Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves traditional frontage-based assessment for Improvement 23-14
Summary
Brainerd Safety and Public Works Committee voted to use the city’s standard practice — lump total project cost divided by frontage — for Improvement 23-14 rather than separating alley paving costs; motion carried after staff explained how the alley affects assessments for a small number of properties.
The Brainerd Safety and Public Works Committee voted to apply the city’s standard assessment method — total project cost divided by frontage — for Improvement 23-14, rejecting a proposal to separate alley paving costs from street paving costs.
Public Works Director Mike Habegorst told the committee the council previously approved moving forward with the assessment on March 17. City Engineer Jesse explained two approaches: the city’s typical method of combining all street and alley costs and dividing the total by frontage, or separating bid items for alley paving and street paving and apportioning assessments accordingly. Jesse said separating the alley would “make a little bit of a difference” for some property owners but “it won’t vastly change folks’ assessments.”
Jesse detailed how the alley affects specific parcels: two properties on Paul Street would be assessed only for alley frontage because they were assessed previously for Paul; four corner parcels on Ronald would have side-yard deductions on the street side and full alley frontage assessments; on Joseph Street one north parcel would carry full street frontage and two south parcels would split costs between street and alley. One committee member summarized that about six properties would face combined alley and street assessments.
During the discussion, committee members asked whether the alley now provides the only access for some homes; staff confirmed that, after prior access changes on Sixth Street, certain properties rely on the alley for access. Habegorst said staff brought the question to the committee so that, if the council wanted to change the assessment approach, staff would have time to prepare exhibits for the improvement hearing.
A council member moved to proceed with the traditional, lumped assessment method (total project cost divided by total frontage); another member seconded. The committee voted in favor and the motion carried. The staff direction will be reflected in materials prepared for the upcoming improvement hearing.
Jesse and Habegorst emphasized that splitting the alley out could slightly shift some costs — increasing them for alley-frontage-only parcels and decreasing them for some street-front parcels — but that most of the project frontage is in the alley and most residents already bear the majority of the alley-related cost. The committee did not change the scope of the project or the improvement itself; it only chose the assessment methodology to present at the improvement hearing.
