My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
08/10/93
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Road and Bridge Committee
>
Agendas
>
1993
>
08/10/93
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2025 4:16:21 PM
Creation date
4/2/2004 10:15:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Road and Bridge Committee
Document Date
08/10/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY <br /> By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The methodology for assessing various types of improvements has varied considerably in the last <br />several years. For example, street program assessments used to be assessed 100% to property <br />owners but City parks would be considered for an equal share. The City used to assess the cost of <br />the MSA road, but credited property owners a fair value for the land acquired. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Direct Staff to begin work developing a policy for consideration and adoption by City Council. It <br />is Staffs intention to prepare a single document which would summarize all of our current <br />assessment policies. We should begin this process with a review of various areas for which the <br />City routinely assesses. Below is a partial listing of potential issues to consider. <br /> <br />Potential Issues: <br /> <br />Street Program: <br />· How should comer lots be handled, 1/2 share or full share on the side the drive <br /> enters? <br />· Should City parks be assessed a full share now that the City pays 50% of the <br /> project cost? <br />· Should the City consider placing an assessment cap on overlay projects.'? <br /> <br />MSA Road Development: <br />· What, if anything, should benefitted, but not contiguous property to an MSA road, <br /> be assessed? : <br /> <br />Sewer and Water Extensions: <br />· How should lateral benefit be determined for connection made to existing trunk <br /> utility'?. <br /> <br />Reviewed By: <br /> <br />City Engineer <br /> <br />R&B:08/10/93 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.