Centerville Street Maintenance: U-Turns Allowed

CENTERVILLE - Centerville leaders are thinking about executing a U-turn on the city’s street maintenance program. One option being considered would dispense with seal coating altogether and introduce a “thin overlay” approach to extending the useful life of pavements included within the city’s 16-mile street network.
The Centerville City Council met at a special work session May 25 to discuss financial issues as they affect the preparation of the city’s 2012 budget.
Among the discussion items was a proposal by Public Works Director Paul Palzer to abandon the 25-year street replacement program contained in the city’s Pavement Management Program.
“With the current budget constraints, it is not feasible to continue this program,” Palzer’s memorandum to council stated.
Currently, the city is spending about $600,000 each year in annual debt service to fund its outstanding bond obligations, Finance Director Mike Jeziorski said. Those debt obligations include the 2004 and 2009 Street and Utility Reconstruction Projects, as well as the city’s share of the Centennial Police Department building in Circle Pines.
Fully funding the city’s Pavement Management Program alone would require an estimated annualized cost of $1.7 million, Jeziorski
A thin overlay would be applied less often—say, on a 15-year interval, or more infrequently, Palzer said.
For the city’s collector streets that carry more traffic, the thin overlay could be applied every 12 to 15 years, he said. For other streets, an interval of 17 to 18 years could be used.
“It’s twice as much as a seal coat but half as often,” said City Engineer Mark Statz at the meeting. “It’s a substitute for a seal coat program.”
“It could mean tough decisions, but tough decisions need to be made,” said Fehrenbacher.
Though cheaper, thin overlays have to be paid for, too. Short of raising the tax levy to cover the expense— Jeziorski said the tax levy would have to be increased by 10 to 12 percent to cover all costs of the thin overlay program—council members have the option of charging benefiting property owners.
“I guess I just can’t see raising the levy amount,” said Mayor Tom Wilharber.
“If my street were being improved, I would expect to pay for it,” Councilmember Ben Fehrenbacher said.

Full Story Here
Deb Barnes
The Citizen

City Loses Assessment Suit in Court and Appeals

Link Court Docs Here

This is what complaint based ordinance enforcement gets us...

During the hearing, Essex told the judge that a watershed district permit is required to remove the walls. “I’m caught in the middle (if) they don’t give me the permits I need,” she said.
In that case, Essex “can certainly move the court to vacate the 10 days,” the judge told the defendant’s attorney, Jon Erickson.
Glaser told the judge that the watershed district had no objection to issuing a permit.
A call to RCWD Administrator Phil Belfiori the following week, however, called Glaser’s comment into question. “If we haven’t received an application, it would be premature to make that statement,” he told The Citizen. “I’m not sure where (Glaser) got that.
“Our Board has not acted in that regard. We can’t, as staff, make that kind of comment.”
Belfiori said that once Essex submits her application to remove the walls, the district engineer would consider the land disturbance and erosion that could occur as a result of the work.
“The rules specifically talk about disturbance or construction within 300 feet of a watercourse,” Belfiori said. “The main issue would be the stabilization of the disturbance area.”
Essex said she had complied with Palzer’s request last summer that she consult with qualified professionals to obtain an evaluation of the walls: a landscape designer from Goetz Landscape recommended against their removal, as did Rice Creek Watershed District’s (RCWD) water resource specialist.
“There is no one in the city who is a professional in this area,” Essex told the judge. “And I have to get a permit (from RCWD) to take the wall down.”
“Is that correct?” the judge asked Glaser.
“The watershed district has no objection to issuing a permit,” he replied.
And although newly elected Mayor Tom Wilharber and Councilmember Steve King have expressed an interest in taking another look at the matter, they are in the minority.
A call to the city attorney was not returned by press time.Full story here
Deb Barnes
The Citizen

This story just refuses to die!  Our Public Works director has stated this is a political matter and he is just following orders from his boss.  The fact remains, as long as Centerville enforces the ordinances on a complaint basis, you better be sure to get along with your neighbors.