HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
....OO~ PR10~"'~\
E-.. ~ 4646 Dakota Street S.E.
U ~ Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
f1'J
~1~ESOV'
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 1, 2009
8A
JERIL YN ERICKSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR
STEVE ALBRECHT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONDUCT INFORMATIONAL HEARING ON THE 2010-2014 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Introduction
This agenda item is an informational hearing on the proposed projects within
the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A "public hearing" is not
required by state statute; however, the hearing will provide our residents an
opportunity to make recommendations and comment on particular projects.
Historv
City staff updates the CIP on an annual basis. The CIP is designed to identify
infrastructure improvements needed due to ongoing maintenance and repair
and community growth and the associated funding sources. Such projects
include City-initiated improvements, county and state road improvements and
improvements requested by developers. The 2010-2014 CIP ($24.6 million)
appears to be significantly less in scope than the 2009-2013 CIP ($37.9
million). The previous CIP incorporated the County projects and the
associated County funding which resulted in increased project totals. The
2010-2014 CIP only reflects the City's share of other governmental agency
projects.
On April 27, 2009 the Prior Lake Planning Commission reviewed the 2010-
2014 CIP. The Commission did express some concern about not having City
neighborhood reconstruction projects scheduled for 2010 and 2011. The CR
12 project will actually serve as the City's neighborhood reconstruction project
in those years and will include more than 82 residential properties within the
City. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes has been included
with this report. The Commission found that the CIP was consistent with the
goals and objectives of the City of Prior Lake Comprehensive Plan.
A draft copy of the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program was distributed
for your review in conjunction with the May 18, 2009 council workshop. The
CIP included a summary of demands versus funding sources which reflected
the projected cash balances after taking into account conservative revenue
projections, CIP construction demands and 2009 construction obligations.
Projects were presented by department, funding source, and detail.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
!HI1Qll?!~54,(t47,"Q~OQ, l;:Fax 952.447.4245
Included with the CIP were the following long-term planning documents:
. Equipment Replacement Program - identifies the City's vehicle
and equipment needs and establishes a regular replacement
schedule.
. Neighborhood and Community Park Equipment Replacement
Matrix - identifies the equipment replacement demands for 46
neighborhood parks.
. Transportation Plan - identifies the major roadway improvements
involving both new and reconstruction projects that need to be
coordinated with Scott County.
Staff provided a detailed overview of the 2010 and 2011 projects and
highlights for the major projects scheduled for 2012-2014. The impact of the
bonds that would be required to support the1 O-year transportation plan was
graphically shown from an annual debt levy perspective as well as the cost to a
$300,000 residential property owner.
The City has also received the following petitions related to improvements for
consideration as part of the 2010-2014 CIP:
. Lords StreetlEdgewater Circle Maintenance Overlay (received Sept.
2008, included in draft CIP for 2011)
. Shady Beach Trail Full Depth Mill and Pave (received March 2009,
Amended see below)
. Shady Beach Trail Amended Maintenance Overlay (received May 21,
2009)
. Sycamore Trail Reconstruction as City Street (received May 21,2009)
In response to the Council's discussion during the work session, staff has
prepared three alternatives to be considered:
Alternate 1 - This plan proposes the following changes:
a) In anticipation of the County accelerating the CR 21
project to potentially open in 2011 we move the
Fountain Hills/CR 21 (Fire St. No.2) Signal up to
2011.
b) Moves the Main AvelTH 13 (Ridgemont) project back
from 2012 to 2014
c) Moves the Downtown South project back from 2013
to 2015
d) Moves Shady Beach Phase 1 up from 2013 to 2012
and Phase 2 up from 2014 to 2013
e) Moves Timothy/Boudin/Rutgers Phase 1 up from
2014 to 2013 and Phase 2 up from 2015 to 2014
Alternate 2 - This plan proposes the following changes:
a) In anticipation of the County accelerating the CR 21
project to potentially open in 2011 we move the
Fountain Hills/CR 21 (Fire St. No.2) Signal up to
2011.
b) Moves the Main Ave/TH 13 (Ridgemont) project back
from 2012 to 2014
c) Moves the Downtown South project back from 2013
to 2015
d) Modifies the Industrial Park Project to only include
sewer and water extension which provides the
needed protection to the City's wellhead. Leaves
street and storm water improvements to be
completed in the future by property owner petition
(100% assessment).
e) Moves entire Shady Beach project up from 2013 and
2014 to 2012
f) Moves entire Timothy/Boudin/Rutgers project up
from 2014 and 2015 to 2013
g) Moves Rustic/Maple/Glendale Phase 1 up from 2015
to 2014 and Phase 2 up from 2016 to 2015.
Alternate 3 - This plan proposes the following changes:
a) In anticipation of the County accelerating the CR 21
project to potentially open in 2011 we move the
Fountain Hills/CR 21 (Fire St. No.2) Signal up to
2011.
b) Moves the Main Ave/TH 13 (Ridgemont) project back
from 2012 to 2014
c) Moves the Downtown South project back from 2013
to 2015
d) Moves Shady Beach, Timothy/Boudins/Rutgers and
Rustic/Maple/Glendale Projects up to 2012
Current Circumstances
It is important for the Council to recognize that the document is a flexible
planning tool that is affected by the actions of a number of governmental
agencies (State, County and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community). The
projects that are approved for 2010 will be incorporated into the 2010 budget.
The improvements that are funded in full or partially by tax levies have a direct
impact on the level of property taxes payable in future years. Bond proceeds
are utilized to cashflow the project and debt levies are adopted to repay the
debt service.
Actions by the school district and the county will also influence the level of
taxes through their annual levies and periodic referendums and bond issues.
ISSUES:
There are a minimal number of projects proposed for the Capital Park Fund in
2010 and 2011 due to the general slowdown of development and the
associated reduction of funds that are generated to finance the neighborhood
park improvements. Conservative projections for growth enable some activity
beginning in 2012.
Following Council approval of the Capital Improvement Program, Engineering
staff will prepare a feasibility report for those projects identified for next year.
Adequate lead time is important for surveying, right-of-way acquisition and
engineering to obtain the best possible bids, which is generally early in the
year.
Subsequent years in the CIP are important from a planning perspective. Our
objective in preparing the CIP has been to balance the tax impacts from year
to year while addressing infrastructure needs.
As detailed above, the City has also received 4 petitions related to street
improvements for the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program. The Council
must determine whether the petitioned projects should be included in the CIP.
Each project should be evaluated based on need, timing of proposed
improvements and available funding.
Petition (1) Lords StreetlEdaewater Circle Maintenance Overlav:
In the fall of 2008 a petition including the signature of 26 of 41 residents living
on Martinson Island was received requesting a maintenance overlay of their
street. These streets are scheduled for reconstruction in 2018 in the current
transportation plan. This petition was included in the draft CIP for 2011 as it
was received prior to preparation of the CIP and staff believes it is warranted
based on street condition and the need to extend the life of these streets until
they can be reconstructed in 2018.
Petition (2) Shadv Beach Trail Maintenance Overlav:
The City has received two petitions from the same section of the neighborhood
for this street. The amended petition received on May 21, 2009 was only for a
maintenance overlay of first 800 feet of Shady Beach Trail which is nearly
4,800 feet long. For that section it included signatures of 12 of the 15
residents; however, there are a total of 64 residents on Shady Beach Trail.
Shady Beach Trail is currently scheduled for reconstruction in 2013 and 2014.
This petition was received after the draft document was prepared but should
be considered by the Council as part of the CIP.
Petition (3) Svcamore Trail Street Maintenance:
The City received a petition requesting that the City take over the maintenance
of and to eventually reconstruct Sycamore Trail by 10 of the 14 residents living
on the last segment of the roadway currently considered private by the City.
This petition involves legal issues as to the responsibilities for maintenance of
the roadway and needs to be evaluated by the City Attorney and staff. This
petition will be brought to the City Council for consideration later this summer
once determinations are made regarding the legal issues.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In reviewing the draft 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program, the Council
should consider the annual tax impact of the scheduled projects. While state
levy limits have been imposed through 2011, a special exception exists for
debt levies associated with capital improvement program financing.
The major projects proposed for 2010 involving a property tax levy (payable
2011) are listed below:
I Project Description
CR21 Extension (CR42 to CR16)
CR42/McKenna Signal
CR12 Phase III (Elm to west of CR81)
CR21/Arcadia Intersection - DesiQn & ROW
I T~al
Project Levy I
$ 140,000
125,000
720,000
500,000
$ 1,485,000 I
Listed below is a year-by-year tax recap of all the street reconstruction projects
included in the proposed CIP. The Scott County Assessor has estimated that
the average Prior Lake market value of a home is nearly $300,000. This typical
value has been utilized for purposes of calculating the following tax impact.
I Project Year
I 2010*
I 2011
2012
2013
2014
Levy Amount
$1,485,000
$1,750,000
$1,900,000
$1,800,000
$1,750,000
Tax Impact
$14.73
$18.87
$22.26
$24.17
$22.90
The tax impact reflects the impact of issuing bonds to support the proposed
CIP and the associated tax levies needed to service the debt. Budgetary
increases are excluded for purposes of comparing the effect of capital dollars
only within the context of the CIP. Also, this model assumes an annual 2% tax
capacity valuation growth.
The Equipment Replacement Program (ERP) utilizes general tax levies to
support replacement of the City's equipment and vehicle fleet. The property
tax levy reflects annual $10,000 increases over the program's 12-year term.
The ERP also has as one of its funding sources, an annual transfer of $90,000
from the Enterprise Fund. This transfer is adjusted semi-annually as well
because a significant portion of the equipment serves the Water and Sewer
departments.
The Neighborhood and Community Park Equipment Replacement Matrix
utilizes general tax levies to support the ongoing repairs and maintenance
reflected in the General Fund Parks Department budget. Annual increases of
$20,000 have been planned within the Parks Department budget for years
2010 through 2014. In addition, a Park Equipment Revolving Fund would be
established to fund ongoing park maintenance expenditures. Historically, the
Council supported using annual $100,000 transfers from the General Fund
contingency funds, if available, to establish this fund.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:
1. Provide direction to the staff to modify the proposed program to
incorporate alternatives 1, 2 or 3 for consideration at the June 15, 2009
City Council Meeting.
2. Amend the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program as per Council
determination.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Alternative #1.
Revrd by:
"~
Frank Boyle , City
~
C:~'I' P<<:t:i'.d} d-0 1'~~",Jlu"-\
Pc.f-r'tiD......S iv. .ft-iS ~,^j-
~~ca6v:~h,-
L-c. rJ s
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PETITION
I/We, the undersigned owners of the real propertY adjacent to Edgewater Circle/Lords Street hereby
petition that a bituminous maintenance resurfacing for our area be included in the 20010-2014 Capital
Improvement Program for the year 2010 or 2011. This is necessary as our street in its current condition
will deteriorate to an unusable level prior to the scheduled street reconstruction in 2018.
I/We understand that this petition is only for the purpose of requesting inclusion in the CIP for future
consideration of these improvements and that the City has scheduled a full reconstruction of our street for
2018.
1.
Address
IS-~q \ to. dDrfANIA.k tAVtNf
~ J Vi
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
G:\Srr"lS_'ndJransportalion\2008-2017 City TIPIC1P PETITION.DOC
'S:"L'G~'( &c~n:.~ \
"EXHIBIT 0"
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PETITION
, ,
I~ !(")j
,~ Igl
,"'IIIIl: i~\
f 1jll!\
g. i,Ja"
g
!~;
LOCATION/SUBDIVISION: 14020 to 14145 Shadv Beach Trail NE '
I !We , the undersigned owners of the real property adjacent to Shadv Beach Trail NE (oartial)
(Street) or within
Subdivision hereby petition for:
Street Improvements
Other (Explain)
YES
l!We understand that this petition does not in itself request the installation of these
improvements, but rather, request the preparation of a feasibility report in which the estimated
costs of these improvements will be tabulated. l!We understand that upon receipt of this
petition and the preparation of the requested feasibility report, a public hearing will be held at
which time we may voice our support or opposition based on the costs as prepared in said
feasibility report.
See attached for Petition names.
OUR REQUEST IS FOR IMMEOIA TE STREET REPLACEMENT as we have obtained an
estimate of $57,000.00 to remove the current asphalt and replace with new.
BE ADVISED:
The street cannot wait until the scheduled improvements in 2013-14 AND those improvement
are too extensive.
C:\Documents and Settings\john Gorra\Desktop\EXHIBIT shady PETITION.DOC
PETITION
FOR
The repair and two inch onrlay of blacktop on our street, the
beginninR of Shady Beach Trail N.E.
TO Cil~ ~lf f'ri~)r lale
We. the undl'rsigned, request Ute City of Pri!)r Lake In repair ll~ nccessflry. fhcll do U Iwo inch
ov.:rluy 011 Ihe street kI10\\~1 as Shady Belli:h Trail N.E fwm Counl~ Road 42 10 and including the
fksl 90: rll;ht turn \\her<: the street goxs stfllighl \\c:.1 from hou~ nurn\:'(r 1-l14-t We, th~
ullJcrsignl'll. d,l not want the entire stret't turn up to d~1 this "llfk We: delinitely do l\'OT \\dnl
concrete curb and gutter and sidewalks inSllll1cd, We like and enjoy the f~'CJ (If the ~[jghl ri~o,; on
"'::!lcr ~;iJ" [,I' Ill,:; 5Ir~cll" Jir~ci li.e fiu\\ of \H.ler.
We hd\'e Dft'tl more th:.;n patient to this point We bl:.\'e \\i1lched Ihe (it)' put Pilleh on pallh N~ly 10
see Ihe SlllllC deterioration happen in a VCT)' short time ngllin and again, Wl' now need tll do the
Q\'erlil}' as cur property \illues arc being effected
Wt', the proP(Il) o\\nc/:. ...n: as [011"\\5: . ) .
.. -',1/: F " (.. 7f!( T-:-~
Ntlnlc: --..:l..r ....' '<~/{(.'ML.<'.' ... '___ Name: . .. _~ _ ..)' ../ " ._..
AdJrciS:ltf.j4._S'(,:"-<'~ Fit'dLl ~(AL"]\cdrm-1}115 (5LL ,Lff.'ul..
/: , , '.L
/ . /'. .'. -r'" " _ . .' ,,-='
~'umc: I:lJ..~.d. Uk-~{~~L.L _ ~ame: ''''l JC\LI:J i-~\-U.b..LJ',' <)<';-,.'-
AtlJr~ss:_J)1tiT:' "l. i ~ ." Addre". I~""-"H":' I'. m ,.\ 1'" .
I ' .
I .- ,{
Name; _~ '~ Name: /'f:.~!._ -1. .J,)i~!.~_...ls..!'-~.
Address: .ll/=..l#.1MJ..I.,{JikJ1i:tuL.., ...:~ddrc"~ /l./fH' ,s.,,'\>L" ,>-",~d ',.,\'.
(~ 'fa oiL' IvA ' .~
~:~::,,~~~ ~~;':~$-d~=~;~j>;,~~~;-~1- - ^ ,
". J"'i,_, ~.- L. t-~ (21~ .
,-. ,r
Name: ..::.=.,....
----ro
Address:.L:..,.'';': . '. ........!c..J" ,
Name: .
Addre."
N;\llle: /:::~
Address:,," L
I
Nnmc
AddrC:~~:
. ,
. / Nalllc: $l'll.ni!.. J.)-. tt..tJ:uciLr; 1.~Qi?eJ. ill'
V Addres.s:.fi \I.\litn~f ~Of~ 1 ~bLL
Name:
Address'
Name: . ,1, U..u.e. \ S\..J~\';":i.;kL. Name:
Addrcss:_l"t,d1"1 ~~~e-t, . ~~AJdrcss'"
(" .-- '
'I,. --.-
C:\Documents and SettingslJohn Gorra\DesktoplEXHlBIT shady PETITION. DOC
Mr. Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
4646 Dakota Street
Prior Lake, MN 55372
~yc...,.....",c.\'"(:<:Tr,
May 15, 2009
')E(' ="'''1' ~
n. -.l-:lvED
.\..1 ~"1 "... .
i!JI.I' ') ./ 'l.f'j"
. / ; ,'J _. f.UL::i
Reference: (1) Wes Mader's letter to you of April 2, 2009
(2) Steve Albrecht's letter to Wes Mader dated April 27, 2009
Subject: Sycamore Trail maintenance
Dear Frank,
We the undersigned are all owners of property located on Sycamore Trail. Needless to say, we are most
disappointed by the City's response to Wes Mader' April 2 letter to you.
While a couple of the facts in the City's letter are disputable, two other items caught our attention even more.
First is the City's apparent presumption to know that the property owner of 90 years ago dedicated the street
with the intention that it would be private, even though there is no such statement on the plat map. Second is
the statement that there is no basis for using "public dollars" (the taxes we pay) to maintain our street, but it's
apparently okay to use our taxes to maintain other streets in the City. What's missing from the letter is a
definition of what benefit we receive in lieu of street maintenance, for the tax dollars we pay.
Regardless of the above, we the majority of 'pwperty owners on the subject section of Sycamore Trail are
requesting the City to recognize our street as public, and to assume whatever responsibility that entails. If it is
the City's intention to refuse our request, we wish to be advised in writing of the action we need to take to
reverse that decision. We would appreciate an appropriate written response in a timely manner.
Respectfully,
~Jv-:) frv~
Va. viet "'J'O h- n sic i,,\ .
..;{.!!-/5 .5YC.liJucl'e. 'Tl--t1( I
0-0-.. i' f~ ~~
!< ,;,'0") ~ Pes "'JCy.s"":_. .
~34Z0 .sy C4 /"V1t:.,..R I r~ll /
~ ~~~ ~
'~l\ .,. K"-~"'1 c.,~1 ':t
'} ~u L S'j c..q,tvv<.:.t-t.. T ro...l S IV
Lc1 €<) V/..--1 6~'4.-- ~ etvuv 111 o..d.~
V'les ~ C~al-- ....fVl(.'\.de~ .
3470 sy eel Vl1.:>,.e, t1r6.1
.. ) .. ~:::-7.-Z",,"," ......._
. /,?-,.7_ rC-~_::>
-r;;.-. (.{ ~i oA f Y.1 . ... .'
7'tbt:.\ s.ye.,......"" --r:;.."f '7.......
1"/1," /..-.,.lle. /V/-tV ~ 5- ~'7 7'
/5~~)//~fT
-~<........ ~ '~"J
t:......J" \ l~ (~ l-\c:.,.".J.:... tt
~Z~~
[l!l) htl ir ba,;{C-L- t:>aae-!de.
81 =3?" <;;'yr:Ci vtw;ee r l!/1 t (
. . ./ /,,::- /) ,'.
C-?~ > d~rr '
c?h I'IS .:s hod
~ 3'11./ 2 5-'''j(!..c..~/<,: '7f:2.....
~'4~
~~;H:: ~~-
J~~.' .l"h1t;r(.....
.- ~
I~
-::fa h IV 'b eM" I I k ~'\..I 'i/~.s & {
3i/~ ~ SiftiA rM! t~ {(
PLANNING 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.
R:\Council\2009 Agenda Reports\06 01 09\CIP - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - MN042709.doc
1
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 Fleming's 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 the 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 A veiTH 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 ifthere is efficiency in looking at the entire pot of money, identifying the critical areas in
R:\Council\2009 Agenda Reports\06 01 09\CIP - Planning Commission Meeting 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 StreetlEdinborough isn't even on the 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 modem 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 ifthere should be any reprioritization of
individual streets.
Hedberg clarified that he has heard two Commissioners indicate ifit'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 ifthere 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 StreetlMartinson 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
R:\Council\2009 Agenda Reports\06 01 09\CIP - Planning Commission Meeting 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
R:\Council\2009 Agenda Reports\06 01 09\CIP - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - MN042709.doc
4