Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 19, 1993 <br />Morelan indicated that the references to commercial <br />property on pages 3 and 5 need to be coordinated <br />better. The City Administrator agreed. <br />The Council discussed the assessment of public property <br />including churches, schools, nursing homes, park land, <br />etc. The City Engineer suggested that these properties <br />be assessed according to the section of road that is <br />improved abutting the property. <br />The City Administrator pointed out Eli Road as an <br />example. There is City park land as well as a school <br />abutting Eli Road on the south and residential on the <br />north. Access to that road occurs on the north from <br />DeSoto, and there is very little assessable footage <br />along Desoto. <br />Hanson also noted that there is a large portion of <br />property along Noel Drive that is owned by the City, <br />therefore, the City would be involved in the assessment <br />of any improvement of Noel. <br />The City Administrator felt that if the City were <br />assessed for property it owns along road improvements, <br />the projects would be easier to sell to the property <br />owners. <br />Morelan suggested that perhaps all public property <br />should be assessed as commercial. <br />Pedersen questioned why the Nadeau Park property along <br />Lake Street would be assessed as commercial, given that <br />this is a small neighborhood park in a residential <br />neighborhood. <br />The City Administrator also questioned why Pioneer Park <br />property along Desoto Street would be assessed as <br />commercial pointing out that DeSoto Street was <br />constructed to residential standards. The City <br />Administrator suggested that perhaps church property is <br />similar to park property and suggested that if this <br />type of property is located in a commercial area, <br />perhaps then it should be assessed at the commercial <br />rate. <br />The City Administrator reviewed his spreadsheet <br />analysis of particular projects at varying widths and <br />at varying assessment breakdowns. In reviewing the <br />Vanderbie/Allen spreadsheet analysis at a 32 foot <br />width, the Administrator pointed out that the <br />assessable rate at a 90/10 split of an 8"/3" section, <br />that is 900 of improvement costs assessed, and 10% paid <br />by the City, the assessment rate comes out at $44.10 <br />per front foot. <br />Page 3 <br />