02/14/95 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was to assess 100 percent. In 1990, the policy was modified such that the City contributed 50 percent of the individual project cost. Mr. Jankowski reported that at the last public hearing on the assessment for the 1994 Street Maintenance Program, Council agreed that a detailed, written policy should be prepared. He stated that one of the issues that need to be addressed are the assessment of comer lots. He summarized a couple of options. Option 1: Corner lots shall be assessed one full share when the frontage on which the address or main driveway receives the improvement. This is the policy which was utilized prior to 1991. Option 2: Corner lots shall be assessed one-half share on each frontage unless the second frontage is on a State Highway, County Road, or an MSA Street, in which case it shall receive one full share when the residential street receives the improvements. This has been the policy during the last four programs. Another area of concern is MSA Roadways. Mr. Jankowski stated that one Councilmember expressed opposition for assessing MSA roadways, citing the fact that the City receives State Aid funds for these roadways which should finance this maintenance. Currently, the City receives a total of $454,000 from the State toward the maintenance and construction of its designated State Aid system. The City transfers $80,000 of this total into its general fund. This leaves the remainder of the allocation to address the estimated $10,730,000 of construction needed to bring our designated MSA system up to standard. Mr. Jankowski suggested a couple of options pertaining to MSA roadways. Option 1: (Current policy) Properties having frontage on an MSA street which receives an improvement, shall be assessed the average assessment levied on other property owners receiving a similar improvement during that year's Street Maintenance Program. In the case of comer or double frontage lots, no assessment will be collected if the property has another frontage on which the City would have the ability to levy an assessment. Option 2: Properties having frontage on an MSA street segment which receives an improvement shall not receive an assessment for that improvement. Jim Struwve, stated he lives on the comer of 153rd and Hematite and that he was told he would never be assessed because of it being an MSA street. He expressed concern that the City was picking and choosing who to assess for this as five of the 12 people on the street got notification of the assessment. Mr. Jankowski stated that Mr. Struwve was assessed because his driveway is on 153rd and it is actually easier to remove a name from the assessment roll than it is to add one. Mr. Struwve argued that other people, not assessed, also have drives onto 153rd. Councihnember Zimmerman suggested that this issue will take more than a five to 10 minute discussion and should be reserved for a Council workshop. Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to table the issue of modifying the assessment procedure and discussing it instead at a Council Workshop. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Case #3: Discussion of Consultant Selection City Engineer Jankowski stated that at the workshop meeting on January 28, 1995, Council me~nbers expressed interest in reviewing the procedure for professional engineering consultant selection on City projects. He presented a list of firms that have expressed an interest in providing consulting engineering services to the City of Ramsey over the past several years. He continued that Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., RLK Associates, Bonestroo Associates and BRW, Inc., all have basically performed work for Road and Bridge Committee/February 14, 1995 Page 2 of 4