance could be delayed one additional year in order to work in the additional roadways. Councilmember Mavity stated that even though $1.25 does not seem like a large amount there are many important issues that come before the Council each week and perhaps it would be a better decision to place those additional funds towards other issues. She stated that she has not heard anyone complain about the alleys and some people might think they are quaint. Councilmembers Sanger, Lindberg and Hallfin stated that they have all heard complaints. Councilmember Mavity stated that she is not in favor of simply paving the alleys and unimproved roadways just to do it. Councilmember Hallfin asked the opinion of the public works staff. Mr. Harmening stated that the City workers would prefer for the roads to be paved, as it would be easier to maintain. Mayor Spano asked for additional input from Ms. Heiser. Ms. Heiser stated that it would be much easier to not assess anything but stated that from a fiscal perspective the pavement management plan has funds committed. She stated that the need for rehabilitating street segments has increased. She noted that with additional funds the roadways could be worked into the pavement management plan using the assessment rate of 50 percent for commercial properties. She stated that undertaking the alleys in the same cycle as the pavement management program would not work as well. Alleys are different because the work is occurring in someone's backyard. Councilmember Hallfin asked for additional information on whether it would be feasible to delay the pavement management plan by one year in order to address some of these issues. Study Session Minutes -3- January 19, 2016 Ms. Heiser stated that a lot of the pavement in the City is the same age and staff has real concerns about delaying maintenance because the right maintenance needs to be done at the right time in order to preserve the life of the roadway. Mr. Hannening stated that there appears to be movement towards doing this as much as possible without using assessment. He suggested that staff research this further to determine what this policy could look like. He stated that in regard to alleys it appears that the Council would like to avoid assessments if possible as an incentive to get those improved. He referenced commercial streets and explained that commercial streets are heavier and wider in order to accommodate the vehicles, which makes them more expensive to improve. That is why the 50 percent assessment is proposed for those roadways. He noted that commercial properties also contribute less to the pavement management plan than residential properties. Councilmember Miller stated that he would be in favor of incorporating the unimproved streets and alleys into the pavement management plan with no assessments. He asked if there would be a way to understand what would be saved by improving the streets now rather than delaying that action for ten years. Ms. Heiser stated that pavement is rated annually on a scale from 1 to 100. Deferring maintenance by 8 years would mean that that the pavement condition would deteriorate, impacting the type of the maintenance, and costing the City more money. Councilmember Miller asked if there is a higher cost to plow gravel alleys. Mr. Stevens stated that the cost to remove snow in an alley is the same across the board but noted that the risk of damage to plowing equipment is much higher on a gravel alley. Councilmember Lindberg stated that he would support assessing commercial streets for the purposes identified by Mr. Harmening. He asked for additional information on assessments. Ms. Heiser provided additional information on the assessment process and noted that there would be active management of commercial streets. She stated that benefit must be proven for an improvement project in order to assess the property, noting that the initial assessment level could be set; however, a direct benefit equal to or greater than the assessment amount would need to be demonstrated. She advised that any final assessment would come before the Council for approval. Councilmember Lindberg stated that there are different purposes for residential and commercial roadways and he would prefer that the cost for the commercial roadways be assessed to the commercial users rather than spread out over the residential base. Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like to hear a plan for streets that have both commercial and other land uses. Councilmember Mavity stated that she wanted to make sure that the assessments are not being reviewed in isolation and that at some point she would like to see the big picture and overview. Mayor Spano referenced the list of ten items that was created for assessments and believed that at some point a high-level discussion should be had to determine whether or not to assess direct property owners. Study Session Minutes -4- January 19, 2016 Mr. Harmening reviewed the recommendation for residential sidewalks, which would not assess sidewalks that are included in the Connect The Park program; noting that sidewalks not included in the plan could be constructed with 50 percent of the cost assessed. Mayor Spano stated that if the item is used for the public, such as streetlights, an analysis should be made to determine if the item will benefit public safety, and if the answer is yes, the improvement should be covered with public tax dollars. She stated that if the answer is no, the improvement should then not be constructed. Ms. Heiser stated that if the installation of a streetlight will improve public safety, then the item is covered by the streetlight policy. She explained that the City will fund public streetlights that have safety benefits, but a resident desiring decorative lighting would be assessed for that higher cost of lighting. Councilmember Mavity stated that she would not support funding alleys as residents pay for their own driveways, but stated that she would support funding public benefit improvements. Mr. Harmening summarized the consensus of the Council to have a policy that does not assess for things like sidewalks and street lighting, and to fund those items through the property tax levy and franchise fees, with the exception of commercial/industrial property. Communications/Meeting Check -In (Verbal) No comments. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk