CCP 03-31-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I , DRAFT ~. ARDEN HILLS CITY COl)NCIL WORKSESSION - MARCH 17. 1997 3 I prepared by City Accountant Post. Discussions included the amount of cash available for I the project; the possibility of dropping Hamline and/or Snelling A venues; and consideration of potential unit cost for future assessments rather than by front footage. I Mayor Probst polled the Councilmembers at this time regarding reconstruction of the Hamline and Snelling portions of the project: I Councilmember Hamline Snelling Aplikowski Drop Keep Hicks Drop Drop (from a budget standpoint*) I Keim Drop Drop Malone Drop Drop Probst Drop Drop I *Councilmember Hicks suggested that one or the other of these streets be considered this year, as they both will need to be reconstructed at some point. I Mayor Probst requested clarification from City Administrator Fritsinger on several procedures regarding the public hearing process. Mr. Fritsinger addressed Mayor .. Probst's concerns that the public hearing was to gain public input from residents, and at that time, the Council could make the decision on the final scope of the project. I Councilmembers again referred to the baseline and five alternatives and assumptions compiled by City Accountant Post. I Mayor Probst questioned whether staff had been given sufficient direction this evening to prepare for the public hearing. The consensus of the Council was to keep the assessments I in the $38.00 range, remove Hamline and Snelling from the project scope, and have several options available for presentation purposes at the public hearing. I Consulting Engineers Stonehouse and Maurer were directed to calculate rates for all options and alternatives as discussed, in accordance with the City's current Assessment Policy. I City Administrator Fritsinger addressed several public concerns which had been brought I to his attention regarding the current assessment policy which included; corner lot assessments, lack of understanding regarding the property owners' ability to amortize the assessment, hardship deferrals, and cul-de-sacs. I Councilmember Keim brought to the attention of Councilmembers and staff that the ft County Assessor considers corner lots to contain no added value, particularly when improvements are completed on the side lot, not the front footage side ofthe house. I