PL PACKET 03211995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 10, 1995 • Page 5 1 City Attorney Soth commented that basing a street improvement on the value of the property was 2 not typical, highly unusual, and possibly illegal. He stated that the assessments are related to the 3 specific benefit conferred to a piece of property. 4 Mr. Anderson, RCM Associates, explained that the numbers were calculated using the 5 assessment policy of the city. He stated that Mr. Froehlich lived on a cul-de-sac which serves 6 three parcels of land. This situation is different than a lot with a straight piece of property. The 7 lots on a cul-de-sac are typically narrow in the front and expand out in the back. He reported that 8 due to this and the additional cost of maintaining a cul-de-sac, it is not unusual for a city to 9 handle these lots differently. He stated that Mr. Froehlich's front footage was only 47 feet. He 10 explained that the policy attempts to weight that a little more, not only to compensate for the 11 street that is in front of his property, but also the cost of constructing the cul-de-sacs. He 12 explained that the method used to calculate cul-de-sac involves determining an average width to 13 the existing lot. This is done by taking the area of the lot and dividing it by the average length of 14 the two sides. This determines a front footage that would be comparable with a lot on a straight 15 street. He acknowledged that Mr. Froehlich has the highest assessment on the cul-de-sac but he 16 also has the largest lot on the cul-de-sac. 17 Fleming stated that she understood the basis of calculation but agreed with Mr. Froehlich. She asked how other cities determined their assessments. 19 Mr. Anderson explained that the method of calculation varied in each city. Every method of 20 calculation had benefits and also problems. He stated there are a lot of factors when determining 21 assessments and it could be argued one way or another with any assessment policy. He stated 22 that he believes there is a basis for the assessment being calculated this way. 23 Ranallo explained that when making this policy, the council, with the help of the State of 24 Minnesota, surveyed other cities and devised a way to calculate corner and curved corner lots, 25 and cul-de-sacs. The council then held public hearings regarding the policy. The city attorney 26 and various engineers,reviewed the policy and it was determined this was the fairest way to 27 determine assessments. He stated that the policy is not arbitrary and capricious. 28 Mr. Anderson explained this was not an uncommon method of determining assessments. 29 Fleming questioned if this was the best method of determining assessments. -She expressed that 30 she did not agree with basing the assessment on valuation of the property, as what is on the 31 property does not affect what happens on the street. 32 Marks explained the intention of the council was to devise a formula, which was easy to apply 33 and also recognized benefit to the owner. He agreed this was an imperfect system but was not sure how to improve it.