Loading...
Memo- Roadway Improvement PolicyMemorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director '^6 Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager Date: October 8, 1998 Subject: Roadway Improvement Policy Background Public Works Department 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. . 2 e .,, Boa aounuas .. YES - except for oversizing to handle other area (street) runoff N/A No sidewalks .ta STC 1 .>,°:„. F. 1 1 a ON t a � y ' c, 0 poomaldgyi 1 ?gH ua}l Z5Str SaA 15. o :a F ON 1 WWN ON sax saA ON ON Z Z 3Vs' posy h hi H i • iiJ I alltnaso1 uo s 8noQ 490 -2225 I S L& 0 0 N ON 1 diN I ON S1A ON ON saA S ON O N dalpu3 snoin1H uof 1SS£ S 1A U o E ON V/N 1 ON Salk ON ON ON ON SaA SHA CD P. l .iatua3 wCplooJg ti to sino aoICo f LZ££-695 Sak 0 N M ON 1 VIN_ ON SaA ON ON ON ON ON] ON s1'taH mqumlo3 uasugl-1 urna}1 782 -2882 1 SaA -t 2 le . y 2 Salk 1 %SL 1 %001 SaA ON ON ON SaA Sax ON ON Cfl VI rip Golden Valley Jeff Oliver 593 -8034 1 1 SaA C y ! W ON YIN ON ON ON ON ON SaA 1 ON ON St. Louis 1 Park uip a 924 -2551 I SIA \ ! o L V Have not done C any ON V/N ? e % 11111 WOW 7 /Y 5 I sioxd kon ON stied Al!mn ON 1‘1 ot Done Salk YES if part of prof. . 1 NO done by petition only T� supldofl iIP131S 0e015 1 939 -1338 1 SRA ON ON V/N ON ON • ON saA S SU. SaA ON I Contact Person so =.1 c 1 2503 uopon.11suooa)l .toJ ssassd 1 1 1 1 Percent assessed Overlays assessed rl am Stone sewer work included in calculating assessment Water main replacement included in calculating assessment S 1 Sanitary sewer included in calculating assessment i 1 I Pavement edge underdrains included in calculating a ssessment 1 3 I Subgrade soil correction included in calculating assessment ; I Sidewalk replacement included in ealenlatina assessment I i New sidewalk installation included in calculating assessment ] 5 1 I 1 Other Comments: zz SRA ON O a 1 k °o a re u xr» o a.8 ›, >. ou o cs. Not Anymore ON 4 4 6 ,V, g G . .. a as p 6 t . a 1 .40 6 1 I w 2 O Sa. ( ON b Q 1 .2 S 1,, c g S*0 g $ ° 7" N .y M aS OP O 10 yy 4....4 8 4 O ►O. l 2 } SRA. ON Q Z O sHA ON hurd z sRA. I(llguuou tou — ON z H v ^ O y,+ y H w y Q SIA ON b -4 H ( O 00 rn 44 1 � O Rii Bond for work — dedicated funds pay tax levy E2 a Not currently — in process of setting up s RA. a U 4. z� �- ON sax ON -Y. 4 1 -8 ,; i >, „, Policy limit # of times property assessed for street reconstruction Use pavement management system to determine future work Property appraisals done to I support proposed assessment • Assess before or after street reconstruction Any difference for single family vs commercial Do all street reconstruction costs come from the general fund and are costs included in each years tax levy ASSESSMENT POLICY SURVEY Mav 21, 1998 CITY: The City of Hopkins is conducting a survey of selected cities street assessment policies. This survey is in regards to reconstruction or overlay of existing streets only (curbed or uncurbed), NOT construction of new streets. 1. Do you assess residents a portion of street reconstruction cost? If yes, go on to question 2. If no, skip to question 10. 2. What percentage of street reconstruction cost is assessed to residents? 3. Do you assess for overlays? If yes, what percentage is assessed? Do you assess for sealcoating? 4. Please tell me if the cost of the following construction items are included in calculating your assessment amounts: Storm sewer work Water main replacement Sanitary sewer replacement Pavement edge underdrains Subgrade soil correction Sidewalk replacement New sidewalk installation New pavement section costs Other OTHER COMMENTS: 5. Does your policy limit the number of times a property or individual property owner may be assessed for street reconstruction? If yes, please explain details. 6. Does your city use pavement management system analyses to help determine future projects and level of improvement, i.e., sealcoat, overlay or reconstruct. 7. Do you normally have property appraisals done to support proposed assessments? 8. Do you normally assess before or after the street reconstruction? 9. Is there any distinction in your assessment policy for single family property vs. commercial or industrial property? If yes, brief explanation. 10. Thank you for your cooperation would you like a copy of our survey results? Yes No NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF CITY EMPLOYEE COMPLETING SURVEY FORM: A. Definitions 1 . e_cibk..-t.,kie&.) 0A-9 v.__ VZ I I . MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION IN EXISTING DEVELOPtD AREAS c 4-z4- co R Mtenance is defined as any continuous or regularly scheduled inspection or treatment, minor repair or spot replacement needed . to keep existing sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, streets, sidewalks or street lights operational and safe for use Es-construction is complete or significant replacement of the infrastructure item. Reconstruction of existing streets that are currently constructed of gravel or bituminous surface with a minimum of 51% of the abutting developed property (inhabited with City public utilities) is included in this section. B. Policies and Procedures 1. Inspection, scheduled maintenance and recommended reconstruction will be scheduled by maintenance district and program year as per attachment VIII (1) . Recommendations will be based on street ratings, drainage and other related studies. 2. Street pavement condition will be established in an adequate, marginal or problem category by consultant and /or staff technical study. 3. Asphalt surface maintenance will be performed as per attachment VIII-(2). 4. Reconstruction of streets will be made to current design standards with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. 5. Public information meetings will be held with affected property owners to explain policies, costs, assessments and petition procedures before final reconstruction recommendations are made. C. Funding 1. sanitary. Seale; system maintenance and replacement will be funded by the sanitary sewer public utility operating and reserve funds, Z0'.8 dtb:n 26 -tI -I0 2. water system maintenance and replacement will be funded by the water public utility operating and reserve funds. 3. storm sewer system maintenance will be funded by the storm sewer public utility fund operating budget. 19 16528 5:61/ Z i 9 : ' ON Xtjd NSA NA1) 00Na 30 Al I O : W021d storm Sewer system replacement and/or odd such as general will be funded by various funding methods utility fund tax funds, existing sanitary sewer p reserves, storm sewer public utility fund and assessments to benefitting properties. 5. Street maintenance such as seal coating, overlays, crack filling, pothole patching and spot curb and gutter repair will be funded by the general fund street maintenance budget. 6. Street reconstruction will be funded by assessing approximately 70% of the total project cost to the benefitting properties. The remaining approximate 30 will be absorbed by the City. 7. Street Licht complete new systems or replacement upgrades in reconstruction project areas will be funded by 100% assessments to benefitting properties. 8. Private Utilities such as gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, etc_ Systems will be moved, upgraded or replaced by the affected private utility as per franchise agreements. D. Assessments 1. Storm Sewer reconstruction and /or addition upgrade assessments (if utilized) will be added to the street reconstruction assessment and based on individual project evaluation. 2. Street reconstruction assessment rates are established annually by Council resolution. 3. Street Licht assessment rates for complete new systems or replacement upgrades in reconstruction project areas are established annually by Council resolution. 4. Assessment rates will be adjusted on an annual basis after review of the previous year construction costs and the ENR construction cost index. Chapter VIII added 5/24/93 by Resolution #1993 -141 SO'd 'd£1,:t0 L6-ti-I0 20 t6c8 c6t' 3t9 :'ON Xdd NSd NA1N000NS d0 A1I3 :woad 1 hl.CA°ib a ENE MCI SASS SA T (Cont.) 2. Storm Sewers (Cont.) of storm sewers is assessed directly to the properties in an area, with the remaining half paid out of General Obligation funds. The basis for a storm sewer assessment is not the installation of a ' pipe in front of a particular property, but rather, the installation of pipe in an area. The definition of these areas is done by topographic maps and data in the City Engineer's office. When installation of the pipe is completed in full in an area, the area is assessed in full. Any area which contributes water to this system, whether by overground runoff or by piping, is assessed up to the current rate per square foot. .Credit is given for previous assessments or installations by subdividers. Assessments are spread over a 10 -year period. 3. Concrete Curb & Gutter 4 The adjusted front foot method is used. Curb and gutter assessments include items necessary and related to such an improvement to meet city standards. Assessments are spread over a 10 -year period. a. Initial Construction - The rate of assessment to be utilized when concrete curb and gutter is constructed to meet city standards the first time (except as set forth in Sec. D.3b(3)) is to be based on the use of the land as follows: (1) single family and two family land uses as shown on the City Assessor's records at a rate equal to 100% of that year's cost on residential street curb and gutter projects (involving initial construction). (2) all other land uses at a rate equal to 100% of the cost of the curb and gutter being improved on that project. b. Subsequent Reconstruction - The rate of assessment to be utilized when concrete curb and gutter is reconstructed is to be based on the use of the land as follows: (1) single family and two family land uses as shown on the City. Assessor's records at a rate equal to 25% of that year's cost on residential street curb and gutter reconstruction projects, with the remaining 75% paid from city -wide general property taxes. (2) all other land uses at a rate equal to 50% of that year's cost on residential street curb and gutter reconstruction projects, with the remaining 50% paid from city- wide general property taxes. (3) any roadway having the pavement reconstructed which also requires concrete curb and gutter construction to bring the �,, roadway up to city standards, shall have the concrete curb ` - jam and gutter assessed in accordance with section D.3.b(1) and D.3.b(2) depending on land use.. Permanent Surfacing The adjusted front foot method is used. Pavement assessments include items' necessary and related to such in improvement to meet city stand - ards. Assessments are spread over a 10 -year period. GENERAL ASSESSMENT t d POLICIES - The rate of assessment to be• utilized when n a pavement is constructed to meet city standards for the first time is to be based on use of th land as follows: (1) single family and two family land use as shown on the City Assessor's records at a rate equal to 100% of that year's cost on residential street pavement projects (involving initial construction) . (2) all other land uses at a rate equal to 100% of the cost of the pavement being improved on that project. b. Subsequent Reconstruction - The rate of assessment to be utilized when a pavement which meets city standards is reconstructed is to be based on the use of the land as follows: 5. Sidewalk (1) single family and two family land use as based on the City Assessor's records at a rate equal to 25% of that year's cost on residential street pavement reconstruction projects, with the remaining 75% paid from city -wide general property taxes. (2) all other land uses at a rate equal to 50% of that year's cost on residential street pavement reconstruction projects, with the remaining 50% paid from city -wide general property taxes. Adjusted front footage method . s used. When sidewalk is installed on a MSA, County or State roadway or in an approved school walkway system, no assessment is made; otherwise, assessment is spread over a 10 -year period. 6. - Sanitary Sewer Lateral, Water Lateral Sanitary sewer laterals and water laterals are assessed on the adjusted front footage basis. Only that property within 150 feet of the street right -of -way is con - sidered served by and assessed for sanitary sewer and water laterals. All other property - more distant than 150 feet from the street right - of -way - may be subject. to "connection charges" or future assessments. All sewer and water lines, regardless of size or designation, are con - sidered as laterals to adjacent property. Trunk sewers and large water lines which provide lateral service are considered as laterals. Whenever a corner lot has a sewer or water line on its side, but not in front of the lot, it shall be included in the assessment district. Assessments on laterals are spread over a 20 -year period. 7. Connection Charges Only that property lying within 150 feet of the street right -of -way where utilities are installed is considered to be served by and assess - ed for the sewer and water lines. Property lying more distant than 150 feet from the street right -of -way is required to pay a connection charge when that property is developed and the development is connected to the sewer and water utilities. In effect, this is a deferred charge or assessment, and may be paid in cash; or, if the amount of the connection charge exceeds $500.00,• it may be added to the assessment roll by submission of waivers of hearing. G) csa .o 0 • 0 M M t1) 0 at) C) co L co al 0 • 69 (19 ER 6 6 C 3 •C o - CO v- N (0 01 mit 0 1-- t0 O) N 0) eN- N — CO 63 a) 4 e- N Y a) 2 Y a) N to C -c (" *chi N a { v Div 0-d cov U �"6 E 3 0) 3 0) o 0 ) © 42 0 ' . g P :© z? O v E a a �. 0 `• - 1 a) a) 0 E1 N 0 CC 2 To N L N O N 0 -p E J O N E cQ u. u. u. u_ u u u- , v o O > N tf) .^ p t O O) o u _ u. u_ 0 _ t O td tt) N C M ti c LL U_ EA 69 a g cv > co 69 *f} co 69 4 d L.L. c 63 0) • co (0 L0 69 Es9 to . M to E > . > . > , >, 0 CO >>1 F., c ›., (i) . )i., . 0 ›. O 0 a Q : 0 O O .0 O t�l' c Z 0 Y 0) 00)) 0) 0)) 0) T-- 1- e— e— t` 0 9 N N M co 9 0) O • > 0 a) o O O N . N- .4- c0 c 0 e- N. O ti e- e- e- 0 0 0) a a >, > o c c M M u? M O 0 0 O ti ti N ti 0 0 0 M 0 C 0)