Laserfiche WebLink
Member Gjerdingen reported on his research on the sidewalk assessment policies <br /> of other metropolitan communities (e.g. Cities of Minneapolis, Excelsior, <br /> Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park, Maplewood) including funding options such as a <br /> pool, partial or full assessments, and use of tax levy funds; repairs versus new <br /> installation; differentiation of trails and sidewalks; and language of State Statute, <br /> Chapter 435 regarding assessments for sidewalks based on benefit to properties. <br /> Mr. Schwartz questioned, as part of that research, if sidewalks were required in <br /> front of every property in those communities. <br /> Ms. Bloom questioned, as part of that research, how successful or unsuccessful <br /> those sidewalk assessment policies were in the respective communities. <br /> Member Gjerdingen advised that his research to-date did not provide answers to <br /> those questions. <br /> Discussion among PWETC members and staff included property value increases <br /> from a sidewalk and thus benefiting a property; potential for Special Assessment <br /> Districts where 100% assessments could be applicable; and the level interest of <br /> property owners in having a sidewalk depending on whether they were installed at <br /> no cost to the property owner or if they were assessable; and the need to address <br /> city-wide access, safety and connectivity needs from an equitable and standard <br /> system. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that the City's Pathway Master Plan addressed the entire city- <br /> wide system, addressing everyone equitably, with the entire network intended to <br /> benefit and affecting all. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that he saw no problem assessing both sides of a road <br /> for a pathway or sidewalk if the roadway couldn't accommodate it. <br /> Ms. Bloom, from her perspective as a facilitator, opined that sidewalk and <br /> pathway projects were one of the hardest she dealt with, whether on a road, <br /> boulevard, or on private property. Ms. Bloom further opined that, while everyone <br /> at this meeting was supportive of non-motorized transportation needs now and in <br /> the future, it was not as clear to every citizen of Roseville. Ms. Bloom opined <br /> that, if the Fairview Pathway Project had been assessed, it would not have <br /> happened, based on the concerns of property owners fielded by staff. Ms. Bloom <br /> used the proposed sidewalk along County Road B-2 as another example that <br /> eventually went away for a variety of reasons, including when assessments were <br /> brought up as a funding source. Ms. Bloom noted the need to consider the <br /> benefits and who was being served. Ms. Bloom advised that the perspective of <br /> many residents — not all of whom are elderly — was that they moved to Roseville <br /> for a more "country" atmosphere and if they wanted the "urban" atmosphere, they <br /> would move to Minneapolis or St. Paul proper. Ms. Bloom advised that from <br /> Page 8 of 14 <br />