My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
02/08/94
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Road and Bridge Committee
>
Agendas
>
1994
>
02/08/94
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/15/2025 3:21:21 PM
Creation date
7/15/2003 9:37:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Road & Bridge Committee
Document Date
02/08/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CASE # / <br /> <br />CONSIDERATION OF MODIFYING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES <br />APPLICABLE TO THE ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM <br />By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Since its inception, the street maintenance program was financed through special assessments. <br />When the first maintenance projects were initiated in 1981 and continuing through 1990, the City's <br />policy was to assess 100% of the costs associated with the maintenance program. Projects were <br />segregated by subdivision and assessed individually. In 1990, the policy was modified such that <br />the City contributed 50% of the individual project cost. The purpose of this case is to consider any <br />modifications desired in the assessment process. <br /> <br />One concern associated with the current assessment process includes the treatment of comer and <br />double frontage lots. Past policy had been to assess a full share for comer and double frontage lots <br />when the improvement was made to the street on which the property's driveway had access. In the <br />past two street programs, assessments to comer lots were made on the basis of assessing one-half <br />share to each street benefitted. There are an increasing number of cases where a particular comer <br />lot may receive a sealcoat improvement along one street in one year, and a subsequent sealcoat or a <br />more expensive overlay on the other street in a future year. In this year's proposed program, there <br />are ten such properties. While it is certainly possible to continue the current practice of checking <br />where the property's driveway accesses the street, this policy doesn't address the issue of how to <br />assess undeveloped lots, or whether to assess two shares to comer lots having access onto both <br />streets. <br /> <br />A proposed policy would read: <br /> <br />"It shall be the policy of the City to assess comer lots one-half of the assessment of <br />non-comer lots on each street for a street maintenance improvements. This policy <br />shall not apply to comer lots on which frontage occurs along County or State trunk <br />highways or City MSA streets. Such comer lots shall pay a full share equal to non- <br />comer lots". <br /> <br />This change in policy is simpler to administer, and is still fair. It eliminates the need to check <br />whether a particular comer lot was assessed on a previous project. It alleviates the need for a <br />visual inspection of the lot to determine where the property owner's access is located. It also <br />avoids the issues of how to assess vacant lots, and whether to assess two shares to comer lots <br />having double access onto both streets. <br /> <br />City Parks <br /> <br />A second point to consider is the treatment for assessing parks. Previous to 1990, parks were <br />assessed a full share. With the 1991 program, the assessment of a share for parks was eliminated <br />primarily due to the fact that the City was now contributing a significant portion to the street <br />maintenance cost. However, for the 1993 program, Central Park was assessed a significant share <br />of the cost of overlaying 161st Avenue N.W. Primarily because not assessing the park would <br />have resulted in an unreasonably high cost for the remaining property owners. I would <br />recommend that we redefine our assessment policy for parks to eliminate any assessment to <br />neighborhood parks. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.