Agenda - Council - 11/07/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Background: POLICY FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS By: City Engineer Steven Jankowski Case As a result of th~;Public Improvement Project g94-22, the sewer and water extension to a portion of Pondvale Esta}tes, the Council felt it beneficial to review our policy for public improvement projects. It was ~uggested that public improvement projects be considered only on a subdivision basis. ~ Our current polic~, which is basically defined by our past practice, is as follows: On relatively moderate cost public improvements, which would include sealcoating, street overlays,~and more recently street light installation, only entire subdivisions have been considere~ for 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 oJ' a subdivision. Such public improvement project boundaries have been establisheXt 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 recej~tly have we received petitions for the extension of sewer and water, and only in one case Oave these petitions come from residents within a platted subdivision. Both of these peti~ons came from the Pondvale and Pondvale 2nd subdivision. In 1993, sewer and water wa~ 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 Pondvale~Estates 2nd Addition serviced by 150th Lane N.W. The former project proceedeC~ successfully, the latter project was defeated by petition. Observations: It is in the best interest of the City sewer and water utility to have as many customers, as possible, since this reduce~ costs to all 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 assd~ziated with sewer and water represents a very considerable cost to homeowners and every acco ~nkmodation 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 exisging policy whereby the project boundary is determined on a case by case basis and may be adjusted based upon testimony at public, hearing. This existing policy might be modified in a nurhber of ways which could include holding an informal neighborhood meeting prior to preparinglthe feasibility study, or the petition could be reviewed by the Road and Bridge Committee to solikit input on project boundaries, or a combination of both of these. The advantage of this procedure lis that it offers maximum opportunity for establishing a boundary which will result in a successful project.