My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2002_0506
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2002
>
CC_Minutes_2002_0506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:39:38 AM
Creation date
8/9/2006 12:52:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/6/2002
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ALSANDS <br />MAY 6, 2002 <br /> <br />COMMENTS REGARDING STAFF REPORTS ON <br /> <br />SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY <br /> <br />I. MR. DUANE SCHWARTZ'S COMMENTS <br /> <br />Page 2. first par.: Duane tells us that 250/0 of the city's street state aid allotment is <br />being used to pay for current period maintenance expense. <br /> <br />We subsidize what otherwise would have to included in the levy, by around $263,000 a <br />year. The city can and does divert this sum from state aid road building, but only with <br />the permission of the state commissioner. As I understand it, the state commissioner has <br />to be satisfied that state aid roads in the city are up to his standards, or he will stop this <br />practice, and require this to be used for state aid road construction until his standards are <br />met. That means this sum must be included in the calculation of state aids available for <br />needed construction. If excess funds are available, they may then be used for current <br />period maintenance. expenses. I have no objection to this diversion so long as road <br />construction requirements are met first. <br /> <br />Page 3, streetscape defined as "improvements outside of normal replacement or <br />Restoration, MEANT TO VISUALLY ENHANCE, and functionally <br />Improve the (pedestrian and vehicular) transportation network". <br /> <br />This means to me the intent of our streetscaping to make a walk or a drive through one <br />of our thoroughfares by whomever might so choose to do so, a pleasant and impressive <br />experience. We apparently use streetscape somewhat sparingly, the principle example <br />being Larpenteur Ave., a county road, from Hamline to Lexington. Lake McCarrons <br />might also be considered an example, although the financial projection on fue in the <br />engineer's office doesn't identify it as streetscape. Currently, Co. Road C is being <br />identified for streetscape treatment. I would assume no city street that is not also a state <br />aid street would be singled out for streetscaping. <br /> <br />Streetscape does not appear to be eligible for state aid funding, since the financial <br />projections that I've seen to do not attempt to get state aids for it. That means the city <br />must shoulder the cost, or the adjacent property owners must be assessed. <br /> <br />Since the intent and purpose of limited streetscaping projects is to enhance the visual <br />beauty for a visitor passing through, it is not fair to assess adjacent property owners to so <br />that visitors to our city can be impressed. <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.