Agenda - Council - 02/14/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I coNSIdERATION OF MODIFYING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES I APPLICABLE TO THE ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE.PROGRAM ~ By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer I Background:~ ' Since its inceptipn: the Street Maintenance !~.ogram was financed through special assessments. Wh'_e,n the first ,0aamtenance projects were imtiated in 1981, and continuing through 1990, the I City s policy waSto assess 100% of the costs associated with the maintenance program. Projects were segregated~y subdivision and assessed individually. In 1990, the policy was modified such that the City co~htributed 50% of the individual project cost. The City's assessment policy is I defined in writtela format in Section 4.50.01 of the City Code; however, of the details of the many assessment polidy are not included in that document. Over the years, the details for establishing assessments havb varied with the tenure of the City Engineer. At the last public hearing on the ,~· I assessment for Se 1994 Street Maintenance Program, Council agreed a detailed, written policy should be prepalred. The purpose of this case is to consider any modifications desired in the assessment process. I Survey of Metro!m_ litan Communi .ty Assessment Policies: To assist in m~king decisions on Ramsey's assessment policy, a survey of a number of metropolitan co ,dmaunities was conducted. The results of this survey have been tabulated and are attached. It is iqtoresting to note that none of the fourteen communities contacted assessed for sealcoating woN and only two assessed for overlays. It is perhaps more significant to note that I them is a variety ~f policies with no two cities being exactly alike. The per-unit assessment method is preferred, but me front footage method is certainly not rare. The City of Hopkins uses both ' methods and has it fairly detailed policy. I Thc Issues: ~ ' A draft assessmeOt policy was considered at the December 13, 1994 Road and Bridge Committee 'I meeting, and subsequently at the City Council meeting of that same date. Action was tabled because of lack ~f consensus on several issues. The discussion below addresses each of those issues and offers ~everal alternatives. I A. ~rg_L~. Usually corner and double frontage lots receive the same maintenance treatment bn both frontages within the particular project. There are, however, exceptions. ' A corner ;lot could receive an improvement on one frontage during one year and an I on frontage a subsequent year. The City's past policy has improvem.'ent the in i consistently been that corner lots should receive an equal assessment to single frontage lots. The methckt of collecting has varied. ! ' Corner lotS shall be assessed one full share when the frontage on which the address or I main driveway receives the improvement. This is the policy which was utilized prior to , 1991. Corner Iot~ shall be assessed one-half share on each frontage unless the second frontage is I on a State ,}Iighway, County Road, or an MSA street, listed above [list to be developed in