Laserfiche WebLink
equitable policy so that everyone is paying an equal amount. She stated that she thinks there is <br />an inequity in the policy, but she did not know how they could relate that to a development that <br />is not yet a fact. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that generally the reason they use the per unit basis is <br />because if they do the frontage basis, it isn't more equitable when a cul-de-sac lot pays a lot less <br />than someone who lives on a comer lot. The issue that Ms. Matilla is referring to is one example <br />of a relatively large piece of property being included as one parcel. Typically street <br />improvement projects are done on a subdivision basis with typically the same lot sizes. He <br />recommended that they discuss the policy further at a future Public Works meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmelnber Kurak stated that because she lives on a county road she does not think it is fair <br />that she does not have to pay anything for street maintenance when everyone uses the roads in <br />Ramsey. <br /> <br />Councihnember Anderson inquired if all of the projects completed this year were relatively <br />equitable. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that with the exception of the large lot created by the <br />Bright Keys development everything else seemed to be fairly equitable. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if they typically analyzed future development as part of the assessment <br />process. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that that had not been done recently because there are <br />some people that have no intention of subdividing their lot and the City was assuming that they <br />were going to do so. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson noted that the issue of private and public streets needs to be <br />considered. <br /> <br />Ms. Matilla inquired as to why Menkfeld Trust was not assessed. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the reason Menkfeld Trust was not charged an <br />assessment was because it was a combined lot. Since the public hearing regarding the street <br />improvements, the lot has been subdivided so there are currently two lots of record. He inquired <br />if the lots did not exist before the improvement hearing can they assess the parcel. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that they can only assess the parcels identified at the time of the <br />improvement hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Matilla inquired as to why they have to hold to that. She stated that she was told in 1995 <br />and 1996 that the City did not allow cul-de-sacs and yet they are still constructing cul-de-sacs. <br /> <br />City Council/September 24, 2002 <br /> Page 7 of 33 <br /> <br /> <br />