Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 21, 1994 <br />The City Administrator stated that if overlays and <br />rehabs are not assessed, there would be major savinqs <br />in not having to follow the assessment process. <br />However, the same accountability may not be present <br />since residents would not be involved questioning the <br />process. Such questioninq may result in better <br />decisions being made. From that reqard a 50/50 split <br />of assessments may be better. The Administrator <br />reported that he was nervous assessing l00% of costs <br />for street rehabilitation due to the benefits received <br />issue. <br />LaValle stated that he wanted to see the most fair and <br />equitable situation possible. <br />The Administrator pointed out if assessments are <br />appealed, it costs money to get the City Attorney <br />involved in defending the assessment. <br />Morelan felt the fairest way was to assess 20~ of <br />project costs and have the City pick up 80%. In the <br />long run that 80% would have to be levy supported. <br />Morelan felt that property owners would be more willing <br />to pay an extra $20 per year than to pay a$2,000 <br />assessment when their street is improved. <br />Scalze felt that would be a good question for the <br />community survey. <br />Mrs. Parrish pointed out that some residents are on <br />heavily traveled streets. Parrish felt that the policy <br />should be something fair and equitable to everyone. <br />Scalze pointed out that fair means different things to <br />different people. <br />Mrs. Parrish pointed out that the policies of other <br />communities gives the City a good idea of what is <br />acceptable. <br />Scalze asked which other cities were close to being #1 <br />in taxes. <br />LaValle questioned the amount of money that would be <br />necessary to levy if improvements were not assessed. <br />LaValle pointed out that Little Canada does not have <br />the tax base that Roseville or Maplewood does. LaValle <br />9 <br />