My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-93 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
01-13-93 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:52 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.
/
14
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 13, 1993 <br />current policy does not work. The City is coming into <br />a lot of reconstruction projects, and the Engineer <br />stated that a new assessment policy should be adopted <br />before the assessment hearings later this summer. <br />The City Engineer reported that the advantage of having <br />a City standard street in place is that in 2o years <br />when a street needs reconstruction, there will be some <br />road section in place to work with. The Engineer felt <br />that the City needed to maintain high standards for <br />streets so that in the long-run the cost is less. <br />Morelan pointed out that the reason the City's streets <br />are the way they are is irrelevant at this point. The <br />issues are the assessment policy the City adopts, the <br />benefits received test, and that the policy is in <br />conformance with the mandates of State Law. <br />The City Engineer again pointed out that the appraiser <br />is recommending a$50 to $55 per front foot assessment <br />to meet the benefits received test. The Engineer <br />suggested that a standard improvement be developed and <br />that additions such as fabric be at City cost. The <br />Engineer felt that the assessment rate could be dropped <br />to 70/30. The Engineer reported that he and the <br />Administrator would like some direction to proceed with <br />further study of the assessment policy. <br />Scalze stated that she would like to see what other <br />cities are doing. <br />Morelan suggested that the City Administrator and City <br />Engineer study the matter further and come back with a <br />recommendation for the Council. That recommendation <br />should be consistent with what State Law requires, and <br />provide for the least possible participation rate for <br />the City. <br />Scalze asked how the courts have addressed the benefits <br />received issue. <br />The City Attorney reported that this issue has not been <br />routinely addressed. The Attorney did point out, <br />however, that the courts have been much tougher on <br />cities in assessment cases than they have been in the <br />past. The Attorney felt that pre-analysis of the <br />situation will be helpful to get assessments more in <br />line with demonstration of benefits. <br />Pedersen pointed out that the present policy has been <br />in place for a long time, and it was appropriate to <br />review it. <br />Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.