CCP 06-24-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. I DRAFT ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MAY 28. 1996 4 _I Mayor Probst explained the public hearing process to the audience. He stated that staff I provided an overview of the assessment policy in the letters sent to the residents affected, and noted that a resident's portion of property taxes would have to be increased by approximately I 20 percent if the City did not have an Assessment Policy. Walter Benjamin, 1605 Oak Avenue, stated his assessment cost was based on 114.23 front I feet. He inquired if a performance bond is required of the construction company, and if a rebate could be applied to the assessment if the company does not complete the project on I time. Mr. Stonehouse stated a performance bond is required by the City for project completion, and I a liquidated damage clause is included for approximately $450 per day if the project is not completed on time. Mr. Boyd Paulu, 3782 McCracken Lane, stated he supported the need for the project, but I noted that McCracken Lane is 32 feet wide with curb and gutter, is 20 years old, and should have had a longer life. He stated the rest of the neighborhood received a street overlay years I ago, while McCracken Lane did not. He stated the benefit from reconstruction is a benefit to the City in reduced maintenance costs, not to the individual property owners. Mr. Stonehouse replied that street overlays are part of the Pavement Management Program, -- and the rest of the neighborhood is paying $5.42 per front foot for this improvement. I Mr. Paulu stated the City's pavement management program is costing benefiting property owners 25 percent more in assessments, while it would only increase their total tax bill by I three percent if included as part of a comprehensive street maintenance program. He stated the City should levy for all the costs of overlay projects and should not assess for this type of work. I Ms. Rhonda Behr, 1401 West County Road E, stated her property front foot calculation is on the side, not the front, and that she consented in 1986 to pay an assessment to avoid an I eight percent interest cost. She stated that as a result of a lawsuit, the City reimbursed her for the assessment cost, and therefore is contesting the current assessment. She stated she has a corner lot, and an appraiser informed her that there is no increased value to her for a corner I lot, but is getting assessed higher because of it. Mr. Stonehouse stated Ms. Behr's home straddles both lots and subdivision is not possible. I Mr. Bernard Levander, 3550 Siems Court, stated Dwayne Stafford, Public Works I Superintendent, answered his question prior to the meeting regarding improved water drainage. -. I