Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/11/1989 - Special Meeting FDRN PRATRIE CITY COUNCIL SPFCIAL MEETING UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989 7: 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Assistant City Attorney Ric Rosow, Director of Public Works Etigene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All Members Present tl!�Ln m4u' Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. ECTAL ASSESSMEF_T. Dietz stated that the proposed policy was only a guideline and special circumstances would take precedence. City Attorney Pauly had reviewed the document extensively. The true test of an assessment was that the benefit equalled or exceeded the Assessment , A valid petition for improvements required signatures of 35% of adjacent property owners . A 100% petition was required in order to bypass the feasibility study process and go directly to the plan and specification stage. An assessment had to be uniform and consistent. The rlty can be reimbursed for previous expenditures through special assessments. Peterson asked Dietz if classes of property could be treated differently. Dietz replied that typically there would not be different classes of property In any given project. An example of a class difference would be between residential and commercial properties. Dietz stated that assessable costs have a 9% administration fee and interim Interest is charged from the time the first payment was made to the contractor until the time of the special Assessment Hearing. City Council Minutes 2 July 11, 1989 Tenpas asked how the rate of administration fees wat; determined and if 9% was high enough. Dietz replied that maximum rates are set by the State. T-1 Anderson asked what option the (71ty had If a development were assessed on a per unit basis and .3 lot was later subdivided. Dietz replied that if It could be proven that a property had not been assessed In the past, a $7,400 connection fee could be charged. POLICY 4� Dietz dtated that the payback perikid had been changed to 20 years for assessments In excess of $5,000 and to 5 years for 100% petitioned projects. Tenpas asked If there was a minimum charge. Dietz replied that there was flexibility In this area. Tenpas then asked If on the small assessments it could be paid back on a short term basis. Dietz replied that this would not come up very often. TRUNK A35UJ_MM;_ The trunk assessment for non-homesteaded properties would be charged on a per acre basis of $3,000 and the homesteaded Property would be charged $520 on a per lot assessment . if a property was subdivided the $520 would be credited to the first half-acre find the remaining property assessed on a per acre basis. Peterson asked what would happen if the property were less than one-half acre in size. Dietz replied that this had not happened In the past. Pldvock asked If the credit would not be subject to the number of hookups. Rosow stated that the wording should be changed to read: The rate shall apply to the entire property with a $520 credit. Anderson questioned the front-footage: basis to determine benefit. Anderoon was particularly concerned about cul-de- sacs. Dietz replied that in an already developed area typically a per. lot assessment would be done and In an undeveloped area a front footage basis would be used. This would be part of the feasibility study and the method of assessment would be determined by the Council At the time of the Special Assessment Hearing. Anderson asked if there would be a fairer way to accomplish this. Dietz replied that It needed to be done on a case-by-case basiz;. City Council Minutes 3 July 11, 1989 Dietz stated that Policies 28 and 30 alvo dealt with the subdivision of property, which stated that there would be maximum dsse5owents; however, If the property were further developed, additional assessments could be made. V-PL1C-X—U Anderson asked if Policy 19 meant that storm sewers were Judged differently than sidewalks, curb and gutter . Dietz replied no. Anderson asked if the City had to show, a different benefit for storm sever. Dietz replied that storm sewers were considered as part of street Improvements due to the fact that storm sewer projects were difficult to assess benefit. Anderson stated that he was concerned about lots which had once been considered unbuildable and now could be engineered to allow for building. Dietz replied that additional assessments could be made. 1001 rETITIONED PR!QJSQT$ Dietz noted that a 100% petitioned project required a 5% deposit. Dietz stated that on uniform parcels a development would be assessed on a per lot basis and If the property were not uniform it would be assessed on a front footage basis. Anderson stated that the City had assessed property on both a unit basis and a front footage basis. Rosow, replied that the benefit must be equal to or exceed the assessment and the assessment must be uniform on similar properties. LIFT ,' TATTQNS Anderson asked who was responsible to pay for lift stations when they were needed. Dietz replied that lift stations were considered as part of the trunk assessment. Anderson then asked about areas around lakes which required lift stations. jullie replied that it would depend on the design of the system. Dietz replied that this situation would be unusual, and typically the entire nt-ighborhood would receive the benefit. This Issue would tie difficult to address In a policy. Dietz added that there was flexibility in the policy. g_11-OWNED rROVERTY Dietz stated that In the Southwest Area the assessments for City Council Minutes 4 July 11, 1989 park land were proposed to be based on u6e of the and other statistics prepared by Staff. Anderson asked if these criteria would be constantly changing. Dietz replied that the policy was subject to change. POLICY Dietz stated that City trails and rights-of-way would not be assessed. He added that this was consistent with what had been done In the past . Rosow believed that the wording "greenways" could be setting a precedent. Dietz replied that the word greenway would be removed, POLICY 27 Tenpas asked If a time limit had been established for deferments. Dietz replied that a time limit was determined at the time of the assessment hearing and would be determined on a case-by- case basis. Dietz replied that all Interest Is simple Interest and not compounded. Dietz stated that this policy was developed In light of the FrAnlo Road project. Homesteaded properties would be assessed a maximum of $15,000 at the Initial assessment,ariy amount in excess of $15,000 would be deferred, and the exclusion policy would be utilized for utilities. Anderson naked what happened when City property bordered another city's property, Dietz replied that the 'assessment would be shared . POLICY 23 Dietz replied that this policy was written for the Southwest Area. Tenpas asked If anyone was assessed unfairly because they were located across from a City park. Dietz replied no. Peterson asked If the Council would consider It appropriate to forward this policy to the Developers Forum before taking action. Dietz replied that timing was Important arid because of the time necessary to prepare the fall assessments further delay In approval would be detrimental . Dietz added that the majority of these items were the law and were not negotiable. Pidcock stated that an approved copy could be forwarded as a courtesy. HarrI:3 concurred. City Council Minutes 5 July 11, 19S9 Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Special Assessment Policy as prepared. Tenpas stated that he would like to have the Input from the Developers Forum. Anderson stated that he did not want to delay approval any longer. Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to send a copy of the Assessment Policy to the Developers Forum for Input and comment. Motion carried unanimously. T11 . ADJOURNMENT MIDI: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adJouzn the meeting at 1:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously. 12