HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2019 - Hart PH SubmittalGeoffrey Hart
1898 Eustis St.
Lauderdale, MN 55113
Dear Lauderdale City Council members,
1/8/19
I am writing you regarding the "Special Assessments" to be charged in the future to residents that border
Eustis St. and Roselawn avenue. Firstly, we wanted to express our thanks for the work the city council,
Heather Butkowski, and other Lauderdale city employees have done to help bring a much needed fix to our
streets.
Background leading up to getting a letter on December 19th stating we would be charged a 'Special
Assessment' for the Eustis/Roselawn project:
We have been eagerly reading the 'Lauderdale Crier' as it has come to see progression on the
Eustis/Roselawn project. We were VERY surprised to receive a letter on December 19th stating that as a
resident of Eustis St. we would be charged a 'special assessment' for the road renovation. Special assessment
was a new phrase to me, and I quickly realized this meant we would PAY for the renovation of the road. By the
nature of Eustis and Roselawn being county roads, this means they support and benefit the ENTIRE
community. I wish the Lauderdale Crier would have mentioned that residents on these two streets only would
be asked to pay for its renovation (which I did not see but I may be wrong in back issues). This may have
affected resident's decisions to come to a city council meeting that discussed how to pay for the roads. I take
responsibility for not coming to the meetings, but now I am on the Lauderdale email list and see 'special
assessments' were mentioned to the smaller group that attended or received the emails.
After receiving the letter, I talked to Heather Butkowski, and she was VERY helpful in filling me in on
the background of the Eustis/Roselawn project. I learned there is a precedent for residents paying for major
upgrades to the streets from 2000-2004. Special assessments were charged (2000:$2504.5, 2001:$2106.8,
2002:$2164, 2003:$2175.6) an average of $2237.73 per 40 foot of street footage. These projects were major
upgrades to the residents- moving from no curb to curbed streets, drainage, and making alleys paved instead
of gravel. The changes to Eustis and Roselawn are different in that we are not getting an upgrade but proper
maintenance of the road that was lacking for years. This will most likely not increase my property value which
is historically what special assessments are for (eg. going from well to city water etc).
Based on this background I propose the following:
1. The City of Lauderdale does not specifically charge Eustis St. and Roselawn Ave. residents a 'special
assessment' because these roads are major thoroughfares and serve the entire community.
2. If you decide to give a Special Assessment to the members adjoining the Eustis St. and Roselawn Ave:
a. The charge should be in the amount $3045 per 40 ft (not $3600 per 40 ft based on 3%
inflation approximation).
i. This an equivalent value for what people paid ($2237.73 average) in 2004 based on a inflation
calculator using actual inflation statistics from the Consumer Price Index
(https://data.bls.gov/cqi-bin/cpicalc.pl?costl=2%2C237.73&year1=200401 &year2=201811)
b. Households who live on corners that paid for the upgrade of the roads in 2000-2004 should get a
discount for this road renovation because this is in essence a 'double dip' for those residents. I'm
thinking a 50% discount for residents on corners that paid last time is reasonable.
c. In 2000-2004, the 'special assessments' were paid over a 10 year period. Due to this being a 30
year 'fix' for the Eustis/Roselawn project, this should be paid out over a much longer time
frame such as 20 or 30 years. This would decrease the amount per year by 50 to 66%, which
will be especially helpful to fixed income residents and be a more fair distribution of cost.
i. Example calculation: Fora 60ft frontage (mine), at $3045*1.5= $456 per year with 10 year plan,
$238 per year with 20 year plan, and $152 per year with 30 year plan. $238 and $152 sound
much more reasonable!
Thanks again for your service and hearing these concerns and proposals.
Respectfully,
Geoffrey Hart and family