|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jim DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Joan Felice;
and Jan Vanderwall
Members Excused: Dwayne
Stenlund
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Parks and Recreation
Director Lonnie Brokke; Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson; Parks and
Recreation Commissioner Randall Doneen; and Civil Engineer Ms. Kris Giga, who
left the meeting at 6:40 p.m., with City Engineer Debra Bloom arriving at
that time.
2. Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of January 24, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the January 24, 2012, meeting as presented.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz noted that updates on various construction projects were included in
tonight’s meeting packet or available on-line at the City’s website at
www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff report dated
February 28, 2012.
Discussion included the City
Council’s award at their February 27, 2012 meeting of the 2012 sanitary sewer
lining project, and the favorable reduction in per foot costs since the
program’s implementation in 2006, and a brief review of credentials of the
low bidder: Visu-Sewer. Additional discussion included the anticipated
potential deferral by Ramsey County Public Works of the County Road B-2
project due to major funding challenges; revisions to future roadway
projects; and whether projected growth in roadway needs between now and 2030
will continue to increase, or decrease based on e-commerce impacts to brick
and mortar retail.
As a bench handout, Mr. Schwartz
provided a draft resolution prepared by staff for the PWET Commission on the
proposed recommendation to the City Council for organized trash collection, a
copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr.
Schwartz noted that the resolution remained in draft format and would not
proceed to the City Council or out of the PWET Commission pending their
review and direction.
5.
Park Master Plan Trails and Natural Resources Implementation
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke was present, along with Parks Superintendent Jeff Evenson, also
serving as the lead for the Parks Renewal Program; and Parks and Recreation
Commissioner Randall Doneen, serving as the lead for the Resource and Trails
Subcommittee for the Parks Master Plan Implementation Plan.
Mr. Brokke provided a background
on the Master Plan to-date and steps identified to proceed with the $19
million program over a four (4) year period, and detailed on various
attachments in the agenda packet materials. Mr. Brokke advised that funded
was intended through use of General Obligation Bonds issued through the
City’s Port Authority; and updated the Commission on the current status of
pending litigation by a group of Roseville citizens disputing that process
without going to voter referendum. Mr. Brokke noted that staff had been
authorized to proceed with the planning process pending resolution through
the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Mr. Brokke also reviewed the Best Value
Procurement training method intended for future purchases to benefit the
community and its taxpayers.
Mr. Doneen reviewed the results
of programming proposed for Natural Resources and Trails, as provided in
packet materials; as part of MP implementation series of civic engagement –
statistically based and value based: 3 themes of RV citizens
1) Maintain existing
system;
2) More
pedestrian-level connections in Roseville through additional trails,
connections and pathways; and
3) Maintain and protect the
community’s natural resources.
Mr. Doneen recognized that City
Engineer Debra Bloom had greatly assisted the group in understanding
community, regional and metropolitan area pathway issues and those plans
already in place. Mr. Doneen reviewed proposed and initial trail connection
projects as detailed in Attachment A of the agenda packet. The presentation
included potential partnership opportunities and challenges; roadway
jurisdictions; and southwest Roseville storm water upgrades (near Fairview
fields) planned in the near future that could potentially incorporate natural
trails with those upgrades.
Southwest Roseville Storm
water Upgrades with Natural Trails
Discussion among presenters and
PWET Commissioners included the definition of natural features; how to
continue the process of receiving input from residents; use of natural
vegetation in lower areas that could assist infiltration; and Fairview ball
field programming and difficulty in connecting the pathway throughout the
area, but possible for a portion of residents in that area.
Mr. Schwartz noted that scoring
results remained pending, but Ramsey County had submitted an application for
federal funding to reconstruct County Road C from Long Lake Road to the
western City of Roseville limits at St. Anthony Village; and as part of the
application, a trail connection to the Northeast Diagonal Trail had been
included.
Mr. Evenson briefly reviewed the
constellation map and how the Master Plan was developed and continued to
evolve, specific to pathways (Attachment B); and after a thorough review of
the existing Pathway Master Plan. Mr. Evenson noted that the concept was to
seek connections of both Plans, seeking consistency and making adjustments as
indicated.
Member Vanderwall opined that the
proposed pathway areas, from his perspective, provided access from
residential areas to parks, and should allow funneling people to those parks
without today’s difficulties in fighting traffic and providing how best to
achieve that access.
Mr. Evenson reviewed proposed
signage for those areas to assist that access and flow; with the existing
barriers having served as a skeleton for the constellation design.
Mr. Doneen continued with his
review of Natural Resource Projects (Attachment A) for HANC, Reservoir Woods;
Oasis Park; Villa Park; Langton Lake Park; as well as system-wide projects.
Mr. Doneen noted his continued astonishment with the potential volunteer
force for Buckthorn eradication in Roseville, and emphasized the need to
capitalize on that interest by providing professional training and initial
supervision for that volunteer corp.
HANC
Mr. Schwartz noted past and
continued efforts of the Grass Lakes Water Management Organization (GLWMO) in
partnering with the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) to assess where
potential Best Management Practices (BMP) sights would most impact Lake
Owasso and subsequently HANC.
Mr. Doneen offered the interest
of the Park Renewal Program (PRP) in helping to implement those BMP’s; with
Mr. Schwartz anticipating that some of the BMP’s would help qualify for
future Legacy Grant funding.
Mr. Evenson reviewed how natural
resources affected the overall Parks and Recreation Master Plan; and the
continuing desire of residents and users of Roseville parks for small natural
areas in every park, with those amenities included in every constellation and
therefore community-wide, with the vision to develop four (4) natural areas
in each sector and tied into the HANC’s educational and outreach programs.
Member Felice, as a resident in
the southwest quadrant of Roseville, noted the need to include pathways
leading to Falcon Heights and Lauderdale parks, and noted the need to plan
for cooperative efforts for park programs with those adjacent communities.
Mr. Brokke advised that
discussion had been held during the Master Planning process with both
communities, and those relationships had been initiated, with a current
Recreation Agreement with the City of Lauderdale for programming at their
parks and resident/non-resident fees for programming. In those Master Plan
discussions, Mr. Brokke noted there had been interest in the potential
development of a Park Board or District in the long-term to accommodate
shared services. As part of the Roseville City Council’s recent Strategic
Planning Workshops, Mr. Brokke noted the strong interest in enhancing shared
services as a long-term strategy of the City; and advised that additional
neighborhood meetings were anticipated in the near future.
Member Vanderwall noted the
availability of several great golf courses in this area such as Cedarholm,
and suggested that more marketing take place to recruit new members to those
golf courses as part of the strategy and to recognize them as open spaces in
the southwest area; as well as potential partnerships with the U of MN and
Midland Hills in those marketing efforts.
Regarding Buckthorn removal,
Member Gjerdingen noted the amount of funds anticipated in Reservoir Woods
alone, and questioned why such a high number of $300,000 rather than
utilizing volunteers.
Mr. Doneen clarified that the
cost included experts training and initially supervising the volunteer pool
to ensure proper eradication in targeting the right species; as well as costs
in the initial removal of large growth or more established Buckthorn infested
areas requiring specialized equipment. Mr. Doneen noted that volunteer
efforts would be ongoing, and it was hoped that those efforts could reduce
the projected costs.
Chair DeBenedet noted the passion
of many Roseville residents in Buckthorn eradication; and encouraged the Park
and Recreation Commission and staff, at their earliest convenience, get those
volunteers and Scout Troops organized in identifying Buckthorn, and removing
from public and/or private property.
Mr. Brokke noted the use of
volunteers in the past for Buckthorn eradication; however, he noted the need
to ensure that removal was done properly and safely, as well as in the
long-term; and that the appropriate training was offered by someone
knowledgeable. Mr. Brokke noted that Mr. Evenson had just submitted several
grant applications, with funding of expertise and volunteer supervision
included in funding requests. Mr. Brokke noted that there could never be
enough funding to accomplish eradication efforts without the assistance of
volunteers. While not having any definite timeframe for implementing
projects, based on the outcome of pending litigation, Mr. Brokke anticipated
some of the projects could still be initiated in 2012.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that,
whether the bonding decision was finalized or not, volunteer efforts could
still be undertaken. However, Mr. Brokke responded that, while there was no
shortage of volunteers, Parks and Recreation Department staffing to provide
supervision and training was still problematic, since volunteer efforts were
undertaken on weekends, and no funding for overtime staffing available at
this time without funding sources in place.
Mr. Doneen assured PWET
Commissioners that the natural Trail and Pathway workgroup was very cognizant
of the pool of available volunteers and intended to make connections with
them as early as this summer to begin developing a volunteer infrastructure
that can be further expanded and developed.
Mr. Schwartz focused discussion
on previous PWET Commission discussions and their desire to be involved in
providing feedback as trails and pathways are implemented.
Chair DeBenedet note that
tonight’s presentation had already served to make the PWET Commission aware
of some of those implementation plans; and advised that one of the
Commission’s major concerns was that the Parks and Recreation Master Planning
would not reference previous pathway/trail planning across the City. Chair
DeBenedet opined that one area that he still saw as a mission piece was the
southern portion of Dale Street south of Reservoir Woods. Chair DeBenedet
noted initial work of the Non-motorized Pathway Planning group; and expressed
his surprise that significant progress had been made on trails to-date since
that group’s inception.
Mr. Evenson referenced the Park
and Recreation Proposed Pathway Map included in attachments; and noted that
the constellation map provided the common link and should serve to be all-inclusive
with the overlay of both the Public Works Pathway Master Plan and the more
recent Parks and Recreation Master Planning process. Mr. Evenson assured
PWET Commissioners that it was never the intent to replace the existing
Pathway Master Plan; and the efforts to correlate locations was based solely
on safety (e.g. Safe Routes to Schools), and was always part of ongoing
discussions.
Chair DeBenedet noted his major
safety concern at Victoria Street near West Owasso Boulevard in accessing the
Owasso ball fields; with Mr. Evenson assuring the Commission that safety was
always a major consideration and, while specific projects were not listed in
detail for funding, some improvements had already been made. Mr. Evenson
advised that funding was currently divided with $1.5 million for trails and
$2 million for pathways.
Chair DeBenedet questioned the
connection between Valley Park and West Owasso; with Mr. Evenson advising
that this connection, similar to Oasis Park and Langton Lake, were easier
ones to connect and would serve as a prototype to alert residents to the
constellation concept. Mr. Evenson advised that this would be accomplished
through signage at a minimal cost, and would then when the concept was more
apparent, other projects would be implemented based on their prioritization.
Member Vanderwall noted, on the
east side of West Owasso and Victoria Street, one of the homes on a lower
point had installed boulders in their yard to address safety issues as some
vehicles ended up in their yard due, in his opinion, to the poor design of
the curve that was reverse-sloped. Member Vanderwall opined that, while this
may not be considered “low hanging fruit” as a priority, the project would
serve to significantly change the safety of the area and allow kids to access
the ball fields more safely. From his perspective with school
transportation, Member Vanderwall opined that the corner was a safety hazard
for pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic.
Mr. Schwartz noted safety
concerns at Victoria and Dale Streets and the impact the PWET Commission
could have on safety through its review of future road designs. Mr. Schwartz
advised that the current traffic counts were 9,500, while several years ago,
they were at 11,000; and suggested that the Commission may want to make
recommendations and suggest to Ramsey County that they review configurations
to address some of those safety issues.
Member Vanderwall concurred, and
opined that it wouldn’t hurt to do so at the intersection of Dale Street with
County Road B as well.
Mr. Brokke encouraged PWET
Commissioners to keep in contact with the Parks and Recreation Department and
staff as projects moved forward; and invited their attendance at any Parks
and Recreation Commission meetings as well; opining that their input and
comments were always appreciated, since everyone was working toward the same
goals.
Chair thanked presenters for
their attendance and their informative presentation.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:40
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:45 p.m.
6.
Assessment Policy Discussion
City Engineer Debra Bloom
summarized the City’s current Special Assessment Policy (effective 2001 –
Attachment B); how calculations are determined, and current funding
challenges for non-residential properties for the 75% not currently
applicable to property owners in the current Policy. Ms. Bloom advised that
this had come to the forefront due to funding challenges for the County Road
B-2 and Rice Street projects.
Ms. Bloom advised that, staff-level
discussion had included how to prove benefits for assessments on roadways not
within the City’s jurisdiction (e.g. Ramsey County or State of MN).
Mr. Schwartz noted that
discussions by the Ramsey County Board indicated their expectations in the
future of increasing their participation policy for other jurisdictions.
At the request of Chair DeBenedet
to expand market comparisons as provided in Attachment A, Ms. Bloom provided
a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereto, and
entitled “Special Assessment Survey Spreadsheet – 2010 (Market City (Metro
Population between 50,000 and 100,000).”
Ms. Bloom reviewed the current
summary and discussion among staff and Commissioners included: further
reductions for Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding from actual construction for
a required 48’ wide, 9 ton roadway to assessment calculations based on a 32’
wide, 7 ton street, with the City picking up the additional construction
costs.
Chair DeBenedet noted that, if
MSA funds were not available, another funding source also needed to be found
to facilitate those construction costs.
Further discussion included
remaining sections of roadway (e.g. frontage roads) classified as
“non-permanent” estimated at two (2) miles remaining; and challenges for them
as they were “single-loaded,” but their reconstruction costs would be much
higher than that.
Mr. Schwartz opined that, given
rising expectations for other jurisdictions and local cost participation,
assessment costs would need to be revised and increased. Mr. Schwartz noted
the City of Roseville’s placement at the low end of assessment policy
comparisons from the survey provided for metropolitan communities with
populations between 50,000 and 100,000, compiled in 2010. Mr. Schwartz
further opined that it only made sense to get those additional contributions
from benefitting property owners.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the City’s
street infrastructure fund entitled, Pavement Management Fund (PMP); however,
he advised that it was becoming necessary to spend from the principal, and if
interest rates didn’t soon increase, there would continue to be a decline in
the principal balance to fund projects, creating the need to find other
funding sources and re-evaluate all options. Mr. Schwartz advised that this
prompted consideration of whether some level of assessment would be
appropriate for commercial properties. In tonight’s previous discussion with
the Parks Department related to pathways and trails, Mr. Schwartz noted that
the current Assessment Policy didn’t assess for pathways and sidewalks, based
on the Pathway Master Plan; however, he noted that they were really community
assets, even though the City couldn’t do area-wide assessments.
Member Vanderwall noted the
exception for area-wide assessments for undergrounding electrical lines.
Ms. Bloom suggested that private
legs of signalized intersections be addressed in a revised Assessment Policy,
since “but for” that intersection wouldn’t be located there (e.g. two private
intersections on County Road B2). With the exception of the intersection at
the Vault Company that the City had paid for given limited options for their
driveway, and the golf course intersection, Ms. Bloom advised that there were
no other applications with a residential or low-density leg.
Chair DeBenedet noted the
difficulty in the State of MN in proving benefits to justify assessments,
based on citizen concerns raised to-date and potential high costs of those
assessments. Chair DeBenedet referenced the comparison table (Attachment A
and bench handout) and Roseville’s current policy in that comparison specific
to residential and commercial assessments. Chair DeBenedet noted the high
and low comparables of those cities listed.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom advised that current interest rates on assessments were
set by the City’s Finance Director, based on State Statute, and were
currently between 6 – 6.5%.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City of
Arden Hills assessed for property owners with 40% of mil and overlay
projects, and that those costs could be significant for those property
owners.
Member Vanderwall noted that, in
the list of comparable metropolitan communities, Roseville was the only
first-ring suburb with the exception of the City of Bloomington that also had
a large commercial area. Member Vanderwall suggested the need to look at the
City of Richfield and other inner-ring suburbs with a different demographic,
rather than the Cities of Woodbury or Lakeville. Member Vanderwall noted the
demographic of Roseville residents, some having lived here for fifty (50)
plus years, with retirement and income situations different than those newer
suburbs. Member Vanderwall questioned where the Commission should focus
their discussion: on population demographics in general or on commercial
properties. Member Vanderwall noted that in the current political and
economic times when jurisdictions area asked to lower taxes, and continued
demands on communities to provide services while keeping taxes in line,
businesses may question revised assessment policies as an indication of how
business-friendly Roseville is. However, Member Vanderwall noted that the
only reason the services and/or improvements existed was because they were
needed by those very businesses; and further noted the need for the community
to address public safety issues for the broader community.
Ms. Bloom advised that the Cities
of Minnetonka and Mounds View added their annual construction projects to
their annual line item budgets as a city-wide assessment. Based on the numerous
issues, Ms. Bloom advised that those communities felt this was the only way
to go; however, often it created sustainability issues for communities.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the
original intent when the PMP was initiated in 1986 to set aside funding for creating
the infrastructure fund; however, he noted that in 1998 the PMP fund was
redirected to other expenses as well such as pathway maintenance, creating
sustainability issues for the PMP fund. Mr. Schwartz suggested, therefore,
that this could necessitate the need to reassess that fund; and sought
feedback from Commissioners.
Member Vanderwall noted the need
to consider the mood of the City Council in considering any revisions,
particularly in an election year. While in agreement with the need to assess
commercial properties in order that they were paying their fair share, Member
Vanderwall spoke in support of the 25% limit. Member Vanderwall based that
opinion on potentially negative impacts for smaller “mom and pop” businesses
that could not support a larger assessment given their limited net revenues.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
businesses benefited from higher volumes facilitated by roadways built to
higher standards to accommodate their operations; further opining that
problems would ensue if changes were made in assessments for a higher tonnage
roadway. Member Gjerdingen referenced the City of St. Paul’s Assessment
Policy and their calculations and assessment rates for mill and overlay
projects.
Ms. Bloom advised that the City
of St. Paul was a Statutory City and therefore were not required to go
through the same Public Hearing process for assessments as needed for the
City of Roseville.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
the City of St. Paul not be used as a comparable, since theirs was a different
situation. However, Chair DeBenedet opined that there was a nexus or
connection between the cost of rebuilding or improving a road in front of a
busy, commercial area (e.g. turn lanes, traffic signals) since the
business(es) created that additional traffic and they preferred to locate in
that area based on the high traffic volume. Chair DeBenedet suggested that
the Commission consider land uses when revisiting the Assessment Policy, such
as residential areas (LDR and MDR) versus commercial lots and base assessment
percentages on that land use. Chair DeBenedet supported assessing all
properties based on a 7 ton, 32’ wide street, with commercial and residential
treated the same up to a certain limit. Chair DeBenedet noted previous
comments of Member Vanderwall on Rosedale Mall’s property taxes benefitting
the community overall; however, he questioned whether their other benefits
(e.g. Fire and Police services) were not part of the discussion as well.
Mr. Schwartz concurred that it
was a very complicated discussion; and also noted the fiscal disparities
situation with the City of Roseville losing 40% of those tax revenues when
thrown into the metropolitan area pool, making it difficult for inner-ring
suburbs such as Roseville that draw a lot of traffic from the region,
creating additional expenses in reconstructing roadways based on that traffic
volume from outside the community itself.
Ms. Bloom noted that, due to
changes in legislation for tax increment financing (TIF), use of that revenue
for public improvements were now limited.
Chair DeBenedet noted retail
square footage tied to parking, traffic controls, etc. and questioned how
best to address different types and/or sizes of businesses and how to
apportion special assessments, and whether it could be tied to square
footage.
Ms. Bloom noted the private roads
within Rosedale Mall and how to apply those situations, based on frontage and
roadway access for one or more parcels.
Mr. Schwartz advised that ongoing
discussions among City engineer and Public Works associations supported
street utilities being allowed, such as the City’s utility infrastructure
financing that would allow cities to have an alternative funding source that
could be area-wide; or addressed with transportation districts to base capital
improvement projects on an area-wide basis specific to those capital
improvement costs.
Ms. Bloom noted the support in
the City of Minnetonka from their business community based on identified
improvements and area benefits (e.g. Highway 169 and I-494) and applicable
assessments; however, she noted that such a transportation utility policy did
not move forward. Ms. Bloom reviewed the fundamental basis for a
transportation utility was based on trips generated and assessed accordingly,
similar to what was done for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
Mr. Schwartz noted that it was
still supported by many, including Chamber of Commerce groups, but with the
current legislature, it was not moving forward at this time, and hadn’t even
though under discussion for the last 15-20 years.
Chair DeBenedet suggested a
policy such as:
“The existing Assessment Policy
applied to properties zoned 1-2 family; with all others assessed at 25% of
the equivalent of a 7 ton, 32’ wide street, additional related roadway costs (e.g.
curb and gutter, medians, turn lanes, drainage, all lighting, signals, and
landscaping) assessed at 90% of total construction costs.”
Chair DeBenedet noted that such a
policy would make it much less affordable for small businesses.
Member Vanderwall questioned if
such a policy would address 4-plexes, if the basic premise was to those
larger properties paying for the additional traffic, or that additional
traffic being of greater benefit to them, and questioned whether a 4-plex
would benefit from additional traffic. However, Member Vanderwall was unsure
of where the actual cut off should be.
Ms. Bloom clarified R-1 and R-2
properties now being classified as LDR and MDR in the new Zoning Ordinance.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom offered to talk to the Planning Division for their
input; and Mr. Schwartz noted the need to consider all zoning districts: HDR,
Commercial, Retail, Industrial, Residential, as well as Institutional (e.g.
schools, churches in R-1 zoning areas).
At the request for clarification
by Ms. Bloom, Chair DeBenedet spoke in support of the assessment rate being
tied to actual land use, not zoning.
Member Vanderwall opined that
such additional information would be required prior to additional discussion,
considering potential controversy of such a policy. With State Aid monies
continuing to diminish, Member Vanderwall noted less willingness of the
County to proceed with projects; and spoke in support of establishing a
funding system, similar to that done with the City’s water and sewer
utilities, to avoid significant and inconsistent increases for taxpayers from
year to year.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that further discussion was needed on the annual portion of the City’s tax
levy that was set aside for funding infrastructure needs; with Member
Vanderwall expressing his 100% support of such an allotment for funds.
However, Member Vanderwall noted that the political ramifications of such a
discussion would be translated to individual City Council candidates, as it would
be seen as potentially “raising taxes.”
Member Gjerdingen questioned if
levy funds were intended for reconstruction or for maintenance needs.
Ms. Bloom clarified that it was
basically a discussion of needs, with the City currently performing 3-5 miles
of mill and overlay projects annually, requiring significant dollars to
perform that maintenance, and currently requiring the City to dip into the
PMP principal, diminishing its reserves. Ms. Bloom projected that costs
would only continue to increase, and questioned the status of those funds
would be within ten (10) years.
Member Vanderwall noted that
deferring or eliminating the mill and overlay maintenance only created the
need for reconstruction sooner. Member Vanderwall concurred with the point
made by Member Gjerdingen that a combination solution was probably indicated,
with a levy on top of the General Fund levy, but also assessing more than
currently being done. Member Vanderwall noted that this would be of
immediate benefit to local residents as well as those benefitting over the
long-term.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council was well aware of the funding gap in the PMP.
Chair DeBenedet noted that he
didn’t hear any individual Commissioners supporting assessing construction
costs at 100%.
Member Gjerdingen opined that it
was good to have the public pay for a portion of mill and overlay projects;
and that their involvement could also force them to recognize the rationale
and necessity in doing so.
Member Vanderwall noted projects
in the early 1980’s when neighborhoods were non-supportive of street
reconstructions, and unwilling to pay for them, creating deferred
construction at higher costs in the future.
Chair DeBenedet, from another
perspective, noted that when his street was reconstruction ten (10) years
ago, there were no assessment costs for him, causing him some guilt in
advocating revisions to this Assessment Policy. However, Chair DeBenedet
opined that it was of benefit to the overall community to have all properties
held to a minimum standard; and noted that often when a street was
reconstructed in a neighborhood, it prompted property owners to perform
additional maintenance around their homes, benefitting their neighborhood and
the entire community.
In conclusion, Ms. Bloom defined
and clarified her direction from Commissioners to facilitate further
discussion:
·
Get more information from the Cities of Richfield and St. Louis
Park, as they were more similar to the City of Roseville;
·
Talk to the City’s Planning Division about zoning, the breaking
point for residential, and bringing forward the land use map as additional
information in the future;
·
Review current Institutional parcels and uses in place;
·
Add the proposed language provided by Chair DeBenedet into a
revised DRAFT Policy; and
·
Include State Aid broken out for zoning: MSA versus non-MSA
construction costs and assessment calculations.
Chair DeBenedet expressed his
concern that MSA funding could be inconsistent; however, Ms. Bloom advised
that it was percentage based and should remain consistent. At the request of
Member Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom advised that she would ensure that the revised
policy included catchall provisions currently in Section 2.g of the existing
policy.
7.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – March 27, 2012
·
Assessment Policy Discussion (Chair)
·
Overhead electric / underground policy Schwartz)
·
Comprehensive Surface Water Management and the Commission’s
involvement in reviewing the final firm’s scope (APRIL MEETING – Bloom)
·
LED Street lighting; and current street light costs versus
cost-savings for the City’s annual budget in changing to LED’s (Chair)
·
As mentioned at the joint meeting of the City Council and PWET
Commission by Councilmember Johnson, whether existing crosswalks were
conforming or not (Gjerdingen)
8.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:43 p.m.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|