CC 07-08-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e ~ Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 7-8-91 Page 3 HRING (Cont'd) He state:i the proposed reduction in the assessment rate is good, although it rey be difficult to reintain that rate for future iIrprovements. McClung suggeste:i the city pay a larger share of the cost of the iIrprovernent from other funding sources. He thanked Council for their time. Council1nember Mahowald eJqllained that the 1991 assessment rate of $27.50 per front foot, f= street reconstruction i1lIprovements, is not part of the afO'="'<mJeI1t manual adopted by the city. He asked the Engineer to eJqllain how the rate is established. Engineer Maurer state:i the rate for street reconstruction :inprovements is established each year, based on estimate:i construction costs; it is a projected figure and a reduction in the rate occurs based on the bids received for each separate ilnprovement. He noted that the established rate for 1992 rey be higher for both street reconstruction and overlay ilnprovements; it appears likely that the rate will continue to rise. George Reiling, 661 Heinel Drive, Roseville, state:i he owns vacant land which fronts on Snelling Avenue. He state:i development of the property would probably include construction of two roadways, at least 60 feet wide, and questioned if any consideration was given in the proposed assessment of his property f= future development of the roadways. Engineer Maurer state:i the feasibility study identifies frontage on Snelling for privately ~ed property and there is no reduction f= future roads in those calculations. He eJqllained the Reiling property lists 910 feet of frontage in the feasibility study and that is what appears on the assessment roll. Jim Ostlund, 1576 Royal Hills Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed assessment, based on benefit to property owners. He questioned if the concept of benefit was studied when the assessment policy was adopted. He also questioned if the rate of $27.50 adequately reflects the benefit to property. eouncilmembers concurred that the rate adequately reflects the benefit to property owners. Ostlund state:i most of the residents feel the cost of the iIrprovement is excessive and does not reflect the increased value of the property. He recalled a remark rede by Council1nember Mahowald that the Council would not vary from this assessment policy in the future and yet the Engineer has proposed a reduced assessment rate this evening. eouncil1nember Mahowald advised the Council is not deviatin:j' from the assessment policy by considering a reduction in the assessment rate. He eJqllained the rate is established annually, based on estimate:i construction costs. He further eJqllained that if the bid amount is lower than the estimate:i costs for construction of the i1lIprovernent, Council rey reduce the proposed assessment. Mahowald advised that the Council does not have the option to increase the assessment rate annually if the bid amount is higher than the estimate:i construction costs. Ostlund questioned if the Council is considering a reduced rate f= c=er lots, as previously discussed and outlined in the assessment policy.