My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 10/25/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2016
>
Minutes - Council - 10/25/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 2:26:32 PM
Creation date
11/18/2016 11:07:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/25/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
October 24, 2016 <br />City of Ramsey, MN <br />Objection to Special Assessment <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />For some reason, the bids came in 35% less than the Engineering Estimate. So, even without any <br />special assessments, the city's cost would still be 18% less than planned. <br />Total Cost <br />Original Actual <br />Estimate Cost Reduction <br />2,956,000 1,928,840 -35% <br />Special Assessments (594,750) - <br />City Cost <br />2,361,250 1,928,840 -18% <br />The Benefit Area is Much Broader Than the 65 Properties Being Assessed <br />Andrie and 164th are the main through streets through Northfork Development. Most of the <br />Development uses these roads just as much as those living adjacent to these streets. Therefore, <br />the benefit area is much broader than 65 and any potential assessment should be spread among a <br />larger number of properties. <br />Summary and Recommendation <br />As discussed above, the reconstruction of Andrie and 164th at this time should not be subject to <br />special assessment for the following reasons: <br />1. The reconstruction constitutes deferred maintenance since the road has not been properly <br />maintained. <br />2. The reconstruction merely restores the road to the condition it should be in at this stage in <br />the life of the road. <br />3. The residents already paid for the road in the cost of the developed lots. <br />4. The proposed assessment exceeds the benefit to the properties. <br />5. The appraisal doesn't measure the value of the reconstruction of this road to any of the 65 <br />properties listed. <br />6. The City's cost, even without special assessments is still 18% less than planned. <br />7. The benefit area is much broader than the 65 properties proposed for assessment. <br />However, in the spirit of compromise and equity within the neighborhood, I could accept a much <br />lower assessment in the range of $1,500 to $2,000. I base this on the recent overlay assessment <br />of $730 and that the age of the road would be half way through the life of the first overlay had it <br />been done. A new road is, of course, superior to an overlay. In addition, I appreciate the <br />commitment of the city, at this time, to make this project happen and fully expect that the <br />appropriate maintenance will be done to ensure it lasts as long as possible. <br />Thank you very much for your consideration. <br />Sincerely, <br />Greg Koenig <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.