5.1. & 5.2. SR 08-28-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

] i '; ITEM 5.1. & 5.2. ~ August 23, 1995 Pile: 230-271-30 ~~SI L'~i1l~ lll;llfl;~,S Honorable Mayor and City Council 1326 Energy Pcrk Crive City of Elk River sr. Pouf, rvVV ss~o8 13065 Orono Parkway bt2•baa-x389 P.O. Box 490 1~8t1Q•888~7.923 Elk River, MN 55330 Fox: bl ~•674.9d48 RE: 1995 OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT HEARING Dear Council Members: As you are aware, the assessment hearing for the 1995 Overlay Improvement is scheduled for Monday, August 28, 1995.. I will be prepared to make a brief presentation summarizing the construction bids and the method of calculation of the assessments. As you recall from the feasibility study, the proposed assessment rate is $1,505 per unit. Based on the construction bids and the number of units, we are recommending a reduction ``~"E"`'''~~~'"G of approximately 14% to $1,300 per unit. Eriv;~prd,nENrnt """~~'P~` During the past week, there have been several calls with questions on the assessment. Ptnhrau~rG Based on these calls, we would point out the following issues to the City Council: ~`e wASrE sraucru~at 1. Mr. Ed Babcock called indicatin that his ro e suRVfr,r+G g P p rty (75-024-2110) is accessed. from r~F;~c Highway 10. He does not have access on any of the roads proposed to be overlaid. ~aar~saesrar~oN We would recommend that Mr. Babcock's property be removed from the assessment. E;ECrRKn4'.~ECHF~a~CA+. ENc~NeEa,~~ 2. Ms. 7anice Kreuser, who lives in Countryside Acres, stated that she owns one Neat parcel and a small portion of another parcel which contains a pond (75-499-1030 ?+:wER J?S°esauneN and 75-499-0110). She indicated they are in the process Of combining the P1D sc~ca numbers into one parcel. The second parcel which contains the pond clearly is riot sys~;4+c~~re~s buildable. She has requested that she be assessed for one parcel instead of two. We have researched this and we would concur with her request. 3. Staff has received several calls from residents that live south of Creenhead Acres Second Addition. There is a small private road in this location with several fats developed off of it. These lots are on a din or gravel road; however, the only means of access to their property is through Greenhead Acres Second Addition which is proposed to be overlaid. These property owners have questioned whetlt~:r they belong in the assessment. If, in fact, their private road was ever upgraded to OFf:lCES ~"' City standards and taken over by the City, they would be assessed the foil cost of i~r~E~oi~s the upgrade. Therefore, we would recommend that these properties be deleted from ~oR ~~t the assessment roll, se. PAUL W.aS>:CA ~e ° .d -ent~,d is asw z t - ~ x nHl. s~-•a~-~n~