Memo - Roadway Improvement-St Assessment Policy•
•
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Coouncil
C Z
From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director SS
u
Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: October 8, 1998
Subject: Roadway Improvement Policy
Background
Public Works Department
0 During the public hearings leading up to the Interlachen neighborhood street
improvement project, several residents questioned the city's 70% assessment rate_
The contention was that our assessment rate exceeded other city's rates. There were
19 assessment appeals filed out of 35 property owners. The per foot rates for the
Interlachen project were relatively high at $55 per front foot. This fact, coupled with the
abnormally high number of appeals led to a May 1998 Council worksession discussion
on the project. At that worksession, staff recommended and Council agreed that the
current assessment policy should stay substantially as -is but a cap would be placed on
the assessment amount. The cap would limit the per foot assessment amount to no
more than 120% of the average on the previous three similar street reconstruction
projects. This lowered the Interlachen assessments from approximately $4,500180' lot
to $3,600/80' lot. City Council subsequently authorized the project assessments based
on this modified policy. However, Council requested a more detailed discussion and
analysis of our policy, especially regarding how it compares with other area city's
policies.
Staff conducted a survey of 11 cities and their various street and utility policies. This
was done with a written questionnaire. The questionnaire and spreadsheet of results
are attached. Also attached are excerpts of assessment policies from Brooklyn Park
and Bloomington which had been obtained previously.
•
•
•
Discussion
As expected, there is great variability in the assessment policies. For example:
Richfield and Minnetonka (not included in survey) do not currently assess while
Brooklyn Park assesses at 70% of street reconstruction and storm sewer costs. A
majority of the cities surveyed assess for storm sewer work. Two cities assess for
overlays. Three cities limit property owners to one assessment.
The proposed 1999 street improvement project will result in some commercial and
residential properties being assessed twice in three years. This is due to the 1996
alley reconstruction project which included the alley between 12 and 13 Avenues
South and 1 and 2 Streets South.
Roadway Improvement Policy Options
There are numerous options available.
1. Retain the current policy with the 120% cap revision.
2. Option 1 but further modified to limit the amount of a second assessment or prohibit
a second assessment within a 10 or 20 -year timeframe.
3. Lower our 70% assessment rate for reconstruction.
4. Option 3 plus add an assessment for street overlays.
5. Option 1 plus add an assessment for street overlays.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Council consider option 2.
Memorandum
•
r
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
To:
Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Date: October 4, 2002
Subject: Assessment Policy Review
Public Works Department
Staff is preparing for the City Council Worksession discussion on the City's assessment
policy - additional information will be provided at the meeting.
Staff felt it would be beneficial to provide copies of staff reports and memos from a
1998 review of the assessment policy. In addition, the results of a February 2002
assessment policy survey are attached.
Generally, staff believes that the current policy is fair and reasonable. The current
policy provides for a reduced assessment amount for residents abutting major city
streets, i.e., Municipal State Aid streets. It does this by base lining the assessable
costs to a !ow- volume residential street equivalent (street width and pavement
thickness) and then reducing the assessment rate from 70% to 50 %.
At the worksession, staff will provide the budget impacts of some possible changes to
the current policy, such as reducing our assessment rate (currently at 70% for local
streets).
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: December 3, 1998
Subject: Assessment Policy Revision
Discussion
Public Works Department
Background
. The Roadway Improvement policy was previously discussed at the October 13th
Council worksession. Staff provided a survey and discussed the street and utility
assessment policies of 11 cities. Staff also mentioned the need to revise the policy to
reflect the assessment cap formula used on the Interlachen neighborhood project. In
addition, there was discussion regarding the fact that the proposed 1999 street
improvement project will result in some commercial and residential properties being
assessed twice in three years. The previous assessment was a 1996 alley •
reconstruction project. The result of this discussion was general support for retaining
the present 70% assessment rate and direction to staff to investigate the passibility of
deferring the assessments on those property owners who were assessed on the 1996
alley project.
The attached revised Legislative Policy #8B includes a new paragraph (11.04)
regarding an assessment cap. In addition, two partial reconstruction items were added
to the list of items that are assessable as part of a reconstruction project (para 10.09) -
full depth asphalt milling with overlay and pavement reclamation. These are
construction techniques which result in a partially reconstructed pavement section and
are a higher level of improvement than an overlay.
• Regarding assessment deferrals: The uniform special assessment statute (MS 429)
does not include provisions for deferral of special assessments for road improvements.
• The only deferral language is contained in MS 435. This statute authorizes a city
council to defer the payment of an assessment for any homestead property owned by a
person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability.
The City Attorney has strongly recommended that Council retain the current policy,
including a revision to cap the assessment amount, if desired. He believes our current
policy is fair, equitable and has been consistently applied to all street projects.
Accordingly, if our policy is challenged it is much easier to defend.
For comparison purposes, the per foot "capped" assessment for the recently completed
•
If the assessment policy remains essentially as -is and the proposed 1999 street
improvement project is constructed, seven properties will be assessed again since the
1996 alley project. The 1996 alley project assessment was $31.00Ift. The preliminary
estimate of the additional assessment for these seven properties ranges from $15/ft to
$25/ft. The assessment amounts vary due to different improvements and costs on
certain blocks in this improvement area. As always, staff and the city's engineering
consultant are reviewing the street boring information and existing pavement, curb and
drainage conditions in order to select and recommend the most cost - effective street
improvements. For instance, it appears that a simple overlay with some spot curb
repair is all that is needed on 13 Avenue from 1 Street South to 2" St South. On the
other hand, the same block of 12 Avenue should have the existing deteriorated curb
replaced and an asphalt overlay. Therefore, assessments are projected to be higher
for properties on the west side of 12 Avenue vs. the properties along 13 Avenue.
Interlachen neighborhood project was $45/ft.
Staff recommendation
Approve proposed policy revision.
2ND \1_ ST
TKS
CORE LOCATION DIAGRAM
PAVEMENT REMEDIATION
CITY OF HOPKINS
HOPKNS. MINNESOTA
WEB
10 - 98'
GME Project No. 7958
ND
ST
u3
ST. S.
2
F-'
G LOCATIONS
TS. INC.
ir on=
5447
z
�--
0
MAN
c7
u.i
STREET,
I
11 d STf'
J —
!V� Piz-oue vv .4TS
EXCELSIOR BLVD.
6
Este
PACT! Q EZZ rJ .
OVIDZ.LAY o /L.
EMI
` tST i 24 ST.
2143 \\ S N-
W
>
ST
N.
NO SCALE
t 1
1 c--.N li.
a
:1
_ ' _
•
•
•
December 10, 1998
Approve Revision to Legislative Policy #8B — Roadway Improvements
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council approve
Legislative Policy #8B revisions including an assessment cap and additional
assessable items as presented by staff.
Overview.
The City's street improvement assessment policy is contained in Legislative
Policy #8B. Staff has discussed this policy and proposed revisions with City
Council at the October 13 and December 8th Council worksessions. The
purpose of this policy review and discussion was to: 1) compare our assessment
policy other city's assessment policies; 2) ensure that our policy is fair,
reasonable and legally defendable; 3) ensure that it still reflects the city's basic
philosophy on funding local street improvements; 4) determine whether it was
possible to defer assessments for reasons other than those specifically allowed
by statute; and 5) present and discuss proposed revisions.
Primary Issues to Consider.
• What are the proposed revisions and why are they needed?
• City Attorney review
Supporting Information.
Steven J. Stadler
Public Works Director
■ T Y
0
• Proposed Legislative Policy #813 revision
r �
Council Report 98 -205
• Council Report 98 -205
Page 2
•
•
Analysis of Issues.
• What are the proposed revisions and why are they needed?
An assessment cap was used on the 1998 street improvement project and
language needs to be added to the policy to reflect this change. The cap is set at
120% of the average per foot assessment on the previous three similar street
improvement projects. This addition to the policy is contained in paragraph
1 1.04.
In addition, two assessable items were added in order to reflect partial
reconstruction of streets. These two new items are full -depth asphalt milling and
overlay and pavement reclamation -- these new items are included in paragraph
10.09. The reason for this change is to allow property assessments when streets
are partially reconstructed. The city will still fund 100% of the cost for overlays,
searcoating, cracksealing and patching.
• City Attorney review
The City Attorney believes the current policy, as revised, is fair, reasonable, and
legally defendable. Regarding assessment deferrals, he investigated the
applicable statutes and discussed the issue with League of Minnesota Cities
staff. He concluded that assessment deferrals for other than those expressly
allowed, i.e., senior citizen and permanent disability, are not allowed.
O
O
L O
O O1
� .0 m '. - 2 00 7 d
-O N p E r- N 'n CO 7 •
oo>.wino� -Ec T:-
N U O y
mvO Y'L)a m .5_ m E ci, E
N Ui O O (0 m N N C N O 01 N
f ?'N Q � 3Z v
. ma am o
.c v Z' m m
o m 20) m
2 9 Y N N y • t 8 c m 7
C � f0 p 0 N� C
O O T . dl O [0 O �+ E O ,Y
c ;vQ mNE(oE
mv0 !L)a m m t.w d E cin E
w N
m h ai 0) o co a (O m C C0 0 O) y
v N 7'� o 3 Z a) 3 m E 3-
(0
.020 o N m of avw v
.2
m O
`— ° u ° )o E g
� 0 - 9
a in 3
N E l g m o 2 0 - w o 7
om Q• m ai3E n
_ � 7
17, U f6 N ' ° a N T m y m O N N
m7 1`h o m 03c- 'a)-11?-62 "6
mimic o)° � o�o)o
3 T C N O C C U d o C N N O
c ' „. _c.E, c -oco o �omNo
m Tmo8Em o °iona wEt o
N N `7 O m 0 U O N m
O d) i ui m O TC m Q � Co ,,, i
O
rn
E
O
O
0 0
0
v/
N
W
z ee
w>
Q M
u.
mu as
= N N
on
0a ti
r Z
V ``
vI
U)
W
N
O
2
8
m
4)
a)
0
C
f0
T
a
4) �
0 4)
00
o>.
wZ
o
zE
O
00
25
0 . E m
wme
z ac
O
0
0 0 T c Y
N
A Q 4 N .0 N N [O O p ? 3 = N 0 O 4) c 4)
nw m 0 m u) '4) E o o 5
�O M O C O SAC @ N O O ` O m O N 0
8 -- - 2 n.8.c813, )41 ago
. N
D 4 L .. N p L ., Cl U E j a >O 0 w 4) I 5 N 4)00
4 ) .50 t 0L `7a$ N
U c L N N N 0 V) 5 4) 4) . > ;� N E o g m a) a Cn 5 O
"O 8 0 N U a 3 0 0 E E O ' 0 w N C N a O '°'°''-
O V a Y N N � N D .8'& O O Vu N L .. O y V - z E T E 0 Q 8
rnE m u�
0 v o 9.c 3 o Q v y c E d o N o E o 0 O V
Y N C 2 4= N N j 3 C '-' C p 8 C?> 0 a y p7 cG ,,Dal,
O 0 !n 4) 0 N 3 5 5 N 8 � — O U � V 0 c
E N. m C O m 4) vi 5 m 5 0 4) 0 02 O O E O O L 00 C O EA a
m .2 a.0 m u, o m E-o '0 a>, .0m 3 0"a".55
U m
0
0
O
O
V
V
LL
5
u 0
C
m 0
c 00
U
Lt
O
0
0
7) ( Cg
a C
Y
o
0
z
0
C
a
O
S
0
O
0
N
4)
Q1
0
a
032
o
a
O O
r0
'O
O
0
0
z
O
z
0
u
'0
m
E
O
L
r0
2
8
0
t
U
8
0
0
0
0
1 .
U N
a m
8
m
0
C
2
0
Z
4)
C
zp
O
0
0
O
z
O
- t;,
tq
t. 3
m
,6 c
' U
m
Q m = C
$47.60 per front foot
100% if new street, 40°,
conjunction with a
rornnctn Irfinn
) O
%001.
Projects initiated by property owners shall have
their participation determined by land use,
contributing area and rate of runoff.
$.07 per square foot for Residential
$.08 per square foot for Commercial
$.10 Der souare foot for Industrial
No response
100% if new, 40% if in conjunction with a street
reconstruction
C
m
c E w
co o_87
°day
m °>' m
a�° g
aU.O
m
Z o
N 1 y g
) O
m > 01
m m
o m N
‘.2.08
No (funded through storm sewer utility fund)
'�`
.„
O.
32
U LL
C m
h i c 2
cart. m
zre
auoN
No response
a uoN
m
22
W.
E 0 my 0
>oE
m O 3 cmi
m O O
U � a
2. m
m c m c
Q E aE
No (funded through sanitary
sewer utility fund)
d
..3 4' y 2- 'c -
y °ma °
" n
m i m HhU
j H HH
NU
( 9Q
a a 3 i i
my
c dui
3 o
$20 per front foot
o
°.
m
z
%001.
U w.,7
LE
2.2 E
mom.a
ni-o
o
%00 6
o
�
o-o
U LL
mm
_.q N
O N
zW
auoN
C
c
N
�
O
z
auoN
m`
E v e' E
E a • o z °
grn� 0
y h 3 p 3 O y m
.. C�n
m m c m
U U
� m m N
2621
`
No (funded through water
utility fund)
Zs
c>0o U
.E o c o '° m p - °-
...'' E m , 7 En a
• -. m m. m a
$„ n. amm -.mma
_ U
3 3
a°i E m
U O) N
_
$17.85 per front foot
m
o
g
%00
m T .
:i:i
ai��m3 ocE vc
NU rn2 T 8 ?.. E
m >•N Q'_ •° o w o
8 - 2 m 'O m N m
— ro'Bmc'oEmv
%006
m
- p +a m
m o 7
E
n oa y
'.' v o m
$ N If) To 22.2
h' AOD •p= '014
� E E6R� 1,1-U
m O m
N O m C U v)
m E 2.28.
m N E E >
auoN
No response
o
C
o
o
is
_
mE ov
EE �. .
i ,E��
Eom6m
w N c o E c c
o °o°Y.SNm
m m m m E >
.�= cO m .5VE
y N y w
N m m N O _
y rn O a.
m U U f0 ° a a 7
m C N • = O O
m C m m N 1n
O ,, m w m C a f0 69
cV c to LL o.
85% of cost (includes curb & gutter)
75% of cost (no curb & gutter)
Assesses abutting benefiting
property for street reconstruction
costs, but not in excess of the
special benefit to the property. This
policy applies to all streets that are
the responsibility of the city. The
assessment rate for the
f
40% or project costs (construction
plus 28% indirect costs)
N N N
.o.cE) 2
ma> b ra N
. �cc°o2m`�Ea ° i
a o m m E c ai 0 ,.
o y = a
°UN7uEomo 2
a>,°'U m $ Ta
oaf NA o a�i c o
C V m O1 0 7 a U
V O m m m U V 7 Q m p yl
N T C ..2.2.
T` . m C 0' N O C
- In m O V . 7 30 O E ` ` O
O m O m m 0 = • m n. 0
N U (n LL U E9 �--' 7 (A 7
,
won
jy
l6
Y
ay, m
Q
t)watonna
O
•
k'rlor LaKe
co
C
N
J
J
W
Z cc
W W
a go
Z y N
Z
= V c
pa m
Z
V W
V �� ) 1
w
f/)
0
Z
O
0
Z
0
O
0
0
0
v
mnf0 0 oc c � m c 22' uim ° o
( C C C O m C p) N c ° C o C O O
u o . ro o � a m m �� a m p c� 8E ° m` 0. o
c
�O) @ ° L w 0 ) U p j N U O7 y o m @ @ y U a E m
aiI8 3 N ro m °' Tv 3 (@ rn > c u � 3 m y4= ro m
N O y d m N@ w C m f6 O ` N O U m 0- a O C m a . y 0 T
C
a rn T) o� ° o2 EaN m tc•E 22 m� cyo m ayi 2 ° .
E L E; !q y N L N N U 0 N L C= 7 m E N C Y y O 22 0 '+ r O C 0
o ro a g O � C Y U m
C y m N m „" +@•' C n C U c a c ` C O m a N N � O m m in O °
m T 2 c o ,a2 - X E� 82 x5 E @ o- ° a m 5° 2 o_°a 2 0 m°
vm m. ro t - W°)m >B3Qc65o2w Q @N N�
Q ' @ O y O (g a ro x C 0 O 2 ro ro o t 2 O t @ y w ,1 c c -o
@ � N O> N .� E >i M O_ a) .r v y U @ N � ro 0 o O m@ a
N
PIE)
N
y
. � C O
y m y
� � N
0
0
Z
0
O
Z
0
Z
O
Z
N
C
6
LL
a
a�
N
O"
0 0
,N
05
0 0
N. N
I� N
rn
05
foLo
h N
O O
)X 0
N
,N
1G
E
0
0