My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/14/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2017
>
Agenda - Council - 03/14/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:05:11 PM
Creation date
4/25/2017 3:11:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/14/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
451
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
Staff therefore calculated preliminary special assessments using the front footage method as shown in the <br /> preliminary assessment roll. Then, Patchin Messner Dodd and Brumm calculated estimated special benefits for <br /> each assessable property which was also added to the preliminary assessment roll. The lesser of the calculated front <br /> footage assessment and the estimated special benefit was then used for the proposed preliminary assessment for <br /> each assessable property as shown in the Feasibility Report. <br /> All costs for this project are eligible for special assessments since the street is proposed to be reconstructed at its <br /> existing width,which meets current State Aid standards, and since the existing and proposed pavement sections <br /> both meet 10-ton design standards and are therefore equivalent sections. <br /> Public Input <br /> Staff has met with 6 of the 7 assessable property owners to discuss the proposed improvements and the preliminary <br /> assessment roll. All generally understood the need for the improvements, and only Connexus Energy appears to <br /> have significant concerns with the preliminary assessments as proposed in the Feasibility Report. Connexus Energy <br /> concerns are based on the fact that the parcel proposed to be assessed in undeveloped. Staff met with Connexus <br /> Energy representatives on several occasions to discuss the amount of their assessment.However,based on <br /> feedback received from staff from other cities that utilize assessments, as well as from our consulting appraiser, <br /> Patchin Messner Dodd and Brumm, staff recommends adopting the preliminary assessments as proposed within the <br /> Feasibility Report. To the best of Staff's knowledge,no City assesses properties differently based on the <br /> development status. All assessments are calculated based on the highest and best use of the properties. <br /> Below is a general summary of comments received from assessable property owners through Thursday, March 9th. <br /> If new comments are received before the Public Hearing staff will present the comments to Council prior to the <br /> hearing. <br /> .Anderson Dahlen—No feedback has been received from the property owner despite numerous contacts. <br /> .Altron, Inc. —Does not appear to oppose the proposed improvements or their proposed preliminary <br /> assessment. <br /> .B &F Fastener Supply—Does not appear to oppose the proposed improvements or their proposed <br /> preliminary assessment. <br /> . Class C Components—Does not appear to oppose the proposed improvements or their proposed preliminary <br /> assessment. <br /> . Connexus Energy—Does not appear to oppose the proposed improvements but appears to have concerns with <br /> the amount of their proposed preliminary assessment based on the undeveloped status of the parcel being <br /> assessed. <br /> .In'Tech, Industries—Does not appear to oppose the proposed improvements or their proposed preliminary <br /> assessment. <br /> .Vision Ease—Does not appear to oppose the proposed improvements or their proposed preliminary <br /> assessment. <br /> Notification: <br /> Public Hearing Notices were published in the Anoka Union Herald on January 27th and February 3rd, 2017,were <br /> mailed directly to all assessable property owners, and is posted in City Hall as required by State Statute. Postponing <br /> the public hearing did not require additional mailings,postings, or publications. <br /> Observations/Alternatives: <br /> Observations: <br /> This project would best be constructed as a stand-alone project and is necessary, feasible, and cost-effective from an <br /> engineering standpoint, and can be constructed as proposed in the Feasibility Report. <br /> The proposed pavement design should provide a useful life of 30 years or more, assuming proactive, regular <br /> pavement maintenance treatments are performed throughout the life of the pavement.While a 60-year design life is <br /> typically targeted for reconstructed streets,this project is not proposing a full reconstruction due to the good <br /> condition of the majority of existing 20 year old curb and gutter. At the time the existing concrete curb and gutter <br /> that is left in place needs to be reconstructed,which should not occur for 30 years or more, Staff will evaluate <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.