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