2012_1210_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 of 3 Commission Meeting. The Commission supports the project as proposed. 33 The City has received a petition from 11 of the 20 Roseville property owners along County Road D 34 requesting that the proposed 6 foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the street not be constructed. 35 The feasibility report will discuss the proposed sidewalk and include the petition as an appendix. 36 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 37 The feasibility report details the proposed design, neighborhood impact, estimated cost and proposed 38 funding for the construction of these public improvements. Assessment shall be equivalent or less than 39 the anticipated increase in market value for properties being assessed. It is the City’s policy to assess 40 the cost to construct a 32 foot wide 7-ton road to adjacent property owners as follows: 41  Adjacent residential property owner assessed for up to 25% of the cost. 42  All other adjacent property zoning assessed for up to 50% of the cost. 43  Appraisals will be completed prior to the Pub lic Hearing to determine the influence of the 44 improvement project on the value of the properties proposing to be assessed. 45  If appraisals indicate that the “up to” assessment rate is greater than the benefit received from the 46 proposed project, Staff will recommend that they be adjusted down to equal to the benefit. 47 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 48 Each City will pay for their portion of the project construction within their City boundaries, which 49 includes utility reconstruction, sidewalk, and other items not related to the road reconstruction. The 50 road reconstruction costs will be split 50-50 between the two cities. Shoreview is providing engineering 51 services and Roseville will reimburse them for our share. The costs discussed below are the City of 52 Roseville’s cost share of this project. Shoreview is preparing a separate feasibility report for their City 53 Council that contains their costs. This project has major financial implications for the city including the 54 following: 55 1. Assessments levied in accordance with the City’s assessment policy. 56 2. Use of Municipal State Aid (MSA) dollars to fund the majority of the County Road D 57 reconstruction project. Including sidewalk costs. 58 3. Expenditure of utility fund dollars to pay for th e repairs needed to the existing utility system. 59 It is proposed that the cost of the project be financed with MSA funds and special assessments. The 60 following is a summary of the preliminary estimated costs and financing for the reconstruction of Dale 61 Street 62 63 64 65 66 67