05-07-96 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: Lake Elmo City Council h 5') u1 5 Lake Elmo City Administrator Lake Elmo City lAgineer From: Wyn M. John Subject: Road Utility IRV Date: November 6, 1995 I read the newspaper reports and Council Minutes of the public hearing on the road improvement assessments with some concern. Even though promised communications to the residents on 42nd Street regrettably did not occur, their concerns were addressed by the City Engineer's investigation. It may not have resolved the problem to their satisfaction, but it was discussed at a City Council meeting. My error was in not then informing the residents of the City's findings. The current method of assessing benefited properties will cause disputes such as this to occur from time to time. Resolution will not satisfy those homeowners who see themselves saddled with a bill that they did not foresee, and the system will continue to generate burrs under the saddle of smooth City government. I feel the time has come to consider setting up a City wide street maintenance utility. It is less likely to generate the personal conflicts that the council had to face at the last meeting, as it will involve an annual assessment which would be a more palatable amount. This would also eliminate the feeling of unfairness generated by people on cul de sacs whose roads are likely to need repair less frequently. There is still the question of dealing with those who have already paid to have their streets upgraded. On the assumption that a street should last for 15 years before needing resurfacing, I suggest that for the 15 years following a street resurfacing no utility assessment would be made for those residents who had already contributed. I don't know whether such a system is economically viable. I am assuming that the average assessment would be $75 to $100. If those who had their streets resurfaced were ineligible for assessment, would there be enough income generated from the rest of the City to pay for foreseeable future projects? If you agree, I suggest that the City Engineer be asked to study the feasibility of a road utility, and to report at a future Council meeting.