11/07/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case POLICY FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS By: City Engineer Steven Jankowski Background: As a result of the Public Improvement Project ~'94-22, the sewer and water extension to a portion of Pondvale Estal[es, the Council felt it beneficial to review our policy for public improvement projects. It was s~ggested that public improvement projects be considered only on a subdivision basis. Our current policy;, which is basically defined by our past practice, is as follows: On relatively moderate cost public improvements, which would include sealcoating, street overlays, }md more recently street light installation, only entire subdivisions have been consideredfor such improvements. On more expensive type public improvements, such as the paving of dirt streets, we have established improvement projects which included only a portion of a subdivision. Such public improvement project boundaries have been establishegl on a case by case basis and have been defined in the feasibility study prepared by the Engineer. The Council may order an alteration of the boundary. Only recently have we received petitions for the extension of sewer and water, and only in one case nave these petitions come from residents within a platted subdivision. Both of these petitions came from the Pondvale and Pondvale 2nd subdivision. In 1993, sewer and water wag extended to the portion of the Pondvale Estates subdivision served by 149th Lane N.W. A second project in that same year considered the Pondvale Estates and PondvalerEstates 2nd Addition serviced by 150th Lane N.W. The former project proceeded successfully, the latter project was defeated by petition. Observations: tt is in the best interest of the City sewer and water utility to have as many customers, as possible, since this reduce~ costs to alt of the utility customers. From that standpoint, the City should encourage the extension of sewer and water whenever petitioned. It should also be recognized that the high cost ass0~ciated with sewer and water represents a veT considerable cost to homeowners and every accommodation should be afforded to insure these improvements are affordable. Finally, it should be recognized that, in the large majority of situations, unanimity cannot be expected. Alternatives: Alternative #1: Maintain the existing policy whereby the project boundary is determined on a case by case basis and may be adjt~.sted based upon testimony at public, hearing. This existing policy might be modified in a number of ways which could include holding an informal neighborhood meeting prior to preparing the feasibility study, or the petition could.be reviewed by the Road and Bridge Committee to solicit input on project boundaries, or a combination of both of these. The advantage of this procedure'is that it offers maximum opportunity for establishing a boundary which will result in a successful project.