My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0721
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0721
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2014 3:24:45 PM
Creation date
8/12/2014 9:59:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/21/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> Page 23 <br /> pleted. Based on the current anticipated schedule, Mr. Culver suggested the first <br /> improvement be the County Road C-2 signal; and then proposed levying all three <br /> improvements in 2016. <br /> Discussion <br /> At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Culver provided information on how <br /> the benefit area had been determined by looking at an origin destination study <br /> from a certain point and then proceeding accordingly. Mr. Culver advised that <br /> staff looked closely at the dividing line in using the model to best determine how <br /> far the benefit area extended to both tank farms and the clear break defined from <br /> that model and based on their current traffic patterns and flow. <br /> Councilmember Willmus opined for the benefit of City Manager Trudgeon, that <br /> he didn't' see much difference in this proposed process than that of the previous <br /> overlay district; and by taking out the Chapter 429 process, it seemed to accom- <br /> plish the same thing. <br /> City Manager Trudgeon advised that this remained a work in progress; but <br /> through the Chapter 429 process and definitive benefit test, it provided solid <br /> ground from which to work from; and in those areas that didn't work out, alterna- <br /> tive funding may need to be identified or projects scaled back accordingly, using <br /> the trip generation model based on land use. <br /> Councilmember Willmus cautioned that the City and property owner appraisals <br /> and any discrepancies would result in delayed development as they sat in court <br /> rooms for the next fifteen years awaiting a determination. <br /> Mr. Culver suggested that, through spreading out the costs among property own- <br /> ers it provided the City with the ability through State law and City Code to ex- <br /> pand those costs beyond just abutting properties to other benefitting properties <br /> based on the benefit test. As the improvement moved further out in the benefit <br /> area, Mr. Culver noted that those outer parcels would experience a much reduced <br /> assessment than those abutting properties based on preliminary projections, with <br /> the cost to smaller parcels in those outlying areas not that significant. Mr. Culver <br /> noted that the question remains of whether property owners see the benefit and be <br /> willing to pay or prefer to fight the cost even though receiving benefit from the <br /> improvement. Referencing Mr. Trudgeon's comment, the City would have to <br /> prove the benefit on all those properties within the benefit area. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver reiterated that staff intended to have pre- <br /> liminary conversations with all property owners in the benefit area, and planned <br /> to do so yet this fall. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.