Laserfiche WebLink
<A " REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section S <br /> STAFF REPORT <br /> I 1 g`i'M M Report Number: Po',-/776 0/S <br /> WORKSESSION MEETING DATE <br /> /-o July 8, 1996 Report Date: 7/3/96 <br /> • <br /> �rPri'Par[ne6h4S <br /> Item Description: Review of Pleasantview Drive Assessments <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> -No Comments to supplement this report X <br /> -Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) <br /> Summary: <br /> In light of the tabling of the Pleasantview Drive Assessments, staff would like to take the opportunity to <br /> explain some of the questions that the public asked during the hearing and also some that the Council might <br /> also have had. I wish to apologize for not providing this information in the earlier staff report. <br /> The interest rate for the assessment was tabulated based on current interest rates that the City could procure <br /> 4.228 %, plus 1% for administration, which is allowed by law. The project was not bonded, although it was <br /> thought that all assessments would include interest. The amount of interest is for the entire assessment <br /> amount. That amount is then divided into five annual payments. The interest is not compounded for the <br /> remaining balance of the assessment. <br /> ere are a few reasons the assessment is taking place almost two years after the project was completed. Staff <br /> as working on developing a standard City Assessment Policy, and proceeding with an assessment during <br /> this procedure could have added more confusion to the process. Staff was also working on an entirely new <br /> budget process which became very time consuming. It is also noted that, staffing levels in the Public Works <br /> Department changed, adding additional responsibilities to many staff members. <br /> The last item that staff received questions on, was about the number of plans for the project. Ramsey County <br /> designed the project based on residential input regarding the width of the street. The City of Fridley and the <br /> City of Mounds View did review and approve the plans. As with any project, some minor modifications were <br /> made in the field based on actual findings and circumstances. <br /> I hope these explanations clear up the questions received from the public. Staff again apologizes for not <br /> providing this information in the staff report for the public hearing. <br /> If Council y additional questions regarding this report, please feel free to call me. <br /> Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works <br />