CC 05-08-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I- I MillEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MAY 8~1994 5 Ms. Dorothy Raetz, 1703 West County Road F, indicated the residents do not favor a walkway and felt the City should comply with this request. Mr. Paul Tavernier, 1651 West County Road F, expressed concerns regarding the assessment manual, he felt the manual was good, but it did not address unusual circumstance and was not based on usage. Mr. Tavernier reviewed several questions to stress his point: a) Is County Road F just simply a connecting road over public land? No, it is not, as it has residents, school, park, and a bus company, it more resembles a collector. b) Is County Road F a residential street? No, it is wider, heavier construction, and is described according to the City as commercial/industrial. The speed limit is not residential, there are no children playing on the road. Mr. Tavernier believed this road is not a residential road in any regards and should not be assessed as a typical residential street. Mr. Tavernier presented a study he did regarding usage of the road, he indicated there is approximately 25.1 % usage attributed to commuters, 39.2% attributed to the High School, 25.1 % attributed to the Bus Company, 10.0% attributed to the residents outside of County Road F, 2.5% attributed to the residents on County Road F. Mr. Tavernier believed based on benefit received, the whole community benefits. He noted the monies received. from the County should go to reducing the burden of the assessment to the residents. Mr. Tavernier indicated the benefits of a typical residential street are: the street is quiet, safe, semi- private, the residents have input in the decision making of the street and it is for the exclusive use of the residents residing on that street He believed this did not apply to County Road F. Mr. Tavernier indicated it is unfair to assess 29 homes the same as a residential street would be assessed, when they do not receive the benefits of: a semi-private road, quiet, safety and there is not exclusivity. Mr. Tavernier compared the assessments of surrounding cities. He noted in New Brighton assessments are based by lot with a general assessment of approximately $1,200 to $1,800 for new developments and 25% for improvements. In Roseville it is 25% or approximately $15 to $16 per front foot. Shoreview where there is most similarity with County Road turnbacks, in regards to County Road J, residents were assessed $1,100 each and County Road G2 residents who were assessed $1,200 each.