02/11/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE #2 A RE~tI~W OF ASSESSMENT POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE 1992 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer Background: It has been ti~e policy of the City to assess for a portion of the cost associated with the annual maintenance ~rogram for its City maintained streets. Over the years, the nature of the assessment policy has clean '~1~., and this year's street program presents some unique situations which merit review by th~ Road and Bridge Committee meeting. Below are a number of issues which should be considered by be Road and Bridge Committee. · Projects identified by subdivision: It has been the policy of the City to identify projects prinit{ril$ by individual subdivisions. The rationale for this is that lot frontages, street width, Md pavement conditions tend to be similar throughout any particular subdivision and t.~at the cost of the assessment should reflect these conditions. For the 1992 program, this r/~ethOd produces a range of individual lot assessments identified below: $! 10 00 per unit $i 14.00 per unit $118.00 per unit $!40.00 per unit $154.00 per unit $!68.00 per unit $220.00 per unit Menkveld (24' streets) Greenland Hills (24' streets) Whispering Pine (24' streets) White Pine Estates (some street frontage adjacent to unplatted land and through golf course) Rum River Hills (30' streets along with considerable frontage adjacent to golf course) Pondvale (three lots per unit along with 32' streets) Traprock Commons (7-1/2 acre lots, 400' of frontage) AlthSugli it is my opinion that the existing policy is fair, alternative assessment policies are poss!bl~! For instance, the entire 1992 program could be considered as a larger single project and an uniform assessment levied on all benefitted properties. An average asse.4smcnt for the 1992 program would be $119.00 per unit. Ho~ to -assess subdi¥i~i0n~ h~v[ng golf courses and other open space: The 1992 program has ~twO[individual projects which include golf courses. These golf courses occupy considerable street frontages that might otherwise be occupied by assessable residential lots. i It ~ihould be noted that no golf course traffic is generated on these streets. The 1992 pro,am assesses golf course a single equal share. The Road and Bridge Committee shoed affirm this as a fair share or direct another method of assessment. Cit~t~rOnerties assessed share: During the early and mid-1980's, it was the City's policy to ~es~.- 100% of the cost of sealcoafing to the benefitted properties. During those years, a parg or Similar City property occurring within a subdivision would be assigned a share equ~l to!a single residential lot. With the change in assessment policy in the late 1980's in which tile City began paying 50% of the project cost, I believe the City paying an additional sha/e off a per lot basis for a park is no longer justified. The 1992 program does not provide for any additional assessments beyond the City's 50% project share. Proiecta ~nvolmne contnbuuons by develoners: In the late 1980 s, ~t became C~ty pohcy to require &veloper~ to contribute to'yard an ~scrow fund to help defray cost of the first street seal~ oa.rfing. The amount of the escrow was determined by estimating the construction cost for ~he sealcoating operations alone. Changes in the street maintenance program now