CCP 05-30-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- . . ARQt:t:I HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MA Y 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 lirnit 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 RosevilIe 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 02 residents who were .. assessed $1,200 each. .