Loading...
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.