Agenda Packets - 1997/02/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. 10- 7:15 pm Staff Report No. 97-po/ c.. III Meeting Date: February 24, 1997 Type of Business: PH WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:ConsentAgenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing Considering Old Hwy 8 Reconstruction Date of Report: February 20, 1997 On Wednesday, February 19, Staff met with the property owners proposed to be assessed for the reconstruction of Old Highway 8 to discuss the project and concerns from the owners. The two corner property owners strongly disagreed with the assessment formula for commercially zoned corner lots. This formula states that the adjustable front footage for an assessment shall be the entire frontage measured along the setback line comprising the building envelope. This in essence means the property will be assessed for both sides of the frontage regardless of which side is being improved. The justification for this method is because of the higher inherent property value associated with improved traffic frontage and greater visibility along business district and • industrial park intersections. While the City Attorney did review the original assessment policy, in recent conversations regarding this formula, as it applies to commercial property it could invite litigation challenging the assessment method. Mr. Long suggested the City Council may wish to consider possible modifications to the assessment policies for commercial properties. Staff concurs with this recommendation. The storm sewer assessment method utilized on the Bronson Drive project was to formulate the total expenses for the storm sewer construction and divide that amount by the acres within the drainage districts served by the project. For Bronson Drive the assessable amount was 112 acres at $1,198.15 /acre. For the Old 8 project that amount is 12.66 acres at$4,871.39/acre. This obviously was an enormous concern on the affected property owners. In conversations with other City staff, engineers and the City attorney about this subject, two methods were discussed. One being that the property owners in a drainage district that would receive benefit from a trunk storm sewer, only be assessed an amount(by lot or acre) determined and adjusted annually by Council. Should a project be initiated on a particular street that requires storm sewer laterals which would be connected to the trunk lines, the Surface Water Utility would fund these expenses. The other method would reverse the process whereby, the property owner would only pay for a storm sewer that is required on their street, with the Utility funding the trunk sewer line. The first option is the one that staff would recommend because water may be carried 0 in the curb line to a trunk storm sewer, thereby not requiring lateral pipes. This method would still provide the City to fund projects and provide a seemingly more equitable means of assessing