My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0506_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0506_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 4:03:59 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:47:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
Twenty-five percent of the city's total MSA apportionment can be designated to maintenance under state <br />aid rules. Cities can apply to the commissioner to increase the maintenance allotment to 35% of the <br />city's total allotment. The City of Roseville uses 25% of the annual distribution to fund maintenance <br />needs. The other 75% of the annual apportionment is held by the state for eligible construction cost <br />reimbursement. There are specific rules as to which construction expenses are eligible for <br />reimbursement. If a city's state aid system is up to state aid standards, the population based allocation <br />can be used for eligible reimbursable costs elsewhere on the city's road system or for eligible <br />reimbursable expenses related to county road projects per local jurisdiction cost share policies. <br />Roseville's annual allotment of state aid dollars is subject to the total revenue pool a�ailable from the <br />state. As Roseville's population is somewhat stagnant, our share of the population-based revenue is <br />declining as the pool of revenue is divided among many growing outer ring suburbs. <br />Property taxes ha�e paid for the non-assessable portion of street reconstruction, as per current <br />assessment policy. A portion of the city's tax levy has been designated for the retirement of bonds used <br />to finance street reconstruction. <br />Special assessments, as allowed by statute, have been used for many years by the city, as per the special <br />assessments policy. In general, special assessments can only be used to pay for services or <br />improvements that provide some special benefit to specific properties. Only those parcels of property <br />that receive this special benefit may be assessed. The amount of the assessment must bear a direct <br />relationship to the value of the benefit the property receives. <br />Most assessment policies try to treat like properiy classes fairly and equitably regardless of location so as <br />to minimize challenges. <br />The City of Roseville has used all of the above resources to fund its transportation network The result <br />is that Roseville has one of the highest overall condition index street systems in the metropolitan area. <br />The city has applied these resources under city policy and MSA rules to the benefit of the entire network. <br />Any change in city policy must be done with careful consideration of the impact on overall financing of <br />the city's transportation network and the ability to maintain the overall condition of that system. In that <br />regard, see the two memos from Finance Director, Chris NTiller, analyzing the impacts of potential <br />revisions to special assessments policy and an overview of the city's MSA funding financial activity. <br />(Attachments ,!� and $) <br />STREETSCAPE DISCUSSION <br />Council discussion on April 8, 2002, seemed to indicate that there is some interest in possibly creating a <br />streetscape special assessment policy. The current policy contains provisions to assess pathways and <br />sidewalks, as well as restorative landscaping that is necessary in conjunction with the reconstruction of <br />roadways. Individual council member comments indicated a majority of the members would be <br />comfortable with an assessment to properties for a portion of streetscape costs. The preferred split of <br />these costs ranged from 5%-25% property owner cost and 75%-95% city cost. One council member <br />asked for a definition of streetscape and another suggested credit for e�sting improvements be given to <br />property owners. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.