HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-10 Council Agenda Packet CITY OF CORCORAN
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
Door.
Corcoran City Council Agenda
November 10, 2016 - 7:00pm
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Agenda Approval
4. Open Forum
5. Presentations
6. Consent Agenda
a. Draft Minutes of October 27, 2016 Council Meeting*
b. Waiver of Labiality Coverage – Statutory Tort Limits*
7. Claims as Presented
a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500)*
b. All Other Financial Claims*
8. Staff Reports / Memos / Commissions
a. Commission Representatives*
b. 2017 Proposed Tax Rate*
9. Planning Business
10. Unfinished Business
a. Draft Assessment Policy*
11. New Business
a. City Administrator Performance Evaluation Distribution*
12. 2016 Council Schedule*
13. Council Liaison Calendar
Planning Commission
11/3/16 12/1/16 1/5/17 2/2/17 3/2/17
LaFave TBD TBD TBD
Parks and Trails Commission
11/15/16 12/20/16 1/17/17 2/21/17 3/21/17
Keefe Hank TBD TBD TBD
14. Adjournment
Name
Address
Phone
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF CORCORAN
City Council Meeting Minutes
October 27, 2016 - 7:00pm
The Corcoran City Council met on October 27, 2016 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota.
Present were Mayor Guenthner, Councilor Hank, Councilor Keefe, Councilor LaFave, and Councilor
Thomas.
Also present were City Administrator Martens, Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, and City
Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise.
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Guenthner invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Agenda Approval
Mayor Guenthner thanked Parks and Trails Commission Chair Anderson and Planning
Commissioner Theis for their attendance. City Administrator Martens noted that due to the election
equipment in the conference room that the closed session would be held in the City Administrators
office.
MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Hank to approve the agenda as presented.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
4. Open Forum
Dick Theis, 20575 County Road 10, addressed the Council on the nuisance abatement item on the
agenda. Specifically Mr. Theis addressed the previous conveyance, interest in purchasing the City
own land and abatement process.
Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, addressed on the Council on the Ravinia Park Proposal
item on the agenda and Lennar. Specifically Mr. Hoglund address the public participation, issues
related to Lennar as a neighbor including trees and water issues, and communication concerns.
5. Presentations
No presentations were heard.
6. Consent Agenda
a. Draft Minutes of the October 13, 2016 Work Session
b. Draft Minutes of the October 13, 2016 Council Meeting
c. Resignation – Jeanie Heinecke, Deputy Clerk
Mayor Guenthner noted corrections to Item 6b.
MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to approve the consent agenda consisting of
Items 6a. and 6c.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
Mayor Guenthner noted two vote corrections page 3 and clerical corrections noted by Councilor
Thomas.
MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve Item 6b as amended.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
7. Claims as Presented
a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500)
MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Keefe to approve escrow as presented.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
b. All Other Financial Claims
MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Hank to approve all other claims as presented.
Councilor LaFave inquired about the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for vendors. City
Administrator Martens noted staff typically reviews service providers every three to five years
depending on needs.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions
a. Planning Project Update; report received.
b. Code Compliance Report; report received.
c. Commissioner Representatives; report received.
d. FEMA Floodplain Update; report received.
9. Planning Business
No planning business was presented.
10. Unfinished Business
No unfinished business was presented.
11. New Business
a. Nuisance Abatement – 20575 County Road 10
City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining the code enforcement steps taken.
MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to adopt Resolution 2016-84 Ordering
Abatement of Nuisance and Authorizing Abatement by the City on the Property at 20575 County
Road 10.
Council discussed the timeline of abatement and the separate issues of the abatement and the
conveyance of the property. Mr. Theis addressed the Council on the ownership of the land and
items currently present.
MOTION: made by Thomas to amend the Resolution stating in item one in the therefore resolved
section that the owners shall abate all of the nuisances on City Property (PID 23-119-23-23-0011)
outlined in the February 19, 2016 order and the April 23, 2016 Property Compliance Agreement, by
November 15, 2016.
(Motion failed, lack of second)
Council discussed the an alternative date.
MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Hank to amend the Resolution stating in item one in the
therefore resolved section that the owners shall abate all of the nuisances on City Property (PID 23-
119-23-23-0011) outlined in the February 19, 2016 order and the April 23, 2016 Property
Compliance Agreement, by November 30, 2016.
Council discussed
Voting Aye on the Amendment: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
Voting Aye on the original motion: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
b. Electronic Check Signing
City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise presented the report noting that the process
would save the Mayor and staff time in signing, our financial software has the capability and the
process would be similar with checks being printed and mailed following the Council meeting.
Mayor Guenthner noted this item was initiated by himself and explained the historical reasons for in
person signing. Council discussed the number of checks signed. City Administrator Martens noted
the internal controls for approving claims including accountant review, Department Head review and
City Administrator review.
MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by LaFave to implement electronic check signing.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
c. Hennepin County Youth Baseball and Softball Grant
City Administrator Martens presented the report noting that staff is recommending a $10,000 match
that would be funded by donations from community groups or park dedication funds if donations
were not available. Council discussed whether to add the park’s four drinking fountains into the
application, drinking fountain locations, and sewer connections at the park.
MOTION: made by Thomas, second by Keefe to authorize staff to apply to the Hennepin County
Youth Baseball and Softball program for funds to make improvements to Meister Field with a
$10,000 City match.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
d. Neighborhood Park Design Proposals - Ravinia
City Administrator Martens presented the report noting that the City is planning for grading of the
park in Ravinia as the Development Agreement stipulates that Lennar completes grading and
landscaping for the park. Council asked about the Parks and Trails recommendation. Parks and
Trails Commission Chair Anderson noted that the Wenck proposal aligned with the Parks and Trails
priorities.
MOTION: made by Thomas, second by Keefe to approve the Wenck Associates concept plan
proposal and proceed with phase one.
Council asked about the public input process. City Administrator Martens noted that the Parks and
Trails Commission would be working on the planning overall design such as trees, storm water
conveyance and natural landscapes and the residents would be involved in parts of the design
process.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
12. Closed Session
a. Consider an Offer for the Purchase of Real Estate – Easement Acquisition for Downtown
Utility and Street Improvement Project
Mayor Guenthner stated:
“The City Council is going into closed session to consider an offer for the purchase of real estate”
“Under the authority of Minn. Stat. § 13D.05 subd. 3(c)(3) the City is permitted to close a meeting to
consider offers and counter-offers for the purchase of real estate.
The city council is going into closed session to consider an offer for the purchase of real estate; the
following properties are the subject of the closed meeting:
20000 County Road 10.”
Councilor Thomas noted he would recues himself and not attend the closed session.
Mayor Guenthner recessed the regular meeting at 7:57pm.
Mayor Guenthner reconvened the regular meeting at 8:05pm.
Mayor Guenthner stated:
“In the closed session the city council discussed an offer for the purchase of real estate; no formal
action was taken.”
13. 2016 Council Schedule
Mayor Guenthner noted the upcoming schedule including the meeting on November 15th for
canvassing election results. City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise noted due to the
timing of the election the canvassing required a special meeting, at 6:45pm on November 15th.
Mayor Guenthner noted the two upcoming Monday meetings due to holidays. Councilmember
Keefe noted he was unable to attend the December 1st Planning Commission meeting and
Councilor Thomas and Mayor Guenthner noted that they would be able to attend.
14. Council Liaison Calendar
The Council liaison calendar was not reviewed, but was available in the Council Packet.
15. Adjournment
MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Hank to adjourn.
Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas
(Motion carried 5:0)
Meeting adjourned at 8:08pm.
________________________________
Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b.
Council Meeting:
November 10, 2016
Prepared By:
Jessica Beise
Topic:
Liability Coverage – Waiver
Action Required:
Approval
Summary:
The City is a member of the Minnesota League of Cities Insurance Trust and must
decide whether to waive the statutory tort requirements. By not waiving the limits, an
individual would not be able to recover more than $500,000 on claims which tort limits
apply. Waiving the limits would require extending the limits of liability coverage
obtained, and the City could pay more than $500,000 on claims which tort limits apply.
In the past several years the City’s policy decision has been to not waive the statutory
tort limits. The City Council may choose to review the policy to waive tort limits.
Financial/Budget:
Additional liability coverage would need to be purchased if the City were to waive
coverage.
Alignment with Values:
This item relates to the following adopted values:
EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES
We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver
quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds
is essential for citizen confidence in government.
Council Action:
Consider a motion to not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established
by Minn. Stat. 466.04 and authorize the Mayor to sign the liability coverage waiver form.
Attachments:
1. Liability Coverage – Waiver Form
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a.
Council Meeting:
November 10, 2016
Prepared By:
Brad Martens
Topic:
Commission Representatives
Action Required:
None – Informational
Summary:
The advisory commission representatives for the November 10th Council meeting are as
follows:
Planning Commission: Dorothy Theis
Parks and Trails Commission: Judy Strehler
Financial/Budget:
N/A
Alignment with Values:
This item relates to the following adopted values:
OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION
We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and
involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal
opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and
governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to
contribute.
Options:
N/A
Recommendation
N/A
Council Action:
N/A
Attachments:
N/A
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8b.
Council Meeting:
November 10, 2016
Prepared By:
Brad Martens
Topic:
2017 Proposed Tax Rate
Action Required:
None-informational
Summary:
On October 28th, Hennepin County released the proposed tax rate data for 2017 using
preliminary levy information. The information shows a lower than anticipated tax rate for
2017 projected at 46.399. The following tables show how the lower tax rate impacts
taxes at various property values.
Originally Projected Tax Effects - Residential
Market Value $76,000 $150,000 $285,000 $300,000 $450,000 $1,000,000
2016 City Tax $208.35 $576.89 $1,249.24 $1,323.94 $2,056.10 $4,569.10
2017 City
Tax* $223.49 $618.83 $1,340.04 $1,420.17 $2,205.54 $4,901.20
Difference $15.14 $41.93 $90.80 $96.23 $149.45 $332.10
Per month $1.26 $3.49 $7.57 $8.02 $12.45 $27.68
Updated Projected Tax Effects - Residential
Market Value $76,000 $150,000 $285,000 $300,000 $450,000 $1,000,000
2016 City Tax $208.35 $576.89 $1,249.24 $1,323.94 $2,056.10 $4,569.10
2017 City
Tax* $211.58 $585.83 $1,268.60 $1,344.46 $2,087.96 $4,639.90
Difference $3.23 $8.94 $19.36 $20.52 $31.86 $70.80
Per month $0.27 $0.74 $1.61 $1.71 $2.66 $5.90
Attached to this report are the rate cards produced by Hennepin County. In addition to
the lower Corcoran tax rate, the overall tax rate from all districts is actually lower than
2016. It should be noted that these rate cards do not reflect any changes due to
referendums which voters will decide upon.
Financial/Budget:
The updated tax rate directly affects taxes collected per property. The final rates will be
determined by the final levy and any voter approved referendums.
Page 2
Alignment with Values:
This item relates to the following adopted values:
EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES
We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver
quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds
is essential for citizen confidence in government.
Options:
N/A
Recommendation:
N/A
Council Action:
N/A
Attachments:
1. 2016 Final Tax Rates – Corcoran
2. 2017 Proposed Tax Rates - Corcoran
PAGE NO
HENNEPIN COUNTY
2015-2016 Final MUNIC
TAX RATES SCHOOL
AREA WIDE RATE 150.262%WTRSHD
SEWER
COMM, IND, UTILITY 48.641%
SEASONAL RES REC 21.167%CONT %
COUNTY
MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS
Revenue
Bonds & Interest
Municipality
Sewer District
SUBTOTAL (Munic/Sewer)
HRA
EDA
TOTAL MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Voter Approved - General NTC
Other - General NTC Gen Ed Levy
Other - General NTC
Other - Community Service
Voter Approved - General Debt Service
Other - General Debt Service
Other - OPEB/Pension
TOTAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
METRO TAXING DISTRICTS
Metro Mosquito Control
Metro Council Revenue
Metro Council B&I
Metro Council Right of Way
Metro Council Livable Communities
Metro Council Total
Metro Transit Debt
TOTAL METRO DISTRICTS
OTHER SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS
Hennepin Parks
Hennepin Parks B&I
Hennepin Parks Total
Park Museum
HC Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA)
Minneapolis Chapter 595
Hennepin HRA
Minneapolis Teachers Retrmnt Fund
Watershed
TOTAL OTHER SPEC DIST
TOTAL NTC BASED RATE
City Referendum Market Value (RMV)
School Voter Approved - RMV
School Other - RMV
TOTAL RMV BASED RATE
Solid Waste Fee - Taxable Market Value
STATE GENERAL RATE
22
CorcoranCorcoranCorcoranCorcoranCorcoranCorcoran
525252525252
279284877879879883
222022
000000000000
109110111112113114
38.8007%38.8007%38.8007%38.8007%38.8007%38.8007%
45.356%45.356%45.356%45.356%45.356%45.356%
40.279%40.279%40.279%40.279%40.279%40.279%
5.412%5.412%5.412%5.412%5.412%5.412%
45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%
45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%
45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%45.691%
3.465%4.684%
0.298%0.307%0.307%0.309%0.309%0.316%
9.585%8.810%9.333%6.998%6.998%5.735%
1.510%0.863%1.526%1.379%1.379%1.242%
8.632%9.941%17.177%37.403%37.403%33.881%
1.333%1.501%1.905%2.296%2.296%1.512%
1.444%4.241%2.679%
26.267%26.106%34.489%48.385%48.385%45.365%
0.483%0.483%0.483%0.483%0.483%0.483%
0.413%0.413%0.413%0.413%0.413%0.413%
0.188%0.188%0.188%0.188%0.188%0.188%
0.324%0.324%0.324%0.324%0.324%0.324%
0.925%0.925%0.925%0.925%0.925%0.925%
1.408%1.408%1.408%1.408%1.408%1.408%
2.439%2.439%2.439%2.439%2.439%2.439%
1.162%1.162%1.162%1.162%1.162%1.162%
3.601%3.601%3.601%3.601%3.601%3.601%
0.712%0.712%0.712%0.712%0.712%0.712%
1.879%1.879%1.879%1.879%1.879%1.879%
0.439%0.439%0.439%0.439%0.439%0.439%
0.216%0.216%0.216%0.216%0.216%
6.847%6.847%6.847%6.631%6.847%6.847%
125.569%125.408%133.791%147.471%147.687%144.667%
0.20337%0.15685%0.01134%0.10618%0.10618%
0.07483%0.05467%0.11465%0.11074%0.11074%0.14558%
0.27820%0.21152%0.12599%0.21692%0.21692%0.14558%
2016 Final Tax Rate Cards.xlsx 3:11 PM 2/29/2016
PAGE NO
HENNEPIN COUNTY
2016-2017 Proposed MUNIC
TAX RATES SCHOOL
AREA WIDE RATE 150.049%WTRSHD
SEWER
COMM, IND, UTILITY 47.000%
SEASONAL RES REC 21.000%CONT %
COUNTY
MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS
Revenue
Bonds & Interest
Municipality
Sewer District
SUBTOTAL (Munic/Sewer)
HRA
EDA
TOTAL MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Voter Approved - General NTC
Other - General NTC Gen Ed Levy
Other - General NTC
Other - Community Service
Voter Approved - General Debt Service
Other - General Debt Service
Other - OPEB/Pension
TOTAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
METRO TAXING DISTRICTS
Metro Mosquito Control
Metro Council Revenue
Metro Council B&I
Metro Council Right of Way
Metro Council Livable Communities
Metro Council Total
Metro Transit Debt
TOTAL METRO DISTRICTS
OTHER SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS
Hennepin Parks
Hennepin Parks B&I
Hennepin Parks Total
Park Museum
HC Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA)
Minneapolis Chapter 595
Hennepin HRA
Minneapolis Teachers Retrmnt Fund
Watershed
TOTAL OTHER SPEC DIST
TOTAL NTC BASED RATE
City Referendum Market Value (RMV)
School Voter Approved - RMV
School Other - RMV
TOTAL RMV BASED RATE
Solid Waste Fee - Taxable Market Value
STATE GENERAL RATE
22
CorcoranCorcoranCorcoranCorcoranCorcoranCorcoran
525252525252
279284877879879883
A A A 0 A A
000000000000
109110111112113114
37.7200%37.7200%37.7200%37.7200%37.7200%37.7200%
43.999%43.999%43.999%43.999%43.999%43.999%
40.339%40.339%40.339%40.339%40.339%40.339%
6.060%6.060%6.060%6.060%6.060%6.060%
46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%
46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%
46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%46.399%
3.449%4.638%
0.139%0.141%0.143%0.140%0.140%0.143%
10.856%14.479%8.647%7.966%7.966%5.530%
1.514%0.729%1.538%1.632%1.632%1.180%
7.745%3.675%16.712%32.111%32.111%36.152%
1.290%2.386%1.814%2.105%2.105%1.460%
1.778%3.986%
26.771%26.048%32.840%43.954%43.954%44.465%
0.474%0.474%0.474%0.474%0.474%0.474%
0.393%0.393%0.393%0.393%0.393%0.393%
0.178%0.178%0.178%0.178%0.178%0.178%
0.309%0.309%0.309%0.309%0.309%0.309%
0.880%0.880%0.880%0.880%0.880%0.880%
1.354%1.354%1.354%1.354%1.354%1.354%
2.332%2.332%2.332%2.332%2.332%2.332%
1.026%1.026%1.026%1.026%1.026%1.026%
3.358%3.358%3.358%3.358%3.358%3.358%
0.710%0.710%0.710%0.710%0.710%0.710%
1.921%1.921%1.921%1.921%1.921%1.921%
0.496%0.496%0.496%0.496%0.496%0.496%
0.400%0.400%0.400%0.400%0.400%
6.885%6.885%6.885%6.485%6.885%6.885%
125.408%124.685%131.477%142.191%142.591%143.102%
0.20681%0.14493%0.01139%0.07255%0.07255%
0.06839%0.04940%0.11173%0.14214%0.14214%0.13958%
0.27520%0.19433%0.12312%0.21469%0.21469%0.13958%
2017 Proposed Tax Rate Cards.xls 4:10 PM 10/24/2016
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a.
Council Meeting:
November 10, 2016
Prepared By:
Brad Martens
Topic:
Draft Assessment Policy
Action Required:
Direction
Summary:
Attached to this report is a draft assessment policy based upon feedback from work
sessions on August 11th and October 13th. Some areas have been highlighted for
specific discussion however the entire proposed policy should be discussed.
The document also includes assessment language for other future improvements
including water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater. While these improvements may not
take place for quite some time, staff believes having a starting point in place now will be
helpful.
It is requested that the City Council review and provide feedback to staff on proposed
changes to the document. Primary effort should be to review the street portion as that is
most pertinent.
Financial/Budget:
The assessment policy will guide how cost sharing will take place for proposed
improvements.
Alignment with Values:
This item relates to the following adopted values:
EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES
We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver
quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds
is essential for citizen confidence in government.
Options:
1. Provide staff direction on the draft assessment policy.
Recommendation:
Provide staff direction on the draft assessment policy.
Council Action:
Provide staff direction on the draft assessment policy.
Page 2
Attachments:
1. Draft Assessment Policy
Special Assessment Policy
Purpose:
The City's special assessment policies and procedures have been established to:
1. Provide a stable and continuing source of funding within the financial capacity
of the City, in combination with federal, state, county, and other local financial
resources available to the City, to accommodate infrastructure needs for new
development, redevelopment, and maintenance within the existing community
in the most cost-effective manner.
2. Balance needs and costs for new and existing infrastructure to support and
promote economic development and growth as well as maintenance within the
existing community by providing for the equitable distribution of infrastructure
costs to ensure that specific developments are financially self-supporting to the
extent warranted.
3. Provide a comprehensive, well-constructed and well-maintained infrastructure
system that services individual properties and takes advantage of economies on
a regional scale and flexibility in the timing of infrastructure development.
4. Respond to community needs and desires for health, safety, welfare;
accessibility, and mobility provided by new infrastructure and the maintenance
of existing infrastructure.
5. Function in harmony with the City's comprehensive plan and growth area
plans by providing the infrastructure and amenities associated with those plans
thereby promoting orderly growth in areas where services are available or can
be provided at the most reasonable cost.
6. Provide the City Council and staff with guidelines and methods to efficiently
distribute infrastructure costs to benefiting properties in an equitable and
consistent manner thereby enhancing the value of property by assigning a
proportionate value of the improvements to the properties deriving benefit
from the improvement.
General Policy Statement:
While the special assessment purposes, policies and procedures have been
identified herein, the City Council may deviate from this policy when such
rationale in equity arises or the law is required.
I. Policy Definitions:
A. Adjacent Property: A property directly adjacent to public improvements.
B. Access: Properties shall be considered to have access to public street
improvements when they may enter onto the improvement from their own
private driveway, private road, or public street, or when the street
classification would allow the property to be granted driveway access.
Properties shall be considered to have access to underground utility
improvements when they directly abut the property or may be available to
the property by utility or road easement/ROW, and the City has included the
property within a defined services area approved for immediate utility
service.
C. Accrued Interest (or Compounded Interest): Interest which is calculated not only on
the initial principal but also the accumulated interest of prior periods.
D. Adjusted Area: An area of a benefited property that has been modified by an
adjustment factor to more accurately represent the true benefit that property
receives from an improvement in comparison to other properties in the assessment
area. The adjustment will be based on the improvement design parameters that are
applicable to that parcel, as approved by the City Council. Design parameters that
may be used to determine the adjustment factor include, but are not limited to, trip
generation, storm water runoff coefficients, water or sanitary sewer use, needed
fire flow, and zoning or future land use.
E. Assessed Cost: Those costs of public improvements that have been determined to
benefit specific properties. The assessed cost will be equal to the project cost
minus the City cost. Project costs eligible for assessment include all costs
associated with the improvements, including, but not limited to, land acquisition,
demolition, construction, administration, engineering, legal, financing and other
costs as determined by the City Council. The financing charges include all costs of
financing the project. These costs include, but are not limited to, financial
consultant's fees, bond attorney's fees, and capitalized interest.
F. Assessable Footage: The assessable footage is the total front footage of all of the
benefiting properties, calculated by using the front footage method. (
G. Assessment Rate: The assessment rate for improvements other than streets is
determined by dividing the assessable cost of an improvement by the total number
of assessment units such as the total adjusted front footage or square footage,
acreage, number of lots, or number of parcels.
H. Assessment Unit: Front footage, area, or unit.
I. Benefit: The increase in property value as a result of a public improvement such as a
street, sidewalk, trail, curb and gutter, water main, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, park,
or street landscaping.
J. Deferment: A process of postponing the collection of the cost of public improvements
and funding them as a system cost with the intention of collecting the cost at a later
date.
K. Driveway Approach: That area which lies between the existing pavement to the right-
of- way line; curb cut to curb cut.
L. Front Footage: The distance measured along the right-of-way line that directly
abuts an improvement, not counting Side-Lot Footage.
M. Limited Access Street: A street, such as a major or minor collector street, which
because of its high volume of traffic has been designated by the City for
controlled access, meaning the number of access points to the street will be limited.
N. Lot Definitions:
1. Corner Lot: A lot located at a street intersection having both front
and side-lot footage.
2. Double Frontage Lot: A lot with access to two separate non-
intersecting or intersecting streets but not a corner lot.
3. Irregularly Shaped Lot: Those lots abutting curved streets, cul-de-
sacs, or other lots where there is more than five feet of difference in
length between the front and back lot lines.
4. Rectangular Lot: A lot with less than five feet of difference in length
between the front and back lot lines.
O. Public Improvement: Improvements as allowed by State statute that provide
a special benefit to properties, including but not limited to streets,
sidewalks, trails, curb, gutter, sanitary sewer systems, storm sewer systems,
water treatment and distribution systems.
P. Special Assessment: A legal process whereby the benefited property is
charged for all or a portion of the cost of public improvements.
Q. Standards for Surface Improvements: Standards for surface improvements
have been established in the City's Engineering Standards.
R. Street: All public ways designed as means of access to the adjoining
properties. Streets are classified into six groups and classified per a
Collector or Local street status in the City's Comprehensive Plan:
1. Local Gravel - examples include, but are not limited to, Hidden
Ponds Drive, Meadow Circle, Nystrom Lane, Rush Meadow Lane,
and Treeline Drive.
2. Collector Gravel - examples include, but are not limited to, Trail
Haven Road, Cain Road, Bechtold Road, Old Settlers Road, and
Willow Drive.
3. Rural Local Asphalt - examples include, but are not limited to,
Cates Longhorn Road, Abilene Lane, Butterworth Lane, Hunter
Road, and Dassel Lane.
4. Urban Local Asphalt - examples include, but are not limited to,
Bridle Path, Carriage Way, Prairie Sage Lane, and Sorrel Court.
5. Rural Collector Asphalt - examples include, Oakdale Drive.
6. Urban Collector Asphalt - examples include, Gleason Parkway.
S. Street Treatment Definitions:
1. Crack Seal and Seal Coat - Crack sealing involves patching and
sealing cracks in the roadway. This is followed by seal coating,
which involves spraying the road with oil and covering it with a
layer of small rock. Crack sealing and seal coating is generally
considered routine roadway maintenance. The recommended
interval is 6-8 years with first application about 7 years after new
roadway construction.
2. Mill and Overlay - Milling and overlaying consists of grinding off the upper
layer of asphalt (in urban sections) and replacing it with a new layer of
asphalt. This is generally done on roadways that have a fair amount of
cracking and other surface distress, usually at about 60% of the street's life
cycle. This is considered a structural improvement that will renew the street
surface and extend its useful life.
3. Rehabilitate - Rehabilitating a roadway consists of grinding up the existing
asphalt and mixing it with a portion of the underlying gravel base (typically
4"- 8"). This combination of bituminous and gravel is then used as the new
road base, and a new asphalt surface is paved over this. This is generally
done on roadways that have a significant amount of distress. This can be a
good alternative to reconstructing a road if the existing road base appears to
be structurally sufficient.
4. Reconstruct - Reconstructing a roadway consists of completely removing
the existing road and underlying gravel and sand base material, and
constructing a new road section. This may also include correcting any poor
base material beneath the section, or updating the road to meet design
standards such as width and drainage. This is often done in conjunction with
utility repairs/replacement. Generally done on roadways that exhibit signs of
major distress, such as rutting, cracking, and potholes.
T. System Cost: That portion of the assessable cost that benefits properties whose
assessments are deferred because they qualify for green acres status, are located outside
of the City limits, or are unable to make use of the improvements due to factors beyond
their control. The City may reimburse itself for such system costs from the benefitting
properties when the basis for the deferral is no longer valid.
U. Unit: A unit may include, but is not limited to: a household; a parcel/lot; water or
sewer main length and size; sidewalk or trail length, width and depth; driveway
approach length, width and depth.
II. Policy Implementation and Procedures:
A. Assessment Classification
The assessment process shall address the feasibility of physical construction and also the
affordability of the improvements. In meeting these responsibilities, a classification system is
established below for public improvement projects based on the design capacity and the level of
use. Cost apportionment is based on the extent of use of the improvement by the benefiting
property owners and City policies for street paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk construction shall
be used as a basic guide. The classification system groups improvements into the three categories:
• Type I improvements consist of projects that are mostly of benefit to the abutting properties and
include local streets, curb, gutter, water and sewer services, and driveway improvements. Street
construction, sidewalk, paving, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water mains may be Type I if
solely designed to serve the abutting properties.
• Type II improvements consist of projects that benefit a larger, yet definable, area. Street
construction, sidewalk, paving, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water mains may also be Type II
if the improvement benefits a larger area. Collector streets, which are likely to be used by a broader
segment of the public, should be proportionately assessed to a larger area.
• Type III improvements consist of large-scale projects of benefit to the entire City regardless of
location. The criteria for designation of any improvement as Type III are facilities that serve areas
larger than a definable neighborhood or those areas separated by major identifiable barriers, such as
a creeks, collector streets, or county roads. Typically, Type III improvements are financed through
a combination of Federal and State appropriations and available City funds; however, special
assessments may be needed to fully fund the project.
If financial assistance is received by the City from the Federal Government, from the State of
Minnesota, the County, or from any other source to defray a portion of the costs of a given
improvement, such aid will be used first to reduce the "City cost" of the improvement. If the financial
assistance received is greater than the normal "City cost", the remainder of the aid will be applied
according to the terms of the assistance program or at the Council's discretion.
The assessment classifications are listed in Table 1 below. The City Council may from time to time
adjust the classification of improvements to maintain the equitability of the assessment cost.
Table 1. Assessment Classification
Type I Improvements Type II Improvements Type III Improvements
Curb & Gutter
Trunk Sanitary Sewers
(greater than 8" diameter)
Bridges
Sidewalks and trails, 5 feet or
less
Trunk Water Main (greater
than 8" diameter) and
Looped Water Main
Community Facilities
Library
Law Enforcement
Fire Station Sanitary Sewer Laterals (less
than or equal to 8" diameter)
Collector Streets
Water Main (less than or
equal to 8" diameter)
Sidewalks and trails, greater
than 5 feet Community Parks
Sewer & Water Services Storm Drainage
Improvements
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Local Streets/Alleys Pumping Stations Water Tower
Storm Drainage
Improvements
Water Treatment Plant
Other improvements mandated or authorized by law
B. Methods of Assessment
The City shall use the following methods in determining assessments for public
improvements.
1. Front Footage Method
This method computes the assessable frontage for the project and for each property. The
assessment rate is obtained by dividing the total assessable cost by the assessable footage
in an assessment district. The assessment for each parcel is then obtained by multiplying
the assessment rate times the front footage for each property. Front footage is determined
as follows:
a. For rectangular lots, the front footage shall be the same as the front footage at the
right-of-way.
b. For irregularly shaped lots, the front footage will typically be calculated as the width of
the lot as defined in the City's zoning ordinance, although other methods may be used
at the City's discretion (such as average lot width) if they are determined to be more
equitable.
c. For all corner lots, street assessments, regardless of the orientation of the house, shall
be based on one-half of the footage of the road being improved.
d. For a rectangular corner lot, water and sewer assessments, regardless of the orientation
of the house, the short side of the lot shall be considered to be the "frontage".
e. Double frontage lots may be assessed for any street improvement that it has direct
access to, if the lot is of such size that it could be split into multiple buildable lots. The
front footage for each improvement will be determined in accordance with the above-
described policies, whichever is appropriate.
2. Area Method
This method computes cost on a square foot or acreage basis. The assessment rate is
determined by dividing the total assessable cost by the total benefiting area. A parcel's
assessment is then determined by multiplying the assessment rate times the benefiting area
of the parcel. When the benefiting area includes both platted and un- platted properties, the
gross benefiting area will be used to apportion the benefit among the properties. An
adjustment factor reflecting land use may be applied to a parcel's benefiting area in some
cases. For example, for storm sewer design, the assumed rate of runoff per acre from a
commercial lot is greater than the runoff rate from a residential lot. If all uses are the same
in a project area (single family, multi- family, commercial, or industrial), the assessment
rate is the same for all. Where there is variation in residential density or uses, the
assessment rate may be adjusted to reflect the corresponding differences in benefit.
The assessable area shall include all properties legally eligible for assessments. The
following items may not be included in area calculations: public right-of-ways, natural
waterways, lakes or other wetlands.
3. Unit Method
This method computes the costs on the basis of individual assessment units. For example,
sewer and water services, sidewalks, trails, and driveway approaches are typically
considered separate individual units. The total project cost is divided by the total number
of assessment units to calculate the fixed cost. Assessment units could be determined on a
per lot or per unit basis, or any combination thereof. For lots that may be further
subdivided, the City may determine the number of assessable units based on the number of
equivalent lots that could be created from a particular parcel.
4. Combination Method
This method involves using one or more of the above defined methods to more equitably
calculate assessments. The combination method may be considered when there is varying
land use, undeveloped properties available for future development, or other circumst ances
involving the defined public improvement that may provide assessment inequities.
C. Determination of Assessable Costs, Rate and Term
1. Water System
a. Water Mains: The assessable cost for installing new water main improvements shall be
based on the level of service required by the property. In residential areas, 100% of the
cost of installing water main that is 8 -inches in diameter or less shall be assessed to the
benefiting properties, and up to 50% for reconstruction, see chart below. In
commercial areas, 100% of the cost of installing new water main and 50% of the cost
of reconstruction will be assessed, based on current design standards.
The cost of over sizing the water main for general distribution purposes shall not be
assessed. Where larger diameter water mains are required to serve commercial,
industrial or institutional properties, the increased cost of water main installation shall
be assessed to those properties. Where improvements are designed to serve an area
beyond that of direct benefit, the City may postpone the assessment and fund the
increased project cost as a system cost. The system cost shall be assessed to the newly
developing area as a system charge together with direct benefits for other services.
Reconstruction Assessments
Years After First
Assessment Levied1
City Share2
Assessed Share2
0-20 years 100% 0%
20-40 years 75% 25%
Over 40 years 50% 50%
1First assessment refers to the original assessment for properties developed or platted at or before the time the
improvement is constructed, or to the deferred assessment for properties developed or platted after the improvement
is constructed.
2Percentage based on project construction cost. The assesse d share of the project cost, as listed in the above table,
will be apportioned against the benefiting properties . The City Engineer will use standard procedures to determine the
benefiting property for each specific project.
b. Water Services: The assessable cost for the construction or replacement of water
services shall be 100% of the project cost. The unit cost method will be used to
calculate the assessment.
2. Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary Sewer Assessments shall be based on engineering design standards. The
assessable cost for installing sanitary sewer improvements shall be based on the type
of service required by the property. In residential areas, 100% of the cost of installing
new sanitary sewer that is 8-inches in diameter; and up to 50% for reconstruction,
shall be assessed to the abutting properties.
Where larger diameter sanitary sewers are required to serve commercial, industrial or
institutional properties, the increased cost of installation shall be assessed to those
properties. Where improvements are designed to serve an area beyond that of direct
benefit, the City may defer that portion of the assessment and fund it as a system cost.
a. Sanitary Sewer Assessment Formula: Assessments to be levied against properties
within the benefited area shall be distributed to those properties on the basis of the
following provisions:
1. Assessment Rate: The assessment rate shall be equal to the "assessable cost" of the
improvement divided by the total number of assessable units benefited by the
improvement. Projects having an uneven distribution of benefits may be subdivided
into separate improvements using multiple assessment methods and rates to more
equitably apportion the assessments.
2. Assessable Units: The assessable units shall be determined as follows:
i. Lateral Sewers. The assessment method shall be the "unit method",
unless otherwise specified by the Council.
ii. Trunk Sewer and Lift Station. Trunk fees shall be charged as outlined in
City Code, Chapter 51: Regulating Public Sanitary Sewer and Water
Within the City of Corcoran.
iii. Sewer Services. The assessable cost for the construction or replacement
of sewer service lines shall be 100% of the project cost. The assessment
shall be based on the number of sewer services installed for each
individual property. This is the unit cost method of assessment.
3. Assessment Formula for Replacement: The following table shows the cost split for
replacement of sanitary sewers (trunk sewers, lateral sewers, and lift stations), if
they are to be assessed.
Reconstruction Assessments
Years After First
Assessment Levied1
City Share2
Assessed Share2
0-20 years 100% 0%
20-40 years 75% 25%
Over 40 years 50% 50%
1First assessment refers to the original assessment for properties developed or platted at or before the time the
improvement is constructed, or to the deferred assessment for properties developed or platted after the improvement
is constructed.
2Percentage based on project construction cost. The assessed share of the project cost, as listed in the above table,
will be apportioned against the benefiting properties. The City Engineer will use standard procedures to determine the
benefiting property for each specific project.
4. Length of Assessment: The assessment period for sanitary sewer improvements,
including new construction and replacement projects, is a maximum of twenty
years.
3. Storm Sewer
Storm sewer improvements shall be classified to include all storm sewer, storm sewer
pumping stations, culverts, ditches, rain gardens, swales, street grading and any other
improvement, which will facilitate drainage. The assessment for the construction of storm
drainage improvements shall be based on the level of service required by the property.
a. Storm Sewer Assessment Formula: Assessments to be levied against properties within
the benefited area shall be distributed to those properties on the basis of the following
provisions:
1. Assessment Rate: The assessment rate shall be equal to the assessable cost of the
improvement divided by the total number of assessable units benefited by the
improvement. Projects having an uneven distribution of benefits may be
subdivided into separate improvements using multiple assessment methods and
rates to more equitably apportion the assessments.
2. Assessable Units: The assessable unit, unless otherwise specified by the Council,
shall be the gross area or adjusted area of the benefited properties, both present and
future, as determined in the project design.
3. Assessable Cost: The assessable cost shall be 100% of the total project cost for
new or expanded storm drainage improvements, and up to 50% for reconstruction,
based on the chart below.
Reconstruction Assessments
Years After First
Assessment Levied1
City Share2
Assessed Share2
0-20 years 100% 0%
20-40 years 75% 25%
Over 40 years 50% 50%
1First assessment refers to the original assessment for properties developed or platted at or before the time the
improvement is constructed, or to the deferred assessment for properties developed or platted after the improvement
is constructed.
2Percentage based on project construction cost. The assessed share of the project cost, as listed in the above table,
will be apportioned against the benefiting properties . The City Engineer will use standard procedures to determine the
benefiting property for each specific project.
4. Assessment Formula for Replacement: The cost split for replacement of storm
sewers, lift stations, and miscellaneous drainage improvements, if they are to be
assessed, will be assessed in the same manner as sanitary sewer replacement as
shown above.
5. Length of Assessment: The assessment period for storm sewers, lift stations, and
miscellaneous drainage improvements is a maximum of twenty years.
4. New Street Construction
The City's general policy and practice is to require new residential street construction
during land use development applications to be constructed to City standards by the
developer/applicant with no special assessments or public bonding support.
5. Street Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Mill and Overlays
a. Reconstruction and Rehabilitation - The assessable cost of street reconstruction and
street rehabilitation projects shall be determined by the benefit to properties affected by
the project determined through a letter of benefit or similar from a licensed appraiser.
The assessment shall be 90 percent of the median value of the benefit. For example, if
the benefit for a direct access property was valued from $12,000-$15,000 per unit, the
assessment would be $12,150 ($13,500 x .9 = $12,150). If the benefit for an indirect
access property was $3,000-$5,000 per unit, the assessment would be $3,600 ($4,000 x
.9 = $3,600). The method of assessment shall be based on per unit. The remaining cost
shall be a City cost.
1. For properties with access to the street receiving a reconstruction or rehabilitation,
each existing unused development right and newly created development right
resulting from the project will be assessed an amount equal to the assessment of a
direct access property.
2. Landowners receiving assessments for existing unused development rights and
newly created development rights may of the option of paying the entire
assessment in one lump sum or through deferral until time of plat. During the
period of deferral, the City will add the Accrued Interest to the principal.
Assessments will be filed with the County Recorder.
b. Mill and Overlays - The assessable cost of overlays and mill and overlays shall be
determined by the benefit to properties affected by the project determined through a
letter of benefit or similar from a licensed appraiser. The assessment shall be 90
percent of the median value of the benefit. For example, if the benefit was valued from
$1,500-$2,500 per unit, the assessment would be $1,800. The method of assessment
shall be based on per unit. The remaining cost shall be a City cost.
1. Exception: The City has completing initial overlays on roads without assessments,
the following roads will receive one overlay without an assessment in order to
complete the existing program: Bluestem Trail, Cates Longhorn Road, Chisolm
Trail, Country Circle, Country Road, Hage Drive, Heather lane, High Bluff Lane,
Hunters Ridge, Jackie Lane, Jubert Lane, Julie Ann Drive, Larkin Road, Maple
Hill Road, Meadow Creek Drive, Mohawk Road, Oswald Farm Road, Pioneer
Trail, Robert Lane, Rolling Hills Road, Rush Creek Drive, Schutte Farm Road,
Sunnyhill Road, Sunset Lane, and Windmill Drive.
c. Length of Assessment - The assessment period for street improvements is a
maximum of twenty years.
6. SIDEWALK
The front footage or unit cost method shall be the basis for assessment. The assessable
cost for sidewalk improvements shall be 100% for both new construction and
reconstruction up to 5 feet. Sidewalk maintenance and rehabilitation shall be repaired
or replaced to the original standard and is the responsibility of the abutting property
owner.
7. DRIVEWAY APPROACHES
The assessable cost for driveway approaches, both new and reconstructed, shall be 100%.
Assessments to be levied against properties within the benefited area shall be distributed
to those properties on the basis of the following provisions:
a. Assessment Rate: The assessment rate for each individual property shall be equal to
the assessable cost of the project divided by the total number of assessable units
benefited by the improvement.
b. Assessable Units: The assessable unit, unless otherwise specified by the Council, shall
be calculated using the area method of the benefited properties. The size and design
standard of individual driveways determines the assessment for that property.
c. Assessable Cost: The assessable cost shall be determined in accordance with Section II
B of this policy.
d. Length of Assessment: The assessment period for driveways is a maximum of twenty
years.
D. Deferred Assessments for Green Acres
In cases where improvement projects are determined to benefit properties that have been
certified to qualify for Green Acres exemption, the City will determine that portion of the
project cost that benefits those properties, and finance that portion of the project cost as a
system cost. Landowners of benefiting properties may have the option of paying the entire
assessment in one lump sum or through deferral as allowed by Minnesota Green Acres
statutes. During the period of deferral, the City will add the Accrued Interest to the principal.
Once the benefiting properties no longer qualify for Green Acres status, the City may recover
the system cost. Assessments against Green Acres Parcels will be filed with the County
Recorder.
E. Determination of Assessment Rate and Terms
1. Interest Rate on Assessments: The City will charge interest on special assessments at a rate
specified in the resolution approving the assessment roll. If bonds were sold to finance the
improvement project, the interest rate shall generally be one percent (1.0%) more than the
average rate of the bonds, rounded to the nearest quarter of a percent. If no bonds were
sold, the interest rate shall be set using the same formula based on the current bond market.
2. Length of Assessment: The assessment period for all improvements is subject to the
requirements of the bond market at the time of project financing and thus may vary in
length from the time periods proposed.
F. Undeveloped Property
The City shall require the developer, owner or sub-divider of any property within the City's
corporate limits desiring to install street, curb and gutter, sidewalk, sanitary sewer or water
main improvements to follow the City's subdivision ordinance, in addition to the following:
1. Upon written request by a developer, the City Council shall give consideration to the
preparation of a feasibility report to determine the feasibility of construction for the
desired improvements. The developer will prepare a plan and other such information, as
the Council requires, prior to the Council making a decision on the request.
2. The developer and/or the property owner are required to sign a Developer's Agreement
and Petition and Waiver Agreement prior to awarding a contract.
3. At the completion of an improvement, all improvement costs will be recorded or certified
to the County per the Developer's Agreement
G. Petitioned Improvement Proiects
The City will consider petitioned improvement projects. However, the need for specific
projects shall be determined based on engineering standards (e.g. the existing condition
represents a physical or structural hazard, or is no longer cost-effective to maintain, etc.) as
determined by the City Public Works Superintendent and City Engineer and approved by the
City Council. Petitioned projects may be rejected by the City if it is determined that they are
not necessary. The City Council has the authority to initiate non-petitioned improvement
projects, if it is felt the improvements are in the best interest or safety of the citizens.
Special Assessment Procedures
Purpose:
This procedure is for internal purposes to summarize statutory and administrative requirements
with respect to special assessments. Changes occur statutorily on an annual basis and
administratively through Council direction and administrative review on an on -going basis.
Verification of any changes needs to occur prior to utilizing this document as those changes may
supersede the contents of this document at the time of approval.
Procedure:
I. Initiation of Proceedings
Either a petition from affected property owners or the Council initiates Minnesota State
Statute chapter 429 proceedings.
A. By Petition: If the Council chooses to proceed with an improvement based on a
petition it must have the signatures of the owners of at least 35 percent in frontage of
the property bordering the proposed improvements. In some cases, for example buried
utility lines, 100 percent of the landowners must petition for an improvement. If the
Council relies upon the petition as its basis for proceeding, it cannot make a
substantial change in the nature of the improvement from that asked for in the petition.
The Council must pass and publish a resolution determining whether the petition is
legally sufficient or not. Any person directly affected by the resolution may challenge
the Council's determination in district court. The appeal must be made within 30 days
and include a bond of $250.
B. By Council: The Council may act on its own initiative in proposing a local
improvement and ordering a feasibility report. The Council must calculate the cost of
the improvement or direct staff to do so.
II. Feasibility Report
Whether initiated by petition or by Council, Chapter 429 requires that the city
engineer, or another person with similar skills, prepare a feasibility report. The
feasibility report must cover such factors as whether the project is necessary, the
availability of money in the general fund to pay the city's share of the cost, an estimate
of that cost, whether the improvement is cost effective, and any other information
necessary for Council consideration. The feasibility report must also include the
estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Since a reasonable estimate of
the total amount to be assessed and a description of the methodology used to calculate
individual assessments for affected parcels must be available at the hearing it could be
part of the commissioned report. The feasibility report is integral to the assessment
process. Best practice suggests that the City Council pass a resolution receiving the
report and provide preliminary notice of the improvement.
Ill. Initial Considerations
The law requires two public hearings commonly known as an improvement hearing and
an assessment hearing; in between these two public hearings Council may order the
improvement, decide how to construct the project and tabulate an assessment roll.
A. Determining Benefit Districts: Determining what area benefits from improvement
projects, or the area against which the City will levy assessments, is a major policy
decision for the City Council. The benefit district varies with the kind of improvement.
For some improvements, such as a water tank, the area benefited might be very large. In
levying an assessment to finance the tank's construction the Council might assess the
entire area the tank services. The special benefit test still applies. City staff, consulting
engineers and attorneys may provide the basis for Council to determine what area or
district to assess for a specific improvement because that area benefits from the
improvement.
B. City's Share: At any time before or after the City actually incurs expenses for the
improvement, the Council must pass a resolution determining how much the City plans to
pay and separate that from amounts to be assessed. Best practices suggest the Council
work with an appraiser and an attorney to determine the appropriate City share of a
particular project. The City has adopted a policy to address the methodology of the
assessment calculations.
C. Non-abutting Property: The Council may wish to levy assessments against adjacent, non-
abutting properties if the properties benefit from the improvement.
D. Service Laterals: City utility ordinance requires that property owners maintain private
water and sewer service laterals. When an improvement project requires new service
laterals the City may require that property owner to install or replace them.
E. May Omit Improvement Hearing: The Council may omit the improvement hearing if 100
percent of the affected landowners sign the petition requesting the improvement. If the
landowners are not paying 100% of the project costs the City will consider holding both
public hearings.
F. Two or More Simultaneous Local Improvements: When the City proposes undertaking
two or more local improvements simultaneously the City does not need to issue separate
notices and hold separate improvement hearings on different dates. The notice will
describe each improvement separately, stating the estimated cost for each one and noting
that there will be a separate hearing, even if held one after the other on each improvement.
IV. Prepare for the Improvement Hearing
The purpose of the first hearing is for the Council to discuss a specific local improvement
before ordering it done. The Council considers all the information in the feasibility report
and any other information necessary for Council deliberation.
A. Publish Notice of the Improvement Hearing: The City must publish notice of the initial
public hearing on the proposed project twice in the official newspaper, stating the time and
place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, and the
area proposed to be assessed. The notices must appear at least one week apart. At least
three days must elapse between the last publication date and the date of the hearing.
B. Mail Notice of the Improvement Hearing: The City must mail a notice once to each
property owner in the proposed assessment area, at least 10 days prior to the improvement
hearing that states the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the
improvement, the estimated cost and the proposed assessment area. The notice must also
contain a statement that a reasonable estimate of the cost of the assessment will be
available at the hearing. The City will diligently make every effort to notify citizens about
assessment proceedings. According to statute, failure to give mailed notice of the
improvement hearing will not invalidate subsequent assessment proceedings. Notice to
other governmental entities must be sent out at least two weeks before the improvement
hearing, by registered or certified mail to the head of the instrumentality, department or
agency having jurisdiction over the property.
V. Improvement Hearing
At the improvement hearing, interested persons may voice their concerns, whether or not
they are in the proposed assessment area. A reasonable estimate of the total amount to be
assessed and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for
affected parcels must be available at the hearing. If the Council rejects the project, it may
not reconsider that same project unless another hearing is held following the required
notice. The Council must prepare a record of the proceedings and make written findings.
The Council may adjourn and subsequently continue the improvement hearing. To provide
proper notice, before the improvement hearing is adjourned, the Council must state on
record, the date, time and place of the continuation of the improvement hearing, if any.
VI. Ordering the Improvement
A resolution ordering the improvement may be adopted at any time within six months after
the date of the improvement hearing.
A. Vote Requirements for Ordering the Improvement: If the improvement is made pursuant to
a legally sufficient petition from property owners, the Council adopts the resolution by a
simple majority vote of all members of the Council. If there is not a petition, adoption
requires a 'super-majority' vote, meaning the council can only adopt the resolution by a
four-fifths vote of all members of the Council.
B. Time Limits for Local Improvements: The resolution ordering the improvement may be
adopted at any time within six months after the date of the improvement hearing. Either
arrangements for day labor or a contract must be made within one year of adopting the
resolution ordering the improvement, unless the Council specifically states a different
timeframe in the resolution ordering the improvement.
VII. Competitive Bidding
The law permits the Council to carry out, in advance of the assessment hearing , all
the steps prior to, but short of, actually issuing of a contract for the improvement.
Thus, if the Council wishes to provide firm estimates of costs at the hearing, it may,
in addition to the required preliminary report, prepare completed plans and
specifications, advertise for bids, and open and tabulate them before the assessment
hearing.
Once the Council orders a public improvement, staff or consultants prepare the
necessary plans and specifications and the Council either:
• Contracts for all or part of the work to be performed by outside parties, or
• Orders all or part of the work to be done by city staff and contracts for any
necessary materials and equipment.
In either case, contracting law applies. The City Attorney should coordinate the
contracting process in combination with the special assessment process.
VIII. Prepare the Proposed Assessment Rolls
The City Clerk, with the assistance of the engineer or other staff prepares the proposed
assessment rolls. The proposed assessment cannot exceed the increase in market value
accruing to the property as a result of the public improvement project.
Road Assessment Calculations Components:
A. Future Lots within the Combined Method Calculation: The maximum potential parcels
are calculated with the current zoning.
B. Cemeteries: A cemetery cannot be assessed in accordance with State Statute.
C. Right of Way: Parcels that are entirely right of ways will not be assessed.
D. Rounding: Calculation of assessment will need to be adjusted due to rounding.
Practice is that $.01 per parcel will be adjusted either positively or negatively
beginning with the last parcel listed.
IX. Prepare for the Assessment Hearing
The purpose of the second hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to express
concerns about the actual special assessment. The Council will pass a resolution setting the
date and time of the assessment hearing and direct the City Clerk to publish and mail
notice about the assessment hearing.
A. Publish Notice of the Assessment Hearing: At least once and at least two weeks before the
assessment hearing, the City must publish notice of the hearing in the city newspaper. The
published notice must include the hearing time, date, place, overall project description,
area to be assessed, total cost of the improvement, a description of a landowner's right to
appeal the assessment, and any deferment options, if available.
B. Mail Notice of the Assessment Hearing: At least two weeks before the hearing the City
must mail notice of the hearing to each affected property owner. This mailed notice must
include the amount of the special assessment against the individual parcels,a description of
the landowner's right to appeal the assessment, possible prepayment provisions, and the
interest rate on the assessments. Failure to comply with the requirements for published
and mailed notice invalidates the assessments. The Clerk will execute an affidavit
attesting to the mailing to property owners.
X. Assessment Hearing
The assessment hearing may be adjourned and continued to another time. If the assessment
hearing is adjourned proper notice stating for the record, the date, time and place of the
continuation of the hearing.
A. Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll: At the assessment hearing the Council shall hear
and consider all objections to the proposed assessment, whether presented orally or in
writing. The Council may change or amend the proposed assessment as to any parcel.
Council must by resolution adopt the special assessment against the lands named in the
assessment roll. Once the assessment roll is adopted the assessments are set and become
liens against the properties listed. The Council must prepare a record of the proceedings
and written findings as to the amount of the assessment roll at this hearing.
B. Council Decides Interest of Special Assessments: Special assessments may bear
interest at any rate the Council determines. In setting the rate the Council should make
sure there is a reasonable relationship between the assessment interest rate and the
bond interest rate if the City is issuing bonds to finance the project. If the c ity finances
the project with funds on hand without using bonds, the Council will want to look at the
interest rate the City would otherwise have eared on the funds.
C. Council Decides Payment Timelines: The Council must also decide the number of years
over which the property owners may pay the assessment. The statutes permit payment
over a period of not more than 30 years.
XI. Sending of Final Notice
The law does not require that the City send final notice of assessment to property owners
if the amount assessed is the same as that listed in the previously mailed assessment
hearing notice. The City chooses to notify property owners of all final assessment
amounts whether they differ from the proposed assessment or not. Staff will also notify
owners by mail the interest rates and prepayment requirements as stated in the proposed
assessment notice.
XII. Certification of Special Assessment Rolls
The City Clerk must certify the assessment rolls to the County Auditor by November
30. The Assessment Rolls need to be accompanied by Council Resolution, certificate with
the city seal signed by the City Clerk and a rate card. The County also requests a CD of
the assessment rolls. The County Auditor spreads the assessment every year for collection
with taxes.
XIII. Payment of Assessments and Interest
Property owners initially have two options regarding their assessment. They can either pay
the total amount of their assessment immediately, or pay the assessments in annual
installments with interest under the terms set by the Council.
The property owner can:
• Pay the entire amount of the assessment within 30 days after the Council adopts
the assessment rolls with no interest.
• Pay the entire amount any time after 30 days, but before any certification has been
made to the County Auditor with interest accrued to the date of payment.
• Any time after the certification the property owner may still pay the entire
remaining unpaid amount to the City. The property owner must pay the entire
remaining unpaid amount of the assessment before November 15 of any year and
must also pay all interest accrued until the end of that calendar year.
If the property owner elects not to pay the entire amount of the assessment at once, they
may pay it in annual installments spread over the number of years the Council has allowed
including interest calculated at the rate established by the Council.
XIV. Postponed Assessments
Postponing assessments may occur at Councils discretion for situations when the City pays
the cost of the improvement but delays assessing it. Examples of situations would be:
• Property is unplatted and undeveloped; the owner will subdivide or otherwise make
it available for building sites in the future.
• The City cannot immediately use a trunk main because of various reasons.
XV. Deferred Assessments
Deferred assessments are certified to the County Auditor but collection is deferred. All
deferred assessments constitute liens on the property and must be paid within 30 years of
the assessment levy. Property owners may request deferment provided the property owner
or the property meets certain criteria. The three types of authorized deferrals are 1)
undeveloped property, 2) senior citizen and disability deferral, and 3) green acre deferr al.
Interest on the assessments discussed subsequently, may be paid or deferred. If interest is
deferred with the assessment it will be computed on a compounding basis .
A. Notice of Deferred Assessments: The City will record deferred special assessments with
the County Auditor. The certificate of the deferred assessment will contain the type of
deferral.
B. Interest on Deferred Assessments: Property owners may pay interest either annually during
the period of deferment, or when the assessment becomes payable. If interest is deferred
with the assessment it will be computed on a compounded basis.
C. Reminder of Deferment: The City will annually notify property owners of their deferred
assessment and will compute the compounded interest for that given year. The letter is
generated as a courtesy and failure to send such letter does not invalidate the computation
at a later date.
{
STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11a.
Council Meeting:
November 10, 2016
Prepared By:
Brad Martens
Topic:
City Administrator Performance Evaluation
Distribution
Action Required:
Accept and complete
Summary:
Annually in December, the City Council evaluates the performance of the City
Administrator. According to the terms of the employment agreement “An adjustment in
annual salary for the City Administrator shall be considered at the time performance
reviews are given by the Council provided a satisfactory performance evaluation is
received.”
Attached to this report is the evaluation form for the City Administrator. It is requested
that Councilmembers complete the form and forward to City Clerk/Administrative
Services Coordinator Jessica Beise no later than Monday, November 28th. A closed
session will be scheduled for the December 8, 2016 City Council meeting for the formal
evaluation to take place.
Financial/Budget:
Unless directed otherwise, the City Administrator will receive the same cost of living
increase as other employees effective January 1, 2017.
Alignment with Values:
This item relates to the following adopted values:
EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES
We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver
quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds
is essential for citizen confidence in government.
PROFESSIONALISM
We believe that continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism and are
committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and the development
of our employees.
Options:
1. Accept the performance evaluation form and complete as requested.
2. Discuss a different method to complete the evaluation.
Page 2
Recommendation:
Accept the performance evaluation form and complete as requested.
Council Action:
Accept the performance evaluation form and complete as requested.
Attachments:
1. 2016 Performance Evaluation – City Administrator
Page 1 of 7
CITY OF CORCORAN
Performance Evaluation
Brad Martens, City Administrator
Evaluation period: 2016
Each City Council member should complete th is evaluation form, sign it in the space
below, and return it to Jessica Beise at City Hall. The deadline for submitting this
performance evaluation is November 28, 2016. Evaluations will be summarized and
included on the agenda for discussion at the December 8, 2016 meeting in closed
session.
Council Member’s Signature
Date Subm itted
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
Initials Page 2 of 7
INSTRUCTIONS
This evaluation form contains ten categories of evaluation criteria. Each category
contains a statement to describe a behavior standard in that category. For each
statement, use the following scale to indicate your rating of the city
administrator’s performance.
5 = Excellent (almost always exceeds the performance standard)
4 = Above a verage (generally exceeds the performance standard)
3 = Average (generally meets the performance standard)
2 = Below average (usually does not meet the performance standard)
1 = Poor (rarely meets the performance standard)
If you choose to not rate a particular statement, please describe why you did so in the
margin next to that statement. At the bottom of each a category you are asked to
divide the sub-total of the category by five to get an average score. If you leave a
statement blank, please adjust the number to divide by accordingly.
This evaluation f orm also contains a provision for entering narrative comments,
including an opportunity to enter responses to specific questions and an opportunity to
list any comments you believe appropriate and pertinent to the rating period. Please
write legibly.
Leave all pages of this evaluation form attached. Initial each page. Sign and date the
cover page. On the date space of the cover page, enter the date the evaluation form
was submitted. All evaluations presented prior to the deadline identified on the cover
page will be summarized into a performance evaluation to be presented by the
governing body to the City Administrator as part of the agenda for the meeting
indicated on the cover page.
PERFORMANCE C ATEGORY SCORING
1. INDIVIDUAL CH AR ACTERISTICS
Diligent and thorough in the discharge of duties, “self-starter”
Exercises good judgment
Displays enthusiasm, cooperation, and will to adapt
Mental and physical stamina appropriate for the position
Exhibits composure, appearance, and attitude appropriate for executive position
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
Initials Page 3 of 7
2. PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND ST ATUS
Maintains knowledge of current developments affecting the practice of local government
management
Demonstrates a capacity f or innovation and creativity
Anticipates and analyzes problems to develop effective approaches for solving them
W illing to try new ideas proposed by governing body members and/or staff
Sets a professional example by handling affairs of the public office in a fair and impartial
manner
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
3. RELATIONS WITH ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
Carries out directives of the body as a whole as opposed to those of any one member or
minority group
Sets meeting agendas that ref lect the guidance of the governing body and avoids
unnecessary involvement in administrative actions
Disseminates complete and accurate inf ormation equally to all members in a timely
manner
Assists by facilitating decision making without usurping authority
Responds well to requests, advice, and constructive criticism
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
4. POLICY EXECUTION
Implements governing body actions in accordance with the intent of council
Supports the actions of the governing body after a decision has been reached, both
inside and outside the organization
Understands, supports, and enforces local government’s laws, policies, and ordinances
Reviews ordinance and policy procedures periodically to suggest improvements to their
effectiveness
Offers workable alternatives to the governing body for changes in law or policy when an
existing policy or ordinance is no longer practical
Initials Page 4 of 7
5. REPORTING
Provides regular information and reports to the governing body concerning matters of
importance to the local government
Responds in a timely manner to requests from the governing body for special reports
Takes the initiative to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the
governing body on matters that are non-routine and not administrative in nature
Reports produced by the administrator are accurate, comprehensive, concise and
written to their intended audience
Produces and handles reports in a way to convey the message that affairs of the
organization are open to public scrutiny
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
6. CITIZEN RELATIONS
Responsive to requests from citizens
Demonstrates a dedication to service to the community and its citizens
Maintains a nonpartisan approach in dealing with the news media
Meets with and listens to members of the community to discuss their concerns and
strives to understand their interests
Gives an appropriate effort to maintain citizen satisfaction with city services
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
7. STAFFING
Recruits and retains competent personnel for staff positions
Applies an appropriate level of supervision to improve any areas of substandard
performance
Stays accurately informed and appropriately concerned about employee relations
Professionally manages the compensation and benefits plan
Promotes training and development opportunities for employees at all levels of the
organization
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
Initials Page 5 of 7
8. SUPERVISION
Encourages heads of departments to make decisions within their jurisdictions with
minimal city administrator involvement, yet maintains general control of operations
by providing the right amount of communication to the staff
Instills confidence and promotes initiative in subordinates through supportive rather than
restrictive controls for their programs while still monitoring operations at the department
level
Develops and maintains a friendly and informal relationship with the staff and work force
in general, yet maintains the professional dignity of the city administrator’s office
Sustains or improves staff performance by evaluating the performance of staff members
at least annually, setting goals and objectives f or them, periodically assessing their
progress, and providing appropriate f eedback
Encourages teamwork, innovation, and effective problem-solving among the staff
members
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
9. FISCAL M AN AGEMENT
Prepares a balanced budget to provide services at a level directed by council
Makes the best possible use of available funds, conscious of the need to operate the
local government efficiently and effectively
Prepares a budget and budgetary recommendations in an intelligent and accessible
format
Ensures actions and decisions reflect an appropriate level of responsibility for financial
planning and accountability
Appropriately monitors and manages fiscal activities of the org anization
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
Initials Page 6 of 7
10. COMMUNITY
Shares responsibility for addressing the difficult issues facing the city
Avoids unnecessary controversy
Cooperates with neighboring communities and the county
Helps the council address future needs and develops adequate plans to address
long term trends
Cooperates with other regional, state and federal government agencies
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal ÷ 5 = score for this category
NARR ATIVE EVALU ATION
W hat would you identif y as the administrator’s strength(s), expressed in terms of the principle
results achieved during the rating period?
W hat performance area(s) would you identify as most critical for improvement?
Initials Page 7 of 7
W hat constructive suggestions or assistance can you offer the administrator to enhance
performance?
W hat other comments do you have f or the administrator; e.g., priorities, expectations, goals or
objectives for the new rating period?