HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy 6 �. 9
i •
EAGAN
MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
' DIRECTOR OF PIIBLIC IiORRB COLBERT
FROM: laDMINZSTRATIVE INTERN JEFF WELDON
DATE: AIIGIIST 17� 1989
SIIBJECT: RECONSTRIICTIDN SIIRQEY FOR IdEIGHBORBQOD lltdD COIrII�IIINITY
COLLECTOR BTREETB
As you requested on July 27, I have completed a survey of several C-t���
metropolitan area municipalities to ascertain their policy for the
reconstruction of neighborhood and community collector streets.
While the survey contained a wide variety of engineering
specifications, the essence of the survey was to determine their
general policy regarding street reconstruction.
The communities surveyed were classified by three categories:
growth-oriented (Plymouth, Map1e Grove, Burnsville, Blaine and
Brooklyn Park) ; established communities (Richfield, St. Louis Park,
West St. Paul, Brooklyn Center, and Minnetonka, and one community
that has characteristics of both (Blocmington) .
I attempted to secure copies of written policies from the
communities of which five were able to oblige. (Plymouth,
Burnsville, St. Louis Park, Brooklyn Center, and Bloomington) . The
other communities did not have written policies. To the greatest
extent possible, I attempted to complete the survey through
telephone interviews. One commonality that existed with each
community is that nearly all are facing the same problem to varying
degrees. The initial response of many I talked to was: "We were
about to contact you with the same questions! " Many such
communities requested a copy of our policy once completed.
The following is a brief synopsis of major findings of each
community surveyed.
Plymouth (Fred Moor�)
Plymouth is just beginning to develop a zeconstruction program.
They will need to reconstruct 96 miles over the next 20 years at
an anticipated cost of $32 million.
Assessments may be made on either front footage or unit area
depending on the specifics of the project. Al1 benefitting
property owners will be assessed 30 petcent of the estimated �ost
of the project. The remaining 70 percent is financed by the City
through a revolving Infrastructure Replacement Fund. The City
levies one mill (will be raised to 1.5 mills) to support the fund.
The program is part of their C.I.P. and the 30J70 split applies to
all street classifications after a residential equivalent is
applied. Overlays are assessed on the same 30/70 formula but
sealcaats are not. They have not yet determined how to allocate
. CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLSERT
AUGUST 17, 1989
PAGE TWO
front footage assessments for corner or double frontage lots.
Benefit appraisaZs will probably be conducted on an "as needed"
basis to establish legal foundation.
Maple Grov� (Gerry Butcher)
Has not yet done any reconstruction and is just beginning to
develop a reconstruction policy. Have not yet determined
assessment procedures but expect to use a pre-determined set rate
, with the city's percentage being paid from the general fund. They
currently do not, nor do they expect to assess for overlays or
sealcoats nor do they expect to differentiate the assessment
procedure on different street classifications. They have not yet
determined how to assess corner or double frontage lots and have
not addressed the "benefit" appraisal issue.
Burnsville (Chuck Siggerud)
Burnsville uses a computerized Pavement Management System as a
method of street inventory and analysis for the purposes of
preventative maintenance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. The
system utilizes data such as structural and surface conditions,
traffic volumes, rideability, age, and maintenance history.
Reconstruction is financed by assessments, ad vaiorem taxes,
enterprise funds and MSAS funds and is part of a five-year C.I.P.
The assessment rates vary with zoning and are as follows:
R-1 and R-2: $28.50/assessable foot
R-3 and Up: $60.00/assessable foot
C/I: $81.00/assessable foot
The assessment for reconstruction utili2es 50 percent of these ?
rates. The general fund (ad valorem taxes) and G.O. bonds pay the
balance as well as 100 percent of the cost of sidewalks.
Burnsville does not assess for overlays or sealcoats. Random
selection at "benefit" appraisals are made to establish 2ega1
foundation.
laine (Chuck Lenthe)
They do not have a policy and plans to begin looking at the issue.
Mr. Lenthe would not assist with the survey.
Brooklyn Park (Neil Johnson)
Brooklyn Park has not yet developed a policy but recognizes they
must address the issue soon. They are currently debating whether
they should use in-house staff or consultants to develcp their
.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT
AUGUST 17, 1989
PAGE THREE
policy for an estimated $14 million of needed reconstruction over
the next two to three years. They will definitely use assessments
to supp3ement a $900, 000 fund that is set aside to begin recon-
struction. They have not yet determined assessment percentages nor
� have they determined to use a percentage of total project cost or
,• a pre-set rate as the am�unt to be assessed. In addition, they
��� have not yet determined if there is to be a difference in the
�` assessment formula for different street classifications. While
� they have not conducted a cost analysis, they estimate the cost of
residential street reconstruction at $3,200 - $3,400 per lot or
$140 per foot. They anticipate assessing corner lots as a one-half
lot unit and treating double frontage lots as one lot units. The
City Assessor will verify feasibility of conducting "benefit"
appraisals but anticipates conducting an appraisal only if there
is an appeal.
Richfield (Mike Eastling}
Richfield does not have a reconstruction policy because they have
not reconstructed many streets. Instead, they utilize a pavement
management program. During the early 1970 's, Richfield paved 140
miles of gravel streets. Preventative maintenance such as
sealcoating has so far precluded the need for extensive
reconstruction. What little reconstruction has been done was
assessed 100 percent but they realize this will not be universally
feasible in the future. It is unclear whether this assessment was
for collector streets or arterials. Richfield has not done any
overlays and do nat know if they would assess for them if they were
done. They do not assess for sealcoats. When an assessment
formula for reconstruction is developed it will probably be based
on a percentage of the total cost as opposed to a pre-set rate so
it is consistent with assessments for other public improvements.
With regard to corner lots, assessments would be made on the
longest side with the shortest side assessed to all benefitting
property awners of the project. Richfield's grid system of streets
and avenues preclude the existence of double frontage lots. Alleys
frequently provide rear-lot access within blocks. They probably
will not perform "benefit" appraisals unless an appeal is made.
St. Louis Park (Craig Knutson)
St. Louis Park uses a pre-set rate of 60 percent assessment ($16.00
per front foot) for the estimated actual street reconstruction cost
of $25. 00 per front foot. The remaining 40 percent is part of a
five-year C.I.P. and paid by .the general fund. This assessment
rate does not differ with respect to street classification. They
have not conducted any "benefit" appraisals. While only a few
overlays have been conducted, they have been for arterial streets.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES '
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT
AUGUST 17, 1989
PAGE FOUR
Sealcoats and future residential overlays would be subject to
assessments. In this case, the total cost of each street main-
tained during a year wauld be divided by the number of assessable
feet of abutting properties to determine cost per front foot. For
corner lots, a side street improvement of 25 percent is assessed
against the benefitting property owner while the remaining 75
percent is treated as an indirect benefit and assessed on a front
footage basis to aIl other benefitting owners abutting the street
improvement. Double frontage lots are assessed only on the side
where the property is addressed. The cost of driveway aprons is
100 percent assessed as well as curb and gutter installation, '
1Pest St. Paul (Bill Price)
Most streets in West St. Paul that are reconstructed were either
bituminous surface only or had bituminaus surface with bituminous
curbing. West St. Paul's assessment is a predetermined/pre-set
rate of 30 percent with the City's 70 percent paid from the general
fund with ad valorem taxes. Estimated reconstruction cost is $50
per front foot.
They assess 100 percent for overlays estimated at $15 per foot, but
do not assess for sealcoats. For corner lots both sides are added
together and credit is given for 100 feet. For double frontage
lots one side is eliminated. The assessment policy is uniform
regardless of street classification.
Srooklyn Center (Sy Knapp)
Brooklyn Center frequently reconstructs residential streets most
of which were either bituminous surface only or bituminous surface
with bituminous curbing prior to reconstruction. Such streets in
"goad" condition (needing only overlays and curb and gutter
installation) would cost $225, 000 per mile. Streets in "poor"
condition (needing soil corrections and drainage improvements as
well as overlays and curb and gutter) would cost $350,000 per mile.
Residential collectors (constructed to five-ton design) would be
assessed approximately 28 percent with the city paying 72 percent
through the general fund. The predetermined assessment rate
depends upcn zoning. R-1 - $1,200, R-2 - $16/foot with a minimum
of $1, 200, R-3 - Assessable front footage X $16 divided by number
of residential units, R-4 , 5, 6 & ? - case by case determination.
Curb and gutter assessments are made at a standard rate of $28 per
assessable foot. Brooklyn Center has used real estate appraisers
to determine benefit to a variety of properties but normally use
appraisals to arbitrate on appeal.
. CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
PUBLZG WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT
AUGUST 17, 1989
PAGE FIVE
�iinnetonka (Dave Sonnenberg)
Minnetonka has not reconstructed any residential streets but will
begin a two-year demonstration proj ect next year where streets with
five-ton standards will be upgraded to a seven ton design. This
program is part of a five-year C.I.P. With the absence of a
reconstruction policy, they have not determined any assessment
formula. Of all communities surveyed, Minnetonka seemed least
likely to impose any assessments for street reconstruction because
the city has an $18 million assessment fund surplus and receives
over $i million annually in MSA revenue. Most streets to be
reconstructed have either a bituminous surface only or have a
bituminous surface with bituminous curbing. Overlay and sealcoats
are considered routine maintenance and paid by the City 100
percent.
Sloominqton (Charles Fionche2l)
Bloomington assesses l00 percent of the cost of public impravements
to benefitting properties so the city absorbs none of the cost.
The assessment is computed by dividing the total assessable cost
of the improvement by the total number of assessable units. All
property, regardless of use, is assessed in the same manner.
Bloomington uses an adjusted front footage method for determining
assessments. Under this method, odd-shaped lots are adjusted to
an average frontage that wauld be the equivalent to the frontage
of a rectangularly shaped lot of the same area and depth. For
corner lots, the first 150 feet of the side street is negated in
the calculation. If the depth is over 150 feet, a second� frontage
lots, 150 feet or less in depth, a single adjusted front footage
is computed. If the lot is more than 150 feet in depth the area
within the first 150 feet of depth abutting the primary access is
divided by 150 to arrive at the first adjusted front footage. The
balance of the lot is then used in computing the second frontage
by using one of four different formulas. (Refer to Bloomington's
policy) . Bloomington does not assess for overlays or sealcoats and
did not have any cost estimates. Virtually all streets
reconstructed have bituminous surface with bituminous curbing.
Projects are not part of a C.I.P. There is no differentiation
between street classification in terms of assessment except for
streets that receive Municipal State Aid. Benefit appraisals are
typically not conducted except for random samples for purposes of
verification. Curb and gutter installation also utilizes the
adjusted front foot method and assessments are spread aver a ten-
year period.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
� PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COLBERT
AUGUST 17, 1989
PAGE SIX
Conclusion
Many of the communities surveyed are in the same situation as
Eagan; they are just now facing the problem and trying to develop
solutions. As evident in the surveys, there seems to be no genuine
consensus in implementing and financing a reconstruction policy for
neighborhood and community collector streets. Financing ranges
from 100 percent assessed in Bloomington to 100 percent city funded
in Minnetonka. A few trends do emerge, however. First, most
communities utilize a financing combination of city funding and
assessments. Most cities �refer to .base the assessment on a
predetermined/pre-set rate as opposed to a percentage of total
cost. In addition, most cities do not differentiate assessments
among street classifications. Most City Engineers overwhelmingly
preferred this method of uniformity for internal reasons such as
assessment calculations and engineering reports as well as external
reasons such as political acceptance. In addition, most
municipalities do not assess for overlays and sealcoats since they
are considered "maintenance" and should be paid by the city. If
streets did not have to compete with water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer for "assessment capacity" assessing for overlays and
sealcoats might be more feasible.
This survey was completed well in advance of its scheduled
presentation to the City Council slated for September 12 to allow
sufficient time to do any further research on this issue before
preparing the final staff report. If any further information is
needed, please let me know and I will prepare a supplemental
report. �
I have �capies of the completed surveys from which this memo was
prepared as well as the street reconstruction golicies o� the five
communities that have them. Interestingly, these policies also
contain information about their assessment procedures as they
relate to other public improvements such as water mains, trunk
storm and sanitary sewer. The Special Assessments Committee might
find this information helpful.
i trative Intern
JW/jeh
�T coxFTavR�TToK oBLio�iTzorts �rCow ��s�Ty R cs
tTR�ET CLIIBSI?SC�TZOp
xLZQ880RE00D CO�IT?
TYp� IACJ►�L COLLECTOA CQLLSCTOR �RTLRIlIL
Single Frontage
Full �1cc�ss 100� 100t S0� 25�
.Ccrnet Lot 50t S0� 25� 0
Double 0
Frontag� S0; 2S� �
These factors vauld be npplied aqainst the nssessm�nt calculation
based on the attaehed matrix label�d Tabl• 3.
6
TYrE Oi /NHIOrE1�NT (l)
RG7cw.��wb �
�� � �1�� I�AOE f0 ►ATCII t �E►AtR YI�11 �YE�1A y��M, r
wu�t� aT/t��► �rwt �/fI I1M.
fT�EE1 CLAsfMidll� CI?T S1MIOMe! (2) Cixerad�s u�.q, �N4 sx/.
(IIUIIAI. f�M11EL. REMOYE i 11ECONstMlCT OME�LAY !t�liMLK!
WOE11111a, Qlll� i a1RTER) Yt1N 01IFRU1� CMI� 1MIUwT! �MC�t
A M
h �I �\ y �1 M
�a o�s�n �cs. taar. �oax rs�c ' saet • •
(IIOii R'�•2•�f
I�tQO0RN00p ►M��
�� 1o0�f� 7� , SK �3I • •
1� . T!x • • -�
N�a oca�» +�. � 10°� -�
�R•4, f[IIOOIf. C'f�CR! D
n
i1�E ftA, 0�1. ►MKf� S
�,�� tooei tooft 7sx f • 3
m
z
�
, oaw�n�c�µn���t �aa�t �oaac �ooac ��c t�s • w
��� � �ec t�t twet •
(t) I�el�s st� �wK l�stall�tlMs/�ificstiMs as ��c�ssse�.
(2� Ass�ss�t eale�l�t�1 M aRiw� twliy �I�sl�t l�ss cre�It f� a�y K��[�rs as�ss�t fK �-�xlsti�� eM�itlw.
(3) •f CeMsril• tM1M ENi..i.�t ��ci. t. t�tal •1dtM a�/or st�rctr�al st�ee�tb (32�/�4�. 7 tM/! tM)
.
� � � � � � � ' � � .;
�
-` _ •� � Fr��'ii/FL�
(�i EaY 2 �� a���
BURNSVILLE C17y r� �w
Rn_,r�.,,�►rs,:,
r
POLICY NUMBER 7.120
pltEpENTATIVE MAZNTENANCE, RECONSTRIICTION i� REHABILITATION
OF CITY STREETS
T pURPOSE AND NEED FOR POLICY
City streets have a finite design life. To provide continued
service by these facilities, there must be a prescribed method of
programming, financing, and constructing needed ongoing major
maintenance work.
II. POLICY
All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City, shall be
inventoried and analyzed for the purpose of prioritizing the
preventative maintenance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation
programs of the City. This inventory and analysis w�.11 be referred
to as the Pavement Management System or PMS. The PMS is a system
whereby all streets are inventoried and analyzed using a
t deterioration model. This system takes into account factors such
` as structural and surface conditions, traffic volumes, rideability,
age, and past maintenance experience.
A) For the purposes of this policy, the following
definitions will apply:
1) •RECONBTRIICTION - will be defined as a project whereby
all meaningful elements of a street are being removed and
replaced. This would include curb and gutter, bituminous
or concrete pavement, qranular base, and items
appurtenant to these elements.
2) •REHABILITATION - will be defined as a project in which
one or more of the aforementioned elements is mod'ified
or supplemented in-place, to restore the serviceability
of the entire street.
3) •PREYENTATI�TE MAINTENANCE - will be defined as work that
involves a level of effort less than that involved in
reconstruction or rehabilitation, the intent of which is
to extend the life of the existina vavement.
Preventative maintenance will include but not be limited
to crack filling, patching, milling and cold planing; and
; seal coating.
__
_ _ -
��
��
�`���.�
s�
�l U� -;. � �� ��
n. J�:J
. �..���✓�` . .
. � . ••�j�+�
.�
. .. . A')•'�
CITY OF FARMINGTON
ASSESSMENT/IMPROVEMENT POLICY
APRIL 27, 1988
PREPARED BY:
LARRY THOMPSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FIRST DRAFT: 4/27/88
APPROVED: 6/20/88
REVISED:
INTRODUCTION
This document sets forth the methods and policies relating to local improvements
and special assessments practiced in the City of Farmington. It is emphasized
that the following summarization is general in nature and that certain
circumstances may justify deviations from stated policy as determined by the
City Council.
A local improvement involves one or more of the following types of improvements:
Roadway grading and base
Bituminous surfacing
Curb and gutter
Sidewalks and driveways
Water trunks and laterals
Sanitary sewer trunks and laterals
Service connections
Storm sewer trunks and laterals
All appropriate appurtenances associated with the above
Improvements are classified as follows:
l. New Developments - The construction of improvements related to newly .
developed areas, normally made in conjunction with the plat approval
process.
2. Rehabilitation - Complete or partial reconstruction of the abovementioned
improvements including bituminous overlays. Rehabilitation does not include
routine maintenance which does not improve the structural integrity of a
roadway, such as sealcoating and crack sealing.
3. Extensions - Construction of improvements generally made to extend services
to a certain area. Extensions normally pertain to water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer trunks.
The special assessment is a financing tool employed by the City as a means to
allocate the cost of specific improvements to benefitted properties and to
spread those costs over a number of years.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 regulates the procedure for the construction and
financing of local improvement projects when at least part of the cost is
defrayed by special assessments. Special assessments are collected from the
property owner along with real estate taxes. When an improvement is of benefit
to certain areas, it is the intent of the Council that special assessments be
levied against benefitted properties. A major goal of this document is that
special assessments be allocated and levied in an equitable and consistent
manner.
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS
Left open at this time. To be completed as policy is reviewed and definitions
required.
SECTION II �
GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The following are general principles, policies and procedures applicable to all
types of improvement:
1. Project costs shall include the cost of all necessary construction work
required to accomplish the improvement, plus engineering, legal, financing
and contingent costs.
2. Assessable costs are project costs minus the City share, County share and
other credits. MSA funds will not be credited.
3. Special assessments will be levied as soon as practical. Normally this will
be within one year after completion of the project.
4. Pursuant to M.S. Chapter 429.051, the City does not defer assessments to
benefitted areas outside of the City, but rather assumes any non—assessable
cost as the City share. When property is annexed and served by the original
improvement, the City can create a new assessment to be reimbursed for all
or any portion of the prior assumed municipal costs, including interest,
related to the improvement.
5. Publicly owned properties, including municipal building sites, schools,
parks, State and Federal building sites, but not including public streets
and alleys, are regarded as being assessable on the same basis as if such
property were privately owned.
SECTZON III
SPECIFIC POLICIES
Project Initiation and Hearing Process
This section intends to describe the initiation of improvement projects and the
administration required to final Council action, pursuant to the requirements of
MSA 429.
A. Project Initiation
1. By Petition: Petitions for initiating improvements will be prepared by City
staff upon request. Such petitions, circulated by the affected owners should
bear the signatures of the property owners of 357 of the benefitted property.
Petitions may be requested and submitted at any time. The normal time required
for receiving, processing, scheduling hearings and preparing construction
documents is six months. Projects for petitions received after February 1 will .
not be scheduled until the construction season of the following year.
2. By Council Action: If the Council determines that an improvement is in the
best interest of the City, it can, without petition, initiate the improvement.
3. By 100� Signed Petition: When a petition is signed by 1007 of the property
owners benefitted by the improvement, and there is no City cost participation,
the Council may order the improvement without holding an improvement hearing.
4. By Developers Agreement: Improvement projects for new development will only
be considered upon execution of a developers agreement signed by 1007 of the
benefitted property owners. The Council may order the project without a public
hearing.
B. Hearing Process
l. Improvement Hearing: After a petition is filed and its adequacy determined,
or the Council initiates the project, the City Engineer is directed to study and
report as to the feasibility of the improvement. If after reviewing the report,
the Council feels the project has merit, a public hearing is scheduled, notice
published twice, and all persons benefitted by the project notified in writing.
When an improvement project is to be financed by the sale of improvement bonds,
there is a statutory requirement that at least 207 of the total costs of the
project be assessed against the benefitted property.
If after the improvement hearing, at which all persons are heard, the Council
feels that the project still has merit, then the Council will authorize the
preparation of necessary plans and specifications, and upon receipt and
acceptance of those plans, will authorize the advertisement for bids by
resolution.
C. Final Hearing (Assessment)
After the improvement is ordered and bids received, or the improvement is
completed or nearing completion, a roll will be prepared and the affected
property owners will be mailed a Notice of Assessment Hearing stating the time
and date that an assessment hearing will be held. An assessment roll will be
prepared and will be posted at the City Clerk's office for review prior to the
assessment hearing. All interested parties shall have an opportunity to be
heard regarding the assessment.
Necessary and proper adjustment to the assessment roll can be made by Council at
the time the hearing is being held. If an appeal is made regarding the amount
of the special assessment, written notice must be filed with the Council rp ior
to or at the assessment hearing.
After the hearing, the assessment roll is adopted by the Council. The property
owners have a 30 day period in which to pay their assessment in part or in fuli
at the City Hall, interest free. After this period, the assessment begins to
accumulate interest. On or about October lOth of each year, the assessment roll
is certified to the County Auditor's office where it is added to the tax roll
for the following year.
The assessment shall be levied over a period to be established by the City
Council, in equal annual installments on the principal with interest on the
declining balance. The annual interest rate shall also be established by the
City Council upon the sale of the improvement bonds.
SECTION IV
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND EXPECTED LIFE
Minimum Design Standards
The following are minimum design standards. Oversizing may be required to serve
areas extending beyond the scope of the project.
A. Sanitary Sewer Laterals
Minimum 8" PVC (SDR35) or DIP (CL52) . Manholes a maximum 400' apart.
B. Sanitary Sewer Services
� Minimum 4" PVC (SDR35) ox CISP.
C. Water Main Lateral
Minimum 6" loop or 8" deadend DIP (CL52) .
D. Water Main Services
l. Single Family Residences - Minimum 1" DIP (CL52) or Type K copper.
2. Multiple Family Residences - To be determined by City Engineer based on UBC.
3. Commercial/Industrial - To be determined by City Engineer based on UBC.
E. Storm Sewer System
Pipe size shall be designed to handle a 5 year event and pond shall be
designed to handle a 100 year event. Catch basins shall be placed so that
overland drainage does not exceed 1000' . Concrete swales a minimum of 3'.
wide shall be installed where overland drainage crosses an intersection.
F. Residential Streets
A minimum of 34' curb back to back with concrete curb and gutter. Minimum 7
ton design.
G. Truck Routes/Commercial/Industrial
A minimum of 41 feet curb back to back with concrete curb and gutter.
Minimum 9 ton design.
Useful Service Life
Public improvements are judged to have a normal useful life expectancy. For the
purpose of this policy, this life expectancy shall be as follows:
A. Surface Improvements
� Concrete Curb and Gutter 30 years
Bituminous Roadways 30 years
Sidewalks 50 years
B. Subsurface Improvements
Water Main 50 years
Sanitarq Sewer 50 years
Storm Sewer 60 years
C. When any existing improvement is ordered to be renewed or replaced, the
assessments to be levied will be prorated from 0� at one-half life
expectancy to 100' at full life expectancy or beyond.
SECTION V
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS
General Procedures and Policies
� City Code requires execution of a developer's agreement at the time of land
platting. The developer's agreement normally references means and methods of
providing for public improvement construction.
As a standard, the City of Farmington has pursued policies by which all costs of
improvement are directly attributable and fully paid by cost allocation or
assessments against the development, developer or properties requiring and
benefiting by the improvement. The policies are established with the intent
that no developmental costs are incurred by existing lots or parcels, by the
existing residents, or by the City in general. The exception is for
improvements which are determined to have an area wide benefit which exceeds the
scope of the development.
At the time of platting, the cost responsibilities for any development for trunk
improvements shall be defined. This responsibility includes trunk sanitary
sewer facilities, trunk water facilities (including source, supply, storage and
distribution components) , storm water drainage and control facilities, arterial
street, park dedication, pedestrian walkway systems and other public
improvements, existing or proposed, of an area wide benefit. Normally the City
will require a cash payment by the developer for the development's share of
improvements of an area wide benefit. The amount to be determined by the City
Council.
At the time of platting, the development agreement may provide details on
construction and timing of local or lateral improvements of various nature f'or
the benefit and improvement of the individual properties as required by the
Farmington Subdivision Ordinance.
City Improvement Financing and Construction
As a general policy, the City of Farmington will assist developers in the
financing and construction of public improvements through authority granted to
the City by Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes. Such assistance is granted by
specific Council action for each development proposal based on perception by the
Council of the project, viability, and development benefit to the City. The
City may elect to sell bonds for such improvement and assess the costs of bond
retirement against individual benefitted land parcels for a period of repayment
as seen appropriate.
Typically, the total project costs for improvements benefiting the development
will be assessed on an equal basis against all buildable lots in the
development.
For such City assessed developments and improvements, the City, through the
development agreement, requires a 25� down payment, a bond or letter of credit
to protect the City from potential project default, and requires assessment
payment concurrent with building permit issuance. For such City assisted
projects, the City Engineer provides design, construetion supervision and
assessment certificate services, and other City staff provides legal, fiscal and
administrative input.
Public Improvement Work by Private Developers
No public improvements may take place before a developer`s agreement has been
executed.
A private developer may have his plans prepared by other than City forces under
the following conditions:
1. All plans, drawings, specifications and related documents required shall be
prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota
and approved by the City.
2. The developer must keep the City informed as to the time table of
development and design, the letting date of a construction contract, and the
starting date of construction work.
3. In order to warrant the construction for the life expectancy as previously
set forth, the City will provide inspection of all phases of construction as
set forth in the contract documents.
4. The City of Farmington may perform construction surveys, staking and other
engineering services when requested by the contractor or developer. The �
City will also assist the contractor in interpretation of the contract
documents, ordinances, codes and other items necessary to meet the criteria
as established by the City of Farmington.
5. No public improvement work shall be performed by any developer or other
private party in City right of way or easement unless a developer's
agreement has been executed.
6. The City will require a surety deposit of 1257 of the estimated project
costs in the form of cash, escrow deposit, certified check or irrevocable
letter of credit.
The City and its representatives shall at all times have access to the work in
order to complete the services as herein provided, and the developer shall give
the City timely notice of his readiness for inspections or other work to be
rendered. Permits, licenses and easements or permanent changes in existing
facilities shall be secured and paid for by the developer.
The developer shall be charged for these services, and the value of the services
shall be determined on a percentage basis as agreed upon by the developer and
the City before the project is started. The fee for plan review and City
administration is set annually by resolution of the City Council. All
inspection costs will be billed on an hourly basis.
Upon proper completion of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains, curb and
gutter, roadway base, surfacing and sidewalk by the developer, the City will
accept said improvements by resolution under a one (1) year guarantee to the
city.
SECTION VI
IMPROVEMENTS IN EXZSTING DEVELOPMENTS
A. Initiation
Improvements may be initiated by petition or by Council.
B. Computation of Assessable Costs
1. If improvements were originally constructed to minimum design standards,
costs to be assessed will be assessed on a pro rated basis per Section 4.2.
2. If improvements were not originally constructed; to design standards, the
Council may pro rate, but under no circumstances shall it be less than:
1988 257 assessed
1989 25Z assessed
1990 30' assessed
1991 40� assessed
1992 and after 507 assessed
C. Method of Assessment
1. Basic Assessment Data
a. Area (used for sanitary sewer and water trunks)
Area used is the gross 3r� of the parcel as it is benefitted by each
separate improvement. All property within district boundaries is to be
included as determined by the City Engineer. In general, all property will
be assessed except lots or areas which are not developable.
b. Units '
Generally used for sewer and water services in residential developments.
May be used for sewer and water laterals in existing residential
developments.
c. Adjusted Fr-ont Footage
Generally used for all improvements except for the above.
2. Method for determining Adjusted Front Footage (See Exhibit A) .
The following £ormulas will be used to determine adjusted front footage:
a. Odd shaped or pie shaped lots - Area of the 1ot up to a maximum depth of
150' divided by 150 (e.g. 15,000 square foot lot on a cul-de-sac =
15,000 divided by 150 = 100' (adjusted) .
b. Approximate Rectangular Lot - Average of the front and back lot line.
c. Rectangular Lot - Actual front #ootage.
d. Shallow Lot (less than 120') - Area of lot divided by 120.
e. Corner Lot - Same as rectangular lot except credit against long side
equal to 757 of the short side. Credit will be assessed against short
side and lots adjacent to short side to the midpoint of the block.
3. Details for Computing Area
Area shall include square footage within property lines excluding public
road easements, natural waterways, swamps, or other wetlands designated by
the DNR.
4. Method of Determining Unit
The number of potential units possible by subdividing based on minimum lot
requirements. If the street, in which sanitary sewer or water lines are to
be installed, is to be improved, all services will be installed to service
the maximum number of potential lots.
5. Typical Methods of Assessment
a. Streets - Adjusted front footage.
b. Curb and Gutter - Adjusted front footage.
c. Sanitary Sewer Lateral - Adjusted front footage.
d. Sanitary Sewer Service - Per unit.
e. Water Main Lateral - Adjusted front footage.
f. Water Main Service - Per unit.
g. Sidewalks - Adjusted front footage.
h. Driveways - Actual cost.
i. Storm Sewer - Per Stormwater Management Policy. .
j . Sanitary Sewer Trunk - The adjusted front footage of abutting property
shall pay a lateral benefit equal to the Engineer's estimated cost of �
installing an 8" lateral at a depth of 8' . The oversizing cost of the
project shall be assessed on an area basis to benefitted property.
k. Water Main Trunk - Same as sanitary sewer. (NOTE: This policy may
change if the Water Board and Council adopt the Comprehensive Water
Plan.)
6. Method of Payment (Interest on the assessments will begin accruing from the
date of the adoption of the assessment roll.)
The owner may pay the entire or partial amount of assessment within 30 days
of adoption of the assessment roll without interest. The remaining amount
shall be paid in equal principal installments (typically 10 years) plus
interest as determined by the Council (typically 1 1/2% above the net
interest rate of the bond issue) . Annual payments will be remitted with the
property taxes. An owner may pay off the assessments in full at any time,
but will be charged the entire year's interest.
,�
SECTION VII
IMPROVEMENTS ON MINOR ARTERIALS OR COLLECTORS
This section to be left open at this time pending further review of statutes and
policies of other cities.