Laserfiche WebLink
352 <br />Bloom noted that those two (2) legs were not on the county system, and the City, <br />353 <br />under the proposed policy, could have assessed up to 50% of the project, based on <br />354 <br />appraisals to benefitting properties (e.g. Ramsey County Library- Roseville <br />355 <br />branch, the Vault Company, Macy's Home Store, and the Mortuary). <br />356 <br />357 <br />Chair DeBenedet suggested if the City's share is more than 50 %, an appraisal was <br />358 <br />indicated, but if less than 50 %, no appraisal would be done. However, Ms. <br />359 <br />Bloom suggested an appraisal no matter what if it was up to the City to pay that <br />360 <br />portion of the project cost. <br />361 <br />362 <br />363 <br />Chair DeBenedet opined that he would need to give that further consideration; <br />364 <br />with Member Vanderwall asking staff to provide their suggestion in writing for <br />365 <br />the next discussion. <br />366 <br />367 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that staff level discu ions were cu ly considering impacts <br />368 <br />in eliminating the per footage assessment provisions. <br />369 <br />370 <br />Member Vanderwall cautioned staff that the front footage assessment method had <br />371 <br />been around for a long time, and he would be interested in hearing public reaction <br />372 <br />to such a recommendation. <br />373 <br />374 <br />Ms. Bloom recognized that, due to its history, keeping the front footage language <br />375 <br />may be advisable; and suggested that she update the front -end of the Assessment <br />376 <br />Policy (Sections 2 and 3) for the next discussion. <br />377 <br />378 <br />Ms. Bloom sought Commissioner input on whether they wanted to discussion <br />379 <br />what the City currently assessed, beyond roads (e.g. new water and /or sewer <br />380 <br />mains. At the request of Member Gj erdingen for how current rebuilding of those <br />381 <br />sy tems was done, Mr. Schwartz advised that she would not recommend any <br />382 <br />ch e in the current funding source, done through rates city -wide. <br />383 <br />384 <br />Chair DeBenedet opined that he was not supportive of assessing for sidewalks in <br />385 <br />LDR -1 and LDR -2 District, as they were typically not installed on both sides of <br />386 <br />the street, and it would be difficult to determine a benefit for a property versus a <br />387 <br />property owner losing some of their front footage for installation. <br />388 <br />389 <br />Ms. Bloom noted that logic would currently extend to county projects (e.g. <br />390 <br />Rosedale area at County Road B -2) with the current policy not assessing for any <br />391 <br />sidewalks in the City. <br />392 <br />393 <br />Chair DeBenedet recognized that those areas and properties also benefited from <br />394 <br />pedestrian access. <br />395 <br />Page 9 of 15 <br />