2012-02-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:45 p.m. 6. Assessment Policy Discussion City Engineer Debra Bloom summarized the City's current Special Assessment Policy (effective 2001 —Attachment B); how calculations are determined, and current funding challenges for non-residential properties for the 75% not currently applicable to property owners in the current Policy. Ms. Bloom advised that this had come to the forefront due to funding challenges for the County Road B-2 and Rice Street projects. Ms. Bloom advised that, staff-level discussion had included how to prove benefits for assessments on roadways not within the City's jurisdiction (e.g. Ramsey County or State of MN). Mr. Schwartz noted that discussions by the Ramsey County Board indicated their expectations in the future of increasing their participation policy for other jurisdictions. At the request of Chair DeBenedet to expand market comparisons as provided in Attachment A, Ms. Bloom provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made apart hereto, and entitled "Special Assessment Survey Spreadsheet—2010 (Market City (Metro Population between 50,000 and 100,000)." Ms. Bloom reviewed the current summary and discussion among staff and Commissioners included: further reductions for Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding from actual construction for a required 48' wide, 9 ton roadway to assessment calculations based on a 32' wide, 7 ton street, with the City picking up the additional construction costs. Chair DeBenedet noted that, if MSA funds were not available, another funding source also needed to be found to facilitate those construction costs. Further discussion included remaining sections of roadway (e.g. frontage roads) classified as "non-permanent" estimated at two (2) miles remaining; and challenges for them as they were "single-loaded," but their reconstruction costs would be much higher than that. Mr. Schwartz opined that, given rising expectations for other jurisdictions and local cost participation, assessment costs would need to be revised and increased. Mr. Schwartz noted the City of Roseville's placement at the low end of assessment policy comparisons from the survey provided for metropolitan communities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000, compiled in 2010. Mr. Schwartz further opined that it only made sense to get those additional contributions from benefitting property owners. Page 7 of 13