277170 W� CITY CLERK
�PANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY O F SA I NT PAU L COUi1C1I ���o
LUE - MAYOR File N O.
} Council Resolution
Page 2 of 2
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
sum first year payoff. The appropriations should not provide a subsidy
for tax exempt properties; and be it further
RESOLVED that the City of Saint Paul objects to being the only entity
assessed for the Beaver lake Overflow Special Benefit for three reasons:
1. There is no benefit until such time as a sewer is constructed to
carry Beaver Lake overflow to the Suburban Avenue Pond, and the
status of the proposed project is uncertain,
2. If a new Qverflow sewer was constructed at some future time,
Saint Paul properties would only receive about 10� of the benefit
while all other non-Saint Paul properties in the Beaver Lake
Watershed receive about 90$ of the benefit,
3. The 80�-20� method of calculating the benefit is not consistent
with the current formula logic being advocated by the Board of
Managers.
RESOLVED that with the assistance of the Valuations Engineers, the Public
Works Sewer Engineer continue to supervise the design, construction and
cost monitoring and proper assessment determination for those project
elements known as the upgrading of lateral storm sewers and I-94/Hazel
improvements, and the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation continue
to supervise the design, construction and cost monitoring and proper
assessment determination for the project element known as lower ravine
restoration, and be it finally
RESOLVED that the Mayor' s Office communicate the City Council ' s position
on these matters to the Board of Managers, that appropriate legal appeals
be considered and implemented as deemed necessary by Mayor Latimer, and
that ongoing communications and monitoring be maintained.
COU[VCILMEN Requestgd by Department of:
Yeas Nays � D
�
Hunt
�o, [n Favor
Maddox
McMahon
snoweite� --�-- Against BY
Tedesco
Wilson
JUL 2 i 1981 Form Approved C ty mey
Adopted by Council: Date _
Certified a• by Coun ' Se ar BY
B �
Ap by ;Vlavor: at • ��� � � � Approved Mayor f 'Sub ' sion to Council
B BY �C �
Y - —
PUB1tSNfD q�G � 19$�
WHITE ?� CITY CLERK ���r'y�./,
G�ARY - DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F S A I N T PA U L COURCII /� l�1� � ��
BLUE - MAYOR r�r a
File N�.
- ouncil Resolution
Presented By Page 1 of 2
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
WHEREAS, the Board of Managers of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed
Districts, prior to their February 24 , 1981, Public Hearing, provided
the City of Saint Paul with copies of the Engineer' s S�lemental
Feasibility Report and the Abridged Appraiser s Report for t�B.attle
Creec� Project No. l, both date Dece er, 1u8�,and,
WHEREAS, Mayor Latimer' s February 24 , 1981, letter to the Board of
Managers identified the City of Saint Paul 's official concerns and
recommendations regarding the Battle Creek Project, and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Managers , after considering the concerns and
recommendations of all affected property owners and municipalities
have amended the scope of the Battle Creek Project and the method of
assessing the costs as identified in the two April 30, 1981, documents
entitled Addendum No. 1 to the Engineer's Feasibility Report and the
Engineer's Supp ementa Report for Battle Cree Pro ect No. and
Ad en um No. 1 to t e Appraiser' s Report or Battle Cree Project
No. ,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Upon the Recommendation of the Mayor,
that the City Council of Saint Paul continues to support the implementation
of the Battle Creek Project No. 1 improvements as currently proposed
by the Board of Managers including specifically those improvements
inside of Saint Paul known as the lower ravine restoration, the upgrading
of lateral storm sewers and the I-94/Hazel improvements, and be it
further
RESOLVED that the 1982 City budget include an appropriation to finance
special benefit assessments being levied against City government and an
appropriation to subsidize 50� of the cost of the assessments being
levied against taxable Saint Paul properties in the Battle Creek
Watershed. All appropriations should assume City financing over the
maximum period allowed by the Board of Managers, rather than a lump
COUfVCILMEN Requestgd by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Hunt
Levine In Favor
Maddox
McMahon
snowaite� - __ Against BY —
Tedesco
Wilson
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Council: Date —
Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY
By —_
Approved by :Vlayor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
BY — — BY
--'`�-�"` G�'�'�SC fl_��+' ►�".E��...h';r� ��JA�JL. Tf/��yp/J[
� �•�.��Y�.�:� � � � � . . . •_ 1 ����
;`::;' £ �� '�•,�. o:�,Fx�r o.�� z��.r z�, c�r.i'�i' GO iI1 C=x,,
; ;; . i�.:. �.. .
� �:..�"" t :`i
, : { "� �� j+
-.;i „:�; - � ._ . � �
�.`��, °� � "���j;; D a�t e . July I7, 1981
. �
� •\ .�
�`-..`��"�.�
C CJ ��# �� �1�T' � ��"-. �a � ° C� � � . -
• �
Tp ; �ain� P�ul Ci�y �c��s3^+� -
��i Q �j1 : �ta t`i 1�'fj�'���:; (g j"1 .FINANCE, r1ANAGEMENT & PERSONNEL . '
George McM�hon � �fiQirman9 ��akes i'ha folio�r�ing .
� report un �G. F. � t�r��inni�c� .
. (9) � t��salufiion . .
- � . • � C)i tt er
�' I�L.� : . � �
At its meeting of July 16, I981, the Finance Committee recommended approval
� of the following:
1. Resolution allowing Police Department to raise towing and storage chazges �
for vehicles impounded by city. (12055-LL) .
2. Resolution approving agreement with Port Authority for setting debt payment
schedule for Midway .Stadium. (12101-GM) � '
. 3. Resolution"appxoving addition of $100,000 to 1981 budget to fund deficit in
P�RA Pension Accounts 4�09013. . (12100-GM) _ _ ' -
4. Resolution transferring funds. for payment of audit fees incurred for Centra],
Village audit. (12090-GPi)
5. Resolution establishing title and class specifications for title of Economic
_ Planner.. (12071-GM) . :
6. Resolution establishing title and cl�ass specification for title of E.D.P.
. System Technician---Public Works. (12064-McM)
7. Resolution approving complete revision of City's Salary Plan and Rates of
Compensation Resolution No. 6446. (12108-McM) �
8. Resolution approving appropriation of $16,000 to fund consultant study of
911 system.
9. Resolution approving Battle Creek Watershed Project No. l.
,"i"tl' ir II.L SE�'E:ti"IH FLOOR SAItiT P:�UE., i:tI\\ESOT:� SjtC►'
�H ' _.... � .
. • �� � �'� � ��
: �
. �.
' � 5 � �4-�/
ti---L---
�' � Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District
�
,
`---7
- ----� '
� i
b �
�
' ' P.O. Box 2128 St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
�_i
, �
� '
�
� �
� �
,
> � �
May 7, 1981
Municipalities, Counties & Interested Citizens
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of Addendum No. I to the Appraiser`s Report and Addendum
No. I to the Engineer's Report and Engineer's Supplemental Report, both for Battle
Creek Project No. (. These addendums summarize the changes which the Managers
have elected to make to the respective reports following their consideration of written
and oral inputs from the February 24, 1981 public hearing regarding Battle Creek
Project No. I.
The Managers confirmed the Engineer's Report and the Appraiser's Report with
the attached addend�ms, directed the engineer to prepare plans and specifications, and
ordered the construction of the improvement on April 30, 1981. The formal resolution
ordering project construction was passed on May 7, I 981.
Sincerely,
� �
������ .�� � -�j� ,P�
- ;� , .� �-J
Roger E. Lake, President
REL/III
c� � �_�
enc. � s>
�-c .....
.�
-�n �. >:,
-a r- -
a r'n '
c�v Qp �q' '.,.
Z� � �
x o, ,,
�� � :.';r
!R � ;'� ,
� � � . .. �} ' � .. . . � � �'�� �� � �',
' � ..♦.." ` � , : � � '� � ... .:..�..�' .. .�... ,., .:�
. . . .. . --� . . . . _... � . .. .. a�
�� �. ' . . . . ' . � � i
. . . .. . . � . t¢�.
�
� ' � . . . � . . ' � . . .... ' .' ... n}
t' . . . . . . � � ' . . � � .
5
. �.. . . . .�. . . . � . -... .. ` , �.: ., . .:.
>Y' . , � ' . .. . � . . .. . . . ... -:- ....; :. 3. . . $
. . _. � . . . . . . , ,. . ..:�.
7 i7�
� - . � � . � ' . . . �
. . . �. . .. . . . � � . . .� •:� ..'.: ' ,.���,� . . ' .. , . . '' , . '� , d`v
- , . . . . . � . . �,4y�
. � -� ' � � .� . . : . �G�Y47V� �� i
. . . . . . .. fj. "
; TO THE ` � ,:
�
�i+iGI��R'S FEAS18tl��"�.��:�T ' , ;�
: . A� THE: > ' ;- �. :
; . � .
. � fPIC#��R;� St,�PI;.E�VtF.��`�»����'i' `
, , F4R �
��1� l�ii�C�1 �L/.��'7��4 � ?
�a �
_
. . ._ ,,.
_. � _ .x
: � �a
$.,�
„�
, ,
,
�
-
, ..�� ��: �,
TM�
� - �' � � ° ��:.. ::
�
. � .. � .. � , . , , �:-
'f
. , . . .. . . . . . :7
�-
. . . . . .. . . � �u
� � � .. -' .. . � � � . �4i
��'Y+W4S�fItK��'fli'#-:��'I�E�,�R'�"t��k'�
A�'it �fl� �9�#1 r
� � � ��� � � � � �.� � �� .� �-r:
' ��
, _ , .
. _.; .
� �_
, . __ ;
{
_
,
�
� . <
. � � � �_ ,
;
_ t ,
. - . ' . � F - F��
.. � �� ,., . . ..
` .: .: . . . . .. . ... .. " . � :� + � :: .3
. . . . . _ . . .. .. . - . ��f.
. ,
, . ,.;
_ .;
' ' , ` r<a
, l4'� �'t!!�' i'19 ` � a
�'�ca� t'il�eti Cif Ap�r�t��0 ���� '�?�a B�'d,+�` � r�.�`.�t�'�
� �
��+�r�e1C �Aaject #�io. I .�d ffi�e pe"�"�!`'r�:+c�€=�f+�c�c�d:_ f�i+�� ��er`� ` . � �
{
. . . - � . � .. � - � � � � � 'T
. .. ... , . : . . , . . .' �`: �' '�'. �. ` '�
. . . ' . . . ... yi
p►r��f;`w�s:ardcred, �e l�agers spent se.vs�ai� we�ka�.,�a�s' r���� r�r.�ri�e��, ; a
x,
�d a�►ae�vent to the pul��.tc:t�r�ng I�#d c� �e#��� ���;,#9 t.: ; ����r�l�, �e►��n � �
c���r`e mqde to�he s�+ape of fihe proje�. :E�#x i�, ` �s f ,�
. . ,
. ,
. � „ . _ ,
�t�ti�,�1`�e! S#r�rm , ;
.. .ir.r ��t� ..� � . .. �
. , ri
. . . ... . . . .�
. , . . .. '� � � . � �' � :�.�� , ,��:�. . ;�
, .�c#�r�si� of the Ste�li�g Street sta�r� s��r-�f�'e�n �+4ay �.cme, �v1#� ���F:F�l���: `. -{ �.
E�r�c; to�#�.creek (in lM��f�rood) �ias been� , ,t4 ##�°: `f�t i�s. �tl��ort t�s:" � ` �
ir�t�ear;tier�and i�l�c��! �n the qrr►�alys�� fatr:'l�+����;: �,it�+�+rt���yy-r�: :
� ;
�wn �=th� preliminary pk�s inch�ded in fii�� �g� �t� # �di�e �€���5 � �e
S�ppi���i R�eport. Th� existi disc ;cr� � t
ng heu�, ��.�.�s d��';�d q�id c��.�.
, � � ' .�
wi��e�ced�� tJ�e gully. . < �
.:
: ;F
� � � � � �� � � � � �� ��;
` , �
The exttnsiox► wi#I� be entirety on �tic ri�#�# �"�t�f ..+�o# -c�ic#
� adc#��f poFCe�,s other 1�i those otready td��i�d ir� �'Ap i�'s ��r#���
�E���: �+ePc�"ts. TMe -{�etimina�y �t€rr��# t� i� �2Q,(�, �:�� �:.�,�1r.�
" ° w!i'tF��le#io�of tF�e de�t�r�led lcros. . , '
P =�
T"rur�=�hwr�� 61 t4 6NR1� Tradcs �
�� ..� .-� �
- ,. - _ �
� �� � � � - � � � � �
;.,
� . ,r
T#�,e e���si�n of the project #rc�t T.H. 6i t� t�ie B�li�t+��� �ail�+�c1 �
, }
tr� �as been t+�tat'rvei� elimfnated: �4f#�� �re f�ti:f te�w. �t�r� ,a,ew�r p�
t�t� T.H. �t, :it wif��t� turned. �h �vr�;��� ta crn �gy� i��or' °�
�+c��nt.ta T.H. 6!.,�O�wi�trec�n cF�l�:`w�r�i�r be�rt e1�in� � ��+�,���`
,�
_ w�i�h v���! tevise c,��des � �e bw�r re�sa'.��g1ht ty. �t +��ec�,:#►� �� m� ' � �
,.
. �
, _ ,:a
` th�f s� �d cv�#�cF.�carx�s sumr�ari�l in the Lr�gineer's St���.� tic� �
,
, . , ::.. , . .. � . , . .. -._ . . .. ,. � ., '.:�i
b�r�r �,�re� -�n #c�wr of thoae in #he_�drig�nc�� En�ineer�s fi�drt. ��t ��#�e� �
' ' � � �r l�st t�#cr��fie�d Pr'operties. __' . ;
,
r i , 1
. � � . . '`�,� . ' .. . . . . � , � . . . . :S
� .. ".-=='i°-""�""^".:ri�r.`�Kr�:�_�"�F1�i�i. � � . � . .
i.
. . -
. , ' . � . ... . .. .. . .:.�::� .� . . � .. +. . :;. '�:l
t
�''i�'1f1�� ����}���•f�l�4tlC'+�l3-�W�N� �'��"�'�:;�����'t�'J�4� �
' r �'14Vt��R1!�i'�'1��Q� 'l�tiB l�1,fC5��0'f!�����'���'1"���4���� �
, :
: ,� - , . {.;�
,� . ��.
, . ��
; : � s �-;,
: - , :a
_ ,
, , , .
,.
a
..,: .�
� .�.. i.. J'.'� . , , . � ' . .. . �. . � 1 - � .. . , �:_ � ..�.
4 � � . � , , � .. � . . . . . .. . . t'�:
y
�
'� �► e�xPt'ea��eed. a pre#erence for Pe�'i�d����in�r�e �r�� �r�::,� c� �� �
, �tt�'t�3iv+e t�-ge�et'�� r.i�tei sfiabil�z�#i�. t� b�'�#}�t p��'�1���„ � ., '
. � stt�t� �b;�ir� #�. �ic+r�d upstream Q# Cer�t��; �t��e. T� b�in �iit rt�ce " �p
,
,
_ � ��
d���ar d��+urge,s c�r�d pcovi� aor�ne s�d��=�{�i� � `t�e up�r+et� ce�e�r. � �
�,
� � �
- � Tl�t� �e���t��e .q��ra e�st-eff�ct#iee ���a� �� �*�tt�f:.!�► c�pp�+�'��t4� #�s �
�� �
+�ik�ble wwitt�u#cost. If righ#-cyf-wcry ts n4t ��ia����r��pvt cc�t� '�c�# �,e! ' ,F
�
" , s#t�i�i�c�#€�s�#ili be ir`cluckct�n fihr firwt{�. , � � ' "�
. ,.. �
. �,
. ,
, � .
. „�
. �
�o�age wc�kk� be cFeve�d by a control sf�tc►re a# �e:_��hce� � �#"� :: �
Kq
4
�, ,
�+�stlrag culvert, using Cert#ury�, �1� as a d�r�. 8e�u� �e��i�� s�ir� '; ��
, � �rolt�rr� at Centvey is rel�rt�v��.:�qrfi, #hE,eant�tail's#t�c,�#+,��a at ;��r�+`,��r� va��# :
� � � , � ,�
re9�¢ a Peak discherge no lCS�.:tt� the discl�.kccnrir►,g'8v�tk �� t�� 1�� : ��
Fe�e d#�rge kaving E3ott#e CC�e�e1c Ldce 'es 16���'s,� the raq�rirad �'l�pr�t�ter���,�-. ; .
�
c�a R��y u p s'h'e�ur► �o f Cen t u ry Avenue w�ui d b e ;q�xc�ctmafiely t�` a�e-�t w�1�r �a �
, � � � � �� . > � �
f l� i_�we!e'I�ic>tt i f 949.1. t
� � � � � � � �
� T#� cos� of the c�ntroi struct�nre, o#cu� ��#�+ ���1�d C#ee��i'i9r �f�, or�d :�
��3�t�,�weuld be �
: a�proxirnafely �t 7,0�. �r � :��rt-c�f�w+�y w3-it�fi,a� t�.-�
; .
� � � ���
�q�.� ftar' the pond ar�. . In orsier far the �c�V'�t��°�►�'���t�en�ctt�vt t��'mq�!4�ot �
, ��r: �.�,
` 1e�,'i� .tt� prop�sed 8ct#k Geek i�x'�srr�� ��s�ec! w�l.ftfr+ th�e C�#y of �;
;�
1�Fai�y� �e cost ef i�uirir�g right-o#-way':r�t�be veary k►v�r. Up�� �? pc��e� ' �
.
, i�
; .wa�'fd be�fected by pvndic�g:ov�er' a�crt 4 acc�.`!�c�dir�g a# C�.ntury�Av�t�_�Mri�.i�t , �.�
s�i���c�ttly af#�c#on-gc►�r�g erosion upa�trec�t�f I�ntury Aver�e. ;
� . �..
, , >:
, .{
: ; _ ,�,
. _, . : �
. . � �,
� _ -
_ � . .
_ _ .,
, ; ,�
, , : �.
. _ ::
_ ; �
; ,,,
� `�
: ��
, � , �
� _ _ _�
� � .�
� � -:�
�v
r
i'
��
p;
� 2
y � � � _ � �y.
$ �y
� �
, �
' __ � , � � 7 7� 7
ADDENDUM NO. I
TO THE
APPRAISER'S REPORT
FOR
BATTLE CREEK PROJECT NO. I
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
- Apr i I 30, I 98 I
. .
At their special meeting of April 30, 1981, the Board of Managers voted to order
Battie Creek Project No. I and the preparation of plans and specifications. Before the
project was ordered, the Managers spent several weeks considering input received at,
a�d subsequent to the public hearing held on February 24, 1981. Many of the
comments received at the public hearing dealt with the formula for the assessment of
benefits. The following specific changes are being made regarding the assessment
formula described in the Appraiser's Report.
General Assessment of Stabilization Costs
Several comments were received regarding the portion of channel stabilization
costs which were generally assessed to the entire watershed. The proposal discussed
at the hearing called for 809b of channel stabifization cost to be generally assessed.
The 809b represented the cost of providing basic channel stabilization, assuming that
the discharges for which channel stabilization must now be designed are approximately
double those which might be possible if ideal conditions of storage had been provided
throughout the watershed. Although the ratio of ideal f lows to design f lows varies
throughout the watershed, the ratios were found to average 50°�0. Much testimony
claimed that the assessment formula should consider the f low ratio on a reach-by-
reach basis to more properly recognize the influence of storage which is being
provided in portions of the watershed. Additional testimony questioned relating the
generally assessed portion of stabilization costs on the basis of increased incrementat
costs rather than directly to the design discharges.
The District has now adopted a rr�ore rigorous procedure for ca�ulating the
portion of channel stabilization cost to be generally assessed. The revised formula
utilizes the ratio of ideal to design discharges on a reach-by-reach basis and bases the
assessment distribution on flow rates only, discarding the use of incremental cost as a
factor in the formula. The ideal flow was estimated assuming an undeveloped
watershed and a storm event of the same frequency as being used for calculation of
the design flows, (i.e., 100-year return frequency). The ratios of ideal to design flow
were calculated and the following percentages have been adopted for determining the
portion of channel stabilization cost to be generally assessed:
I
T.H. 61 to Upper Afton Road 42.SR6
Upper Afton Road to Ruth Street 73.0%
Ruth Street to McKn ight Road I 00.0%
McKn ight Road to North Branch 34.0°�'0
North Branch to Century Avenue 65.0%
Century Avenue to Battle Creek Lake 100.096 �
The remaining channel stabilization costs wili be assessed on the basis of peak
flow, with each subwatershed receiving an assessment proportional to the ratio of its
incremental increase in flow to the total of all incremental increases in flow for that
reach.
Storage costs would be distributed as before to those subwatersheds not
providing storage. If storage is provided in Subwatershed K, then al1 the costs of the
McKnight basin would be assessed within Subwatersheds F, G, and I. If no storage is
provided in K, then Subwatershed K would continue to receive an assessment for
storage at NicKnight Road in the same proportion as previously proposed.
Redisfiribution of costs given in the. Appraiser's Report according to these
revisions, would give the assessment rates shown below. The assessment rates shown
are comparable to those in Table AS of the Appraiser's Report, but are not final
because they do not account for all data base errors yet to be corrected. The table
also shows estimated residential rates for the revised project scope.
Subwatershed Group ABE C FGI K HJ LMN
Residential Rate �
from Table AS .0199 .0153 .0205 .0232 .0046 .0048
Revised Residential
Rate (previous scope) .0282 . .0248 .0265 .0157 .0029 .0029
Residen#ial Rate
(revised scope) .0278 .0244 .0284 .0069 .0026 .0026
% Increase (Decrease)
For Revised Scope 39.7 59.5 38.5 (70.3) (43.5) (45.8)
Based upon the revised scope of work and the revised formulas discussed above,
the following approximate distribution of project costs would result:
. 2
9b of Project Cost(Including Speciai Assessment)
Community/Agency Curre�t Previo�s
NInDOT I.0 3.2
BNRR I.0 3.2
MWCC 13.3 12.4
St. Paui 46.5 33.5
Map lewood 22.0 20.7
Woodbury 9.2 I 6.0
Landfai I .2 0.3
Lake Eimo I.0 1.6
Oakdale 5.8 9.1
Assessment of Ponding Areas
There was concern regarding assessment to designated ponded areas because
such assessments may make privately held land more difficult to acquire for public
ponding purposes. The Managers agree that special consideration should be given, but
certain problems arise when eliminating assessment of such areas altogether. For
example, complete elimination of the area simply increases the assessment rate for all
other parcels in the subwatersheds. Second, the precise boundaries of the ponding
areas are unknown because there are no speci f ic development p lans for most such
areas. Finally, many of the ponding areas transverse parcel boundaries and the exact
proportion of the�ponding area to be credited to each parcel is unclear.
In order to minir-nize the impact of the assessment on the acquisition of ponding
areas, the Managers intend to take the following action: a) all designated ponding
areas will be assessed at the open space (lowest) rate, and b) the Managers will prepare
an appendix to the Appraiser's Report listing all parcels which are assessed all or in
part at the ponding area assessment rate. This will permit the cities to identify the
value of assessments applied to portions of parcels when those portions are acquired
for ponding so that private land owners do not apply the higher assessment rate
applic�le to the developable portions of the parcel to the portion being acquired as
ponding area
Special Assessment at Trunk Highway 61
The District reconsidered the special assessment for improvements downstream
of T.H. 61. The Managers reaffirmed that, except for the energy dissipation structure,
3
the additional cost downstream of T.H. 61 for turning the flow north dnd preventing
damage to the railroad and highway rights-of-way should be specially assessed. The
energy dissipation structure will be assessed throughout the watershed.
Engineering Cost ,
In the Appraiser's Report, certain speciaE benefits were calculated on the basis
of construction cost only and no engineering or contingency costs were assigned to the
. special benefit. The District has determined that all special benefits which are
calculated on the basis of the estimated construction cost should receive a share of
engineering and contingencies. Special benefits not calculated on the basis of
estimated construction costs will not be revised.
Trunk Highway Land Use Factor
The proper land use factor to be applied to interstate highway right-of way was
reviewed carefully. It was decided that a lower land use factor would be more
appropriate to the interstate highway than 0.9 and a fQCtor of 0.6 was selected for
trunk highways of that nature. Lacal streets, eollectors, county roads, and trunk
highways other than T.H. 61 and the interstate right-of-way, will not be assessed
because they are included within the right-of-way adjustment applied to other parcels.
Trunk Highway Area
Significant errors and inconsistencies were found in the County records for
publicly owned parcels, particularly those parcels owned by the I�partment of
Transportation. Therefore, the Ramsey and Washington County lists of property which
were used to create the data base for the assessment procedure have been augmented
by a list of MnDOT right-of-way obtained from the MnDOT highway right-of-way plans
for I-94, I-494, I-694, and T.H. 61. These blocks of right-of-way will be treated in a
manner similar to other parcels within the respective subwatersheds, except that a
right-of-way adjustment will not be applied since the parcel itself is transportion
right-of way. The areas are listed below:
4
. : . � a � ���
. . � �
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Subwatershed Ramsey County
A 243,000
B 12,924
C 2,221,594
E 180,454
F 947,700
G I,I64,700
I 893,530
J 153,384
M 921,735
Washington County
J 181,865
K f 69,196
L 4,978,069
M 6,169,9 I I
N 1,049,000
Data Base Errors
During the hearing process, several errors were discovered in the data base.
Those areas wili be corrected to show the correct land use factors and parcel sizes.
The corrected data base wiil be used in spreading the assessment following bids and
bond sale.
5