HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-09-Work Session MinutesWAUKEE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
WORK SESSION MEETING
July 9,2012
A)Call to Order -The work session meeting of the Waukee City Council was called to order by Mayor
Peard at 5:32 p.m.at Waukee City Hall.
B)Roll Call -The following members were present:Mayor William F.Peard;Council Members Shane
Blanchard,Dan Dutcher,Casey L.Harvey,Shelly Hughes,Mike Watts.Absent:None.
Also present:Interim City Administrator Brad Deets,Assistant to the City Administrator McKinlee
Gibson,Director of Finance Linda Burkhart,Director of Public Works John Gibson,Deputy City
Clerk Rebecca D.Schuett,City Engineer Forrest Aldrich.
C)Agenda Approval -Council Member Harvey moved to approve the agenda;seconded by Council
Member Dutcher.Roll call:Ayes:Watts,Harvey,Hughes,Blanchard,Dutcher.Nays:None.Motion
carried 5 -O.
D)Work Session:
1)Assessment policy for street improvements -Interim City Administrator Deets began by
noting that the Council had met previously on 12/15/2011 and 01/30/2012 on the same subject.
He briefly reviewed previous assessment percentage scenarios,definitions of "new"and
"reconstructed"streets,and two newer scenarios requested by Council Member Harvey (75%
or 60%assessed for new construction and 0%for reconstruction).The City's current capital
improvements program includes $250,000 per year for street replacement.City staff
recommends a 100%assessment for new construction,requesting direction from the Council
on that percentage as well as for reconstruction projects.Mayor Peard questioned if a 100%
new construction assessment was affordable for property owners,even if financed over 10-15
years.Council Member Harvey agreed that 100%assessment for new construction would be a
heavy burden for some property owners.He added that he was not in favor of assessing for
properties that fell into a program area but did not front the street project in question,stating
that the City should bear part of the cost related to such properties.Council Member Watts
noted that every street repair project would be different.He also expressed his frustration that
properties were taxed at the same rate whether or not their streets had curb and gutter,and
noted his confusion over the definitions of "new"and "reconstruction"projects.Director of
Public Works Gibson replied that the types of repairs would not vary between streets and
suggested three different project categories:"new"for areas where there was no existing road,
"new existing"for those projects with existing roads,and "reconstruction."Mayor Peard asked if
it were possible to assess different rates per district;Mr.Gibson recommended against such a
policy.He noted that most streets within the older section of town would be defined as "new
existing"under the three project categories proposed.Council Member Harvey asked what
percentage of the total project costs would pay for curb and gutter and what percentage for
roadway improvements;City Engineer Aldrich estimated that 1/3 of the cost would be for the
roadway and the remaining 2/3 for curb and gutter.Council Member Harvey asked if the
roadway improvements could be assessed at a different rate than the curb and gutter portion of
the project;Mr.Gibson replied in the affirmative.Council Member Blanchard spoke in favor of
the same assessment percentage rate for "new existing"and "reconstruction."Council Member
Dutcher noted that the definition of "new"must be very narrowly defined regarding
developments with existing gravel roads;Mr.Gibson replied that such roadway improvements
were addressed in the zoning ordinance.Mr.Aldrich reviewed state regulations regarding tax
assessment in response to a question from Council Member Watts on the matter.After much
discussion on percentage rates,the City Council voiced their approval of 100%assessment for
"new"street improvements and 50%assessment for "new existing"and "reconstruction."
Council Member Harvey noted that such assessment rates echoed those within the City's
sidewalk improvements program.Council Member Hughes asked about the assessment of
properties that did not front a street project but fell within the program area;Mr.Aldrich
explained that the Councii could review such properties on a case-by-case basis and exclude
them from assessment.
2)FY2013 organizational goals and priorities -Interim City Administrator Deets stated that City
staff had reviewed the City Administrator goals for the last two years and narrowed them down
to those goals that could realistically be accomplished within the next six months.He reviewed
the general goal and priority categories of strategic development,information management,and
community betterment.Council Member Watts stated that the Copeland Recreation and Sports
Complex was not on his six-month list of priorities,explaining that he did not want to spend any
more money on concept plans but instead desires to move forward on implementation of
improvements.Council Member Harvey suggested changing the goal to include all recreation
facilities,not just the Copeland Recreation and Sports Complex.Council Member Watts also
voiced his support for bringing the swimming pool bond issue back for a vote if the initial plans
are scaled back.
E)Comments
Adjournment -Council Member Harvey moved to adjourn;seconded by Council Member Dutcher.
Ayes:All.Nays:None.Motion carried 5 -O.Meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
R.Schuett,Deputy City Clerk
Attest:
Bradly M.D"Jets:lnterim City Administrator
2