1977-03-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 1, 1977 . . t TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council FROM: Thomas F. Lewcock, City Manager SUBJECT: Comprehensive Street Improvement Program At the meeting of February 8, the Council directed that a.report be prepared regarding a comprehensive street improvement program, such report to include the guidelines of the Council made atthe February 8 meeting. A management team consisting of the Director of Public Works, City Attorney, Finance Director and City Manager was organized to develop the report. The report is divided into four primary sections: Street Overlays, Curb Replacement, Road Reconstruction, and New Improvements. Because the Council action of February, 8 laid out the basic guidelines we have.not in this report generated alternatives but have rather developed recommendations around how the Council guidelines can be implemented. Section I —Street Overlays Past capital improvement plans have discussed the need for street overlays at length. Within the past year the questions of what should the assessable percentage be and how should the City's share be financed have been raised. The Council has gone on record as supporting a minimal assessment program, with the City's share paid with general obligation debt. Discussion and Recommendations: 1. Overlays be assessed at the rate of 25%: If bonding is to be utilized°:under M.S.A. 429, at least 20% of a project must be assessed. Because of the small number of dollars per lot involved in overlays, it would be quite difficult to establish whether the improvement cost did or did not equal benefit. When a 20%-25% assessment is considered, it would seem that a benefit in this amount certainly would exist. At any rate only in the most unusual circumstances (such as huge frontage) would it make sense for anyone to challenge the assessment. Nevertheless, a 25% assessment is proposed in that a 5% "buffer" is created so that if challenge does occur, the minimum 200/. overall assessment can be maintained. The 25% assessment method provides the council with flexibility, provides latitude for future changes of law, and does not obviate the hearing process. (This last point reflects the fact that if a 2(% method is selected, the Council cannot legally drop below the 20% ceiling, and, therefore, a person subject to the hearing might wonder what the purpose of the hearing was.)