Laserfiche WebLink
1) Discuss Potential Improvements to Garnet Street NW, located within NOW AND <br /> THEN ESTATES <br /> City Engineer Himmer reviewed the staff report and advised that eight of the 13 residents <br /> contacted said they preferred the City patch the road and wait for the new road financing system. <br /> Mayor Ramsey noted eight residents would be a majority to stop a project so there was no need <br /> to advance the project at this point. <br /> Councilmember Wise concurred and stated until a policy is in place for road maintenance, he <br /> believed any reconstruction can be delayed because other residents will feel the same. He asked <br /> whether this will cause problems with overlay projects. <br /> City Engineer Himmer explained there had been no sealcoats or overlays so the residents felt the • <br /> City had not properly maintained this road and should correct that situation. He stated he had <br /> pointed out to the residents that they were also not assessed for such projects. City Engineer <br /> Himmer advised that because the road has deteriorated to the point of needing reconstruction, it <br /> would not make financial sense to consider an overlay and he would not recommend installation <br /> of a utility pipe without road reconstruction. <br /> Gary Smith, 16821 Garnet Street NW, stated Nowthen was developed on 2.5 -acre lots so it <br /> makes no sense to extend utilities. He explained his septic system is in the rear yard so <br /> connecting to the street would cost $20,000 to $30,000 plus connection fees. He lives next to the <br /> Brookfield Addition and asked what happens with density transitioning when people want to <br /> subdivide their 2.5 -acre lot. Mr. Smith agreed that some storm sewer improvements are needed <br /> but if the City wants sanitary sewer, water, and sidewalks installed, the City should pay for it. <br /> He noted that in 3040 years a developer may buy the whole area and redevelop. At that point, <br /> sewer and water could be installed. <br /> Councilmember Backous agreed with Councilmember Wise that this problem will come up <br /> repeatedly because residents are aware there is a looming solution to fund road projects. <br /> However, he didn't think projects should be pushed off because it will be more expensive over <br /> time to make the repairs and the City may be unable to handle a large accumulation of projects. <br /> He supported reconstructing the road and when the Council approves a financing plan, the <br /> benefiting properties would then be in the same position as anyone else. Councilmember <br /> Backous supported developing a transition plan. <br /> Councilmember McGlone asked if residents can petition against the entire project, if utilities are <br /> installed, when residents are only being asked to pay for the paving. <br /> City Attorney Goodrich stated residents would petition against the amount they would be <br /> assessed. <br /> City Engineer Himmer explained that curb and gutter, sidewalks, and erosion control are part of <br /> the road and resident's 50% contribution. <br /> City Council Work Session / January 10, 2012 <br /> Page 2 of 13 <br />