HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-01 Council Special Meeting MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
ON FEBRUARY 1, 2005 AT 5:30 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor
Hovland.
Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of the meeting was to receive information on the
City's Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Program and the potential methods of
funding an expanded program.
Wayne Houle,City Engineer, reviewed the last work session,which covered:
• Need to reconstruct roadways
• Curb and gutter needs to be part of projects
• Increasing costs of projects
• Special Assessments
Mr. Houle graphically depicted the areas in Edina without curb and gutter. He said sixteen
per cent of the roadways in Edina do not have curb and gutter. Mr. Houle explained the
grade of the roadway and surrounding area aids in determination of the style of curb and
gutter. He displayed a graphic showing areas with bulkhead vs. surmountable curb and
gutter, explaining that bulkhead curb controls storm water more effectively.
Assistant Manager Anderson reviewed the existing assessment policy, which has two
categories: residential streets and State-Aid Streets. He said the current policy was based
on trip generation. It has been assumed that that same amount of trips are generated from
average single-family homes regardless of density. One residential equivalent unit (REU)
equals one single family home and assumes approximately 12-14 trips per day.
Mr. Anderson reviewed a proposed new residential street assessment policy as follows:
• Minimum contribution per household is proposed. This "floor" amount represents
the road benefit to each house based on trips that are generated by residential
property
• City will contribute a percentage of the road reconstruction cost, but not below the
floor amount
• Homes on State-Aid streets must contribute a minimum of 50% of the street
construction cost not to exceed the floor assessment amount. This would be an
increase from the current 20% contribution rate
• New policy would be implemented on a "go-forward" basis. No reimbursement for
past projects recommended. Past projects net assessments ranged from $1,800-
$4,000
Mr. Anderson briefly reviewed some potential scenarios applying the proposed policy to
some neighborhood improvements and employing different City contribution levels. He
noted the recommended "floor" amount was $8,000 with a City contribution of 25%. Mr.
Anderson explained using this floor amount and City contribution, the City would need to
cover between approximately $400,000 and $790,000 in the General Fund between 2005-
Minutes/Edina City Council Work Session/February 1,2005
2009,noting the 2005 portion would have to be collected in 2006 or later since 2005's budget
has already been certified.
Mr. Anderson presented the following funding alternatives:
• Tax Levy"Front Loaded" over next four years-options to reduce initial impact
o Supplement Levy with Non-Tax Revenues:
• Reduction in Capital Improvement Program Expenditures and
transfer of revenue to Road Construction Program
• State Aid Maintenance Funds Transfer from Construction Fund to
Road Program
o Spread the 2005 program over longer term-4/5 years
o Interest Only Debt Service on Public Works Garage until levy evens out
o Defer some neighborhood street reconstruction-Note: need to offset savings
with greater maintenance dollars
Mr. Anderson reported the impact upon the annual levy with an $8,000 minimum and 25%
City contribution could lead to tax increases of up to 8.21% depending upon the amount of
work and the year of the levy. He reviewed the factors impacting taxes,which included:
• State Aid Construction Contribution due to increased assessment to homeowner (20
to 50%) cannot occur until 2007 - Interlachen Sidewalk Program and 1-494/TH 169
Interchange
• 2010 - two of the City's TIF districts will expire and captured Tax Capacity will
reduce City's tax rate by approximately 5%
• 2014 other TIF districts will expire and reduce City's tax rate by an additional 5%
• Transportation Utility bills introduced and referred to committees in the legislature
Council discussed the issues to be considered including:
• Possibility of Transportation Utility being allowed
• Need for maintenance of infrastructure
• Need to keep in mind long term stewardship of City while acknowledging the
emotional testimony of those impacted by roadway reconstruction
• Attempt to maintain infrastructure as painlessly as possible
• Need to authorize improvement projects while reviewing assessment policy
• Backlog of 35 year old roads to be fixed -not prudent to not improve them
• How assessments on commercial properties affect residential properties
• Need to call and sell bonds before a final determination has been made of how to
proceed with assessment policy
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, the Mayor adjourned the meeting
at 6:50 p.m.
0
City Clerk