Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/21/2009

Home

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Topic Report: Consider Revision of Street Maintenance Assessment Policy 1- -- -- By: Steven Jankowski, Assistant City Engineer Background: During the process of finalizing the 2009 Street Maintenance Program, one overlay project proposed for inclusion in the program was defeated by property owner petition as is permitted by City Code and State Law. Attached to this case is a copy of,the assessment practices associated with :the SMP that have evolved over a number of years. Policy #6 addresses an incentive to encourage the preventative maintenance aspeCt of the program. It states: Projects involving streets which have had previous proposed maintenance projects defeated by petition shall be ineligible to receive the City's 50% contribution, if the project requires a more expensive maintenance. (i.e. streets proposed for sealcoating . project which was defeated by citizen petition now are proposed for a bituminous overlay) . During the Public Works Committee meeting of April 241h, when the petition opposing the project was presented to the City, discussion took place regarding the precise meaning of the policy wording ''future more intensive repairs being ineligible for the City's 50% ftmding share". Several possible interpretations or policy considerations may be; 1. No city dollars would be contributed on a fUture project - Ibis interpretation has a large incentive toward ensuring proposed maintenance projects are implemented. Ibis is how the policy has been interpreted by staff in the past when questioned. Ibis has been the first time that a project has been defeated by petition since this policy was adopted in 1993. 2. Only the amount of city dollars associated with the "defeated" project would be contributed to the more expensive repair. - This is a less severe financial impact on affected property owners, but consequently a more costly policy for the City. 3. City dollars associated with the proposed "defeated" project would be contributed toward the more expensive repair, but repair work perfOrmed on the street would be deducted from this amount. - The alternative is a possible compromise policy with financial impacts between alternatives 1 and 2 above and is logically defensible. There would be some effort required in keeping track of repair costs. A second issue associated with a "defeated" project is the manner in which such a project is scheduled for reconsideration. While it is most likely unwise to systematically budget limited dollars for a project that has been previously defeated, it may not be prudent to rely on the neighborhood to petition for street maintenance without some reminder or other encouragement.