Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 21, 1994 <br />assessed based on the City~s past assessment policy, <br />assessments would have been a lot higher. By <br />incorporating the flat rate into the policy, <br />assessments would be lowered another step. <br />LaValle pointed out that the assessment policy is just <br />a policy, and each project must be looked at <br />individually. The City must meet the benefits received <br />test. LaValle suggested that there may be a project <br />where the cost can only be assessed 75% because of <br />benefits received. <br />Hanson pointed out that in some areas the cost of <br />bringing a rural street up to an urban section may be <br />very high due to soil corrections. <br />Morelan pointed out that the City assesses the cost of <br />an 8"/3" section and additional soil correction costs <br />would be borne by the City. <br />The Administrator was concerned about presenting a cost <br />of $50 per front foot for the Lake Street improvement <br />when historically this type of improvement has been <br />less than $45 per foot. The Administrator pointed out <br />that a flat rate would set a maximum cap for an <br />assessment which could be presented to property owners <br />at the improvement hearing. <br />Morelan pointed out that the cap would be adjusted <br />annually by the CPI. The City could then present the <br />maximum that the improvement would cost property <br />owners. <br />Hanson pointed out that lineal footages vary, <br />therefore, assessments would vary depending on the <br />frontage. <br />The Administrator indicated that 125 feet is the <br />maximum lineal footage that would be assessed for <br />properties that are not dividable. The minimum is 75 <br />feet and this would apply to cul-de-sac lots with <br />limited street frontage. <br />Morelan asked if the Council felt the 85/15 assessment <br />rate should be changed. <br />Scalze stated that 85/15 was the current policy and <br />3 <br />