HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 27, 2009PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Ringstad called the April 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those
present were Commissioners Fleming, Perez, Billington and Ringstad, Planner Jeff Matzke, Assistant
City Engineer Larry Poppler, Finance Director Jerilyn Erickson, Council Liaison Ken Hedberg, and
Community Development Assistant Michelle Czycalla.
2. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the March 9, 2009, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented.
3. Public Hearings: None
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business:
A. 2010 - 2014 Capital Improvement Program Review
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the staff report dated April 27, 2009, on file in the office of the
Community Development and Natural Resources Department.
Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the 27 items outlined in the CIP.
Questions from the commissioners
Ringstad asked if park dedication fees on individual lots as they are platted make up the funding for park
improvements or does this come from a different fund in the City. Poppler stated the fees come from the
capital parks fund which is funded through development. Poppler added that when compared to last years
CIP the City has moved things back because development is slow. Ringstad asked if the fees get paid at
the time of platting or when the building permit is issued. Poppler replied at the time of platting.
Ringstad asked if the park dedication fees for bare lots have already been paid and are in the accounts
right now. Poppler replied yes, some commercial development can also generate some of that as well.
Fleming asked if the $24.5 million is an increase or decrease over the previous CIP. Poppler stated that
the previous CIP included other intergovernmental items listed and this CIP is only the City funds. Last
years CIP included the funds that the County contributed to projects so it was closer to $40 million.
Fleming questioned why the water storage fund cash balance goes down drastically. Poppler replied that
this is mainly because the new storage facility is part of the CIP. He added once the facility is
constructed it will provide storage for the City for many years and we likely wouldn't need additional
storage until some of the annexation area gets developed and those funds are built back up.
Fleming asked if the $30,000 for tree planting could be expanded over the entire 5 years, spending
$6,000 every year. Poppler stated this is a comment that we can pass onto the City Council.
L:A09 FILES\09 PLANNING COMMISSION\09 MINUTES\MN042709.doc
Planning Commission Meeting
April 27, 2009
Fleming commented that in 2012 the City is due to receive $200,000 from the State and asked what
degree of confidence the City has in that number and what options are available to us to ensure that the
CIP goes forward. Poppler stated that he doesn't have a good answer for him right now. Fleming
commented that he will pass that along to the Council for their consideration.
Poppler commented on Flemings previous questions regarding the $24.5 million. When taking out the
intergovernmental aid from last year, we would be right around the $24.5 million.
Perez asked if the six year revenue projection on page one was on the conservative side. Poppler replied
yes and stated that a lot of the items that are in the CIP are for later years. Poppler added that the City can
adjust things back if projections are inaccurate. If the City sees that development is not picking up again
some of those items (backstops, etc.) can be pushed back to future years.
Perez commented when looking at street improvements, it looks like there is nothing planned for 2010.
Perez acknowledged that street improvements are always a concern in the City and often hears that we
are behind. Perez asked what does this do when the City is taking a year off. Poppler replied that the City
is not taking a year off. The City is dedicating the 2010 and 2011 funds towards the next phases of the
CR 12 project and other County projects. Partnering with the County on those projects sacrifices the City
reconstruction projects until the dollars and recourses are available again. Perez commented that as far as
the residential streets, this is obviously going to put us behind. Poppler stated that CR 12 is more or less a
residential street. There are many homes on that project; it is a different type of County road. There are
many water and sewer services along that project that will make it a neighborhood project and the City
will be heavily involved.
Perez asked if connecting Fish Point Road to CR 21 has been taken out of the CIP. Poppler replied that
the project was always developer driven and added the City would need to partner with the developer in
expanding that roadway to collector street width. Poppler noted that with development the way it is now,
the City doesn't see that happening in this CIP period.
Billington commented that given tike fiscal scenario, he believes this is a prudently drafted CIP plan for
the immediate future. Billington doesn't see any real problems with it. Billington added it is certainly
within the parameters of the Comprehensive Plan and given the fiscal restraints the City will face, he
thinks it's well done and will support it.
Ringstad commented that he agrees with Commissioner Billington that this is a well drafted plan.
Ringstad invited Councilman Ken Hedberg to the podium for comments.
Hedberg commented that there are a few items that he thinks should be addressed by the Council and is
curious on the Planning Commissions input. One of the items is the two year period of no neighborhood
street reconstruction because of County road projects. Hedberg mentioned the City had a similar period a
few years ago where it didn't undertake any neighborhood street reconstruction and that put the City
behind. The Council then restructured the street reconstruction program and put more money into it to
get these projects done quickly. Hedberg thinks the Welcome Avenue street reconstruction and the CR
44/Main Ave/TH 13 intersection are both important, but they displace neighborhood street reconstruction
in this CIP period. If the City put one or both of these projects off for a few years it could accelerate
some neighborhood street reconstruction. Ken will raise those questions to the Council.
Fleming asked if there is a way to do both. Fleming added he doesn't want to forgo one to achieve the
other. He asked if there is efficiency in looking at the entire pot of money, identifying the critical areas in
L:A09 FILES\09 PLANNING COMMISSION\09 MINUTES\MN042709.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 27, 2009
neighborhood streets and putting aside some money for those but not forgoing our commitment to the
bigger projects. Fleming stated he would be in favor of that.
Ringstad asked if traffic patterns on the County road projects and the amount of cars these roads are
carrying on a daily basis funnel into the immediate need of doing these projects now, whereas a
neighborhood street isn't going to carry near the same amount of traffic so they get pushed back to work
out the greater need of the public traffic patterns.
Poppler added that the industrial park project is in our wellhead protection area and the City think it's
important to get sewer and water to those properties so infiltration issues don't occur. Poppler thinks the
City could delay the Main Ave/CR 44/TH 13 project. Poppler added the staff was possibly going to
propose delaying the Main Ave/CR 44/TH 13 project as an alternative and that it would be discussed
more at the workshop. Poppler thinks the staff would support this.
Hedberg commented that CR 12 not only functions as an important east-west connecter, but it also
functions as a neighborhood street and desperately needs reconstruction. Hedberg stated the Council has
had a lot of debate on the Arcadia/CR 21 intersection. This is an important project to get completed
because as traffic builds with Main Avenue and CR 21 becoming increasingly nonfunctional there needs
to be another way for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to circulate from the north side to the south
side of downtown. Hedberg added the CR 44/Main Ave/TH 13 intersection is a traffic disaster.
Martinson/Lords Street/Edinborough isn't even on t11e list in the next five years, and that area is a mess.
Hedberg commented that the City is putting off the Boudin/Timothy/Watersedge neighborhood to 2014
and beyond and that has been a mess for years. The steps the Council took last year to restructure the
transportation plan and funding so the City could get all the remaining street reconstruction done in 18
years was an important step forward. It's still going to take 18 more years from that point to get through
the street reconstruction, by which time the ones that were first constructed to modern standards will be
32 years old. Hedberg is concerned about deferring neighborhood street reconstruction and invited
Finance Director Erickson to comment about the availability of funding and how we have been working
that into our City budget.
Erickson commented that the City would have to go back and reevaluate the funding availability
regarding the City reconstruction projects. Erickson also stated that in order to meet the plan mentioned
earlier about the reconstruction of the City streets, the City would have to go back and reevaluate as part
of the work session with the Council Members to determine if there should be any reprioritization of
individual streets.
Hedberg clarified that he has heard two Commissioners indicate if it's fiscally possible they would like
to see us keep the neighborhood reconstruction projects moving forward without the two year delay but
not decommit from the larger projects.
Billington asked Councilor Hedberg if there has been criticism or concern from the citizens about the
current conditions of the streets in some areas. Hedberg replied he has heard that the Shady Beach area is
a disaster and there is increasing complaints from people in that area. The Boudin/Timothy
Ave/Watersedge neighborhood has been rightfully complaining about their streets for about ten years.
Poppler added that has heard a lot from Shady Beach over the last five years and has heard from the
Glendale/Rustic area, the Blind Lake area and the Boudin area regarding their streets.
Hedberg commented that he is shocked he hasn't heard from the Lords Street/Martinson Island people,
because some of those streets are horrible. Hedberg has personally heard quite a bit from different
neighborhoods. Hedberg added that before we did this longer term transportation plan and moved up the
L:\09 FILES\09 PLANNWG COMMISSION\09 MINUTES\MN042709.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 27, 2009
schedule of street reconstruction, the City is looking at 30+ years before all the neighborhood street
reconstructions are completed, at which time the oldest would be approaching 50 years old and way
beyond their design life. These reconstruction projects are designed to last about 30 years. From
Hedberg's personal views, and from what he has heard from a variety of residents, he believes the City
has got a lot of streets that just don't measure up to what is expected of our community.
Ringstad asked if the street reconstruction projects are paid through City funding or if they were assessed
back to the homeowners on those streets through years on their taxes. Erickson replied that it is a
combination of debt levy as well as special assessments and other funding sources from Municipal State
Aid and some of our Enterprise Funds, the Water Quality Fund and Sewer Fund. Erickson added that
when referring to the 18 year plan there is a balance of incrementally increasing that debt service levy to
accommodate these projects and if the City wanted to do all of them in a shorter period of time that debt
levy would go up so there would be a direct tax impact.
Ringstad asked about what percentage would be assessed to the homeowner and what percentage is the
City going to pick up. Poppler replied that we assess 40 percent of the street and storm sewer
components of the project which amounts to 30 percent of those bid items. The assessments have been in
the neighborhood of $6,000 to $7,000 per parcel. The City assess them "unit method" meaning each
parcel is assessed the same amount. Ringstad clarified that the cost per unit that gets assessed back to the
unit is about $6,000 to $7,000. He then asked if the owner has the opportunity to pay that all at once or it
goes on their County tax bill over a period of time. Poppler replied yes, over a ten year time frame.
Perez explained his reasoning behind addressing this issue. He stated that if the City could do both he
would be in favor of that.
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY PEREZ, TO ASK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMENTS BE FORWARDED ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW ON THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Announcements and Correspondence:
Planner Matzke introduced our new Community Development Assistant Michelle Czycalla.
7. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Michelle Czycalla
Community Development Assistant
L:\09 FILES\09 PLANNING COMMISSION\09 MINUTES\MN042709.doc 4