06-09-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JUNE 9, 2004 The City Administrator suggested two options. The first is that the City assess for road reconstruction based on benefits received so it can recover a portion of its storm sewer costs. Or based on the City's policy of not assessing the cost of storm sewer, there would be no assessment other than for the water main improvement. Anderson pointed out the City's policy of assessing its costs. Given that this is a County road and the County and the State are picking up the cost of the road reconstruction, then there should not be a City assessment for road reconstruction. Fahey asked if the City could defer this assessment and assess these properties at the time the remainder of Edgerton Street and County Road D is improved. The City Attorney pointed out that there is a benefits received test relative to assessments. If an appraiser determines there is a benefit to the property from an improvement, then the City can assess an amount equal to that benefit. Fahey asked if it would be more difficult to assess these properties in the future rather than now. The City Attorney replied that that maybe the case. Anderson used an example of a developer putting in a sidewalk as part of a development project. The City would not assess for that sidewalk because there was no cost to the City. LaValle agreed with Anderson, pointing out that the road reconstruction is being done by the County and was not a project the City initiated nor one the property owners wanted. LaValle felt that as long as there is no cost to the City, there should be no assessment to the property owners. Montour indicated that the City will have to pay 75% of the cost of the curb and gutter as well as shoulder costs for future projects. He suggested an assessment at that level. Fahey felt there was benefit to the property owners beyond the curb and gutter and improved shoulders. However, he was not sure whether that benefit was offset by the negative impact of the higher street elevations. Fahey pointed out that it will take an appraisal to determine the level of benefit. Mrs. Wagner expressed concern about the inconsistent information provided by MN DOT during the process. She indicated that initial information indicated that the Edgerton Street bridge would be raised 3 '/z feet and now it will be raised 4 % feet. She also indicated that they were not aware of the potential for a street assessment. Had that information been available, the settlement that was reached with MN DOT for an easement may have been different.