11-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to finance improvements for a private entity and finance them over a number of years versus the typical one-year assessment most associations are limited to. Each of these developments will have unique considerations. A request of a similar nature was received in 2001 from Pitrina Part', Association that was denied by the City Council. The following attachments provide perspective on that discussion; ➢ Attachment B — Staff Memo dated 5/18/01. ➢ Attachment C — Minutes from 5/23/01, ➢ Attachment D — Minutes from 6/27/01 • Issuing reimbursement or taping over the streets as "public" confers privileges upon these property owners that have not been available to others, 0 This issue (private versus public) was discussed at the time of the development proposal. This information clearly indicates the streets were intended to be private, (See minutes and reports attached labeled as follows; ➢ Attachment E — Planner's Report Dated 12/1/94 ➢ Attachment F — City Engineer's Report Dated 12/28/94 ➢ Attachment G — Planner's Report Dated 1/9/95 ➢ Attachment H — Minutes from 1/25/95 ➢ Attachment I — Minutes from 3/22/95 ➢ Attachment J — Development Agreement Excerpt ➢ Attachment K — Common Interest Community Documents To determine what value of taxes is associated with street maintenance activities for Cobblestone Village is not a straightforward task. Staff conducted a quick review of valuations in the development. For pay 2015 taxes, the total taxable market value is $7,873,400. That generates a tax capacity figure of 78,734. Based on our 2015 tax rate (city only), taxes paid by the development to the City would be about $24,168. When you consider our total tax levy of $2,878,351 consists of $157,200 for our infrastructure fund (mostly street construction) and the General Fund total Street budget is $308,855 that yields a total of $466,055 or 16.19% of our levy. Applying that to Cobblestone's city tax payment, one could argue that $4,198 was paid for street maintenance. If you take just direct street maintenance costs in the general fiind (seal coating, crack filling, striping, and some fiiel allocation for snow removal) the General Fund impact drops to .$115,600, Combined with the Infrastructure Fund levy, this yields 9.92% of their taxes or just tinder $2,400. With both of these calculations, we need to remember that street system users do not just use the streets they live on, but need to use other streets to get to their property so even though they maintain their streets, some contribution for overall street maintenance is warranted. ® This issue has come up in other communities as well. Attachment L is a recent article from the Star -Tribune that discusses this very issue. It notes that Prior Lake developed a policy to follow if the City were to take over private streets, This may be a factor to evaluate fiirther, but it does not address the issue of the zoning concessions that were granted that trigger the private street request to begin with, Staff does not recommend any form of payment to any association for a street maintenance costs offset based on the reasons listed earlier in this memo. From a consistency perspective, staff also recommends the City not take over private streets given zoning considerations and the basis for