Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, February 9, 1987 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />ASSMT. POLICY <br />(CONT'D) <br /> <br />Council discussed various methods of assessing <br />improvement costs. Other comments by Councll were: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- The assessment policy should be as uniformly fair to all residents as <br />possible. <br />- Shoreview's "Street Renewal Program" is very complete, concise and <br />covers various assessment situations. <br />- Arden Hills staff could draft a policy program similar to Shoreview's <br />for Council review. <br /> <br />The Engineer provided Council with a cost breakdown for the Glenhill Road <br />project. He commented that some factors for consideration when determining an <br />assessment policy may be; some road improvements require widening the street, <br />and, bituminous surface may not be considered part of the assessment cost. <br />Christoffersen offered to outline such situations for Council. <br /> <br />There was discussion regarding the necessity of setting some type of assessment <br />policy, possibly just for border streets or limited to this improvement, <br />because of the time factor for completing the Glenhil1 Road project in <br />conjunction with the City of Roseville. <br /> <br />Moved by Hicks, seconded by Hansen, that Council hereby <br />adopts, as a general street reconstruction assessment policy, an assessment . <br />against benefited property owners of a maximum of 50% of total project costs, <br />excluding curb and gutter; and, furthermore, that Council consider exceptions <br />to the aforementioned policy as they relate to street usage and classification. <br /> <br />Sather moved to amend the motion, seconded by Peck, to <br />include: policy be applied only to the Glenhill Road improvement. <br /> <br />There was discussion regarding the preparation of a citywide street <br />evaluation/assessment policy. Also discussed was the possibility of appeals <br />because Roseville would only be assessing 25% of the project costs; it was <br />noted that the motion states "a maximum of 50%" be assessed. Council may <br />determine a lessor percentage. <br /> <br />Amendment to the original motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Original motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />RES. NO. 87-07 <br />ACCEPTING FEAS. <br />RPT. & PUB. HRING <br /> <br />The Engineer adVised Council he would prepare a <br />feasibility report, using Rosevil1e's project cost <br />figures, and suggested holding the public hearing on <br />March 9th. <br /> <br />Moved by Sather, seconded by Peck, that Council adopt <br />Resolution No. 87-07; RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT NO. P-ST-87-1, and furthermore, that Council <br />accept the project cost estimates as per the City of Roseville's feasibility <br />report and set the public hearing date for March 9. 1987, at 7:30 p.m. Motion <br />carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />AMENDMENT TO <br />SUP; ANIMAL <br />HOSPITAL <br /> <br />Council was referred to memorandum from Clerk <br />Administrator (2/3/87). re: spot checks of the parking <br />at the Arden/Shoreview Animal Hospital. She noted that <br />letters had been sent to the adjacent property owners; <br />one responded they had no problem with the parking situation at the animal <br />hospital and the parking survey indicated no parking problem. <br /> <br />. <br />