Agenda Packets - 1995/05/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be forced to deal with even more controversy than is usual in a street reconstruction project. That is, residents commonly object to incurring the cost of street reconstruction and argue, sometimes vociferously, that the city should simply continue to maintain the street by sealcoating and patching potholes. It may be that the city will incur less objection to street reconstruction projects if the alternative of sealcoating is not free to the affected property owners. Section III, E, 7 deals with corner lots. This section provides that the cost of project will be 100% assessed on the short side and 35% assessed on the long side. This policy is legal, however, it may be difficult to demonstrate benefit in the case of a residential property. A good argument can be made that a residential property needs only to have access to a residential street, and is not benefitted by having access to two streets. Some cities have addressed this problem by giving the landowner the choice of deciding which street will be subject to special assessments. I believe-that-this-is theprocedurefollowed-by the city-of-Brooklyn Center, for - example. City staff may wish to contact Brooklyn Center (the Director of Public Works is Diane Spector) to discuss how this process has worked in Brooklyn Center. Section III, E, 9 deals with double frontage lots. The policy recognizes that for double frontage lots lacking the necessary area for subdivision, only a single adjusted front footage will be computed. However, it does not address the question which of the two street frontages will be subject to assessment. Again, this policy could be amended to provide that the landowner will be given the option of selecting the street frontage which will be subject to special assessment. Section IV, E deals with the terms of assessment. None of the periods specified in this section are longer than 20 years. This policy may be appropriate; however, both state law and city code section 202.12, subd. 1 authorize assessments of up to 30 years. The following paragraph, paragraph B, provides in the first sentence that the interest rate charged on assessments shall be 2% greater than the bond issue or debt used to finance the improvement. There may be some cases in which the city decides to finance improvements by internal borrowing rather than a public bond issue. Therefore, I would recommend that the first sentence be amended by adding the following langurgIIgtr the general rate of interest available to the city for municipal borrowing if the project is funded internally." Section V, C, 2 provides that "state land is normally exempt from assessment unless otherwise negotiated or agreed upon by the affected state agency." Although this is generally an accurate description of the power which state agencies have with regard to assessments for local improvements, it is somewhat misleading about the procedure followed in,.levying such assessments. Therefore, I would recommend that this paragraph be changed to rea ' " tate land is subject to assessment based upon procedures set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.19, subd. 2." The following paragraph, paragraph 3, deals with county land. This paragraph provides that county land is subject to assessment and shall be assessed in the same manner as commercial and industrial zoned property. I recognize that most county land will be used for commercial or industrial type purposes. However, this is not always the case. For example, the county may own property which is zoned, and even used, for residential purposes. The statute provides that assessments against county property may be levied "to the same extent as if such property were CLL85803 5 MU125-19