Street Funding Task Force

Share Street Funding Task Force on Facebook Share Street Funding Task Force on Twitter Share Street Funding Task Force on Linkedin Email Street Funding Task Force link

Consultation has concluded

The City Manager's Street Funding Force has been working to find sustainable solutions viewable as equitable while maintaining roadways to the current standard.

The Task Force has determined two recommendations for City Council's consideration:

  • Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes
  • Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes

If the City Council approves a change, the task force recommends the preferred option be phased in. The option provided is over a period of 16 years. The 16 years represents a transition period during which the costs each year gradually move from the current 100% assessment policy to the new option. The transition period is not fixed yet and will be determined by City Council. To make the special assessments more equitable, the task force also recommends for each option that the cost of any “subcuts” be removed from special assessments beginning in Year 1 of the transition period and be paid for with new city taxes.

Both options have impacts which is why the Task Force has asked residents to weigh in. This project page will provide background on the project and information on the Task Force's work. Information on this page is being updated as questions come in so please plan to visit often to stay updated and provide feedback.

The City Manager's Street Funding Force has been working to find sustainable solutions viewable as equitable while maintaining roadways to the current standard.

The Task Force has determined two recommendations for City Council's consideration:

  • Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes
  • Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes

If the City Council approves a change, the task force recommends the preferred option be phased in. The option provided is over a period of 16 years. The 16 years represents a transition period during which the costs each year gradually move from the current 100% assessment policy to the new option. The transition period is not fixed yet and will be determined by City Council. To make the special assessments more equitable, the task force also recommends for each option that the cost of any “subcuts” be removed from special assessments beginning in Year 1 of the transition period and be paid for with new city taxes.

Both options have impacts which is why the Task Force has asked residents to weigh in. This project page will provide background on the project and information on the Task Force's work. Information on this page is being updated as questions come in so please plan to visit often to stay updated and provide feedback.

Consultation has concluded

Leave your questions for Engineering Director Chad Millner. 

  • Share Based on the MN Statue 429, a city cannot access more than the benefit to its homeowner. This is somewhat arbitrary but accessing a homeowner 100% is definitely too high and not justified. Lawsuits have proven this point. Burnsville now accesses 40% of the road costs to the homeowner and meets periodically to confirm that this percentage is within the ratio Costs/Benefit according to law (Molly Stone, Special Assessment/Accounting Technician-Burnsville). Edina is at risk for a class action lawsuit which it would lose without having a fair ratio well thought out. Taxing residents for a tapering percentage over the next 16 years is ridiculous. on Facebook Share Based on the MN Statue 429, a city cannot access more than the benefit to its homeowner. This is somewhat arbitrary but accessing a homeowner 100% is definitely too high and not justified. Lawsuits have proven this point. Burnsville now accesses 40% of the road costs to the homeowner and meets periodically to confirm that this percentage is within the ratio Costs/Benefit according to law (Molly Stone, Special Assessment/Accounting Technician-Burnsville). Edina is at risk for a class action lawsuit which it would lose without having a fair ratio well thought out. Taxing residents for a tapering percentage over the next 16 years is ridiculous. on Twitter Share Based on the MN Statue 429, a city cannot access more than the benefit to its homeowner. This is somewhat arbitrary but accessing a homeowner 100% is definitely too high and not justified. Lawsuits have proven this point. Burnsville now accesses 40% of the road costs to the homeowner and meets periodically to confirm that this percentage is within the ratio Costs/Benefit according to law (Molly Stone, Special Assessment/Accounting Technician-Burnsville). Edina is at risk for a class action lawsuit which it would lose without having a fair ratio well thought out. Taxing residents for a tapering percentage over the next 16 years is ridiculous. on Linkedin Email Based on the MN Statue 429, a city cannot access more than the benefit to its homeowner. This is somewhat arbitrary but accessing a homeowner 100% is definitely too high and not justified. Lawsuits have proven this point. Burnsville now accesses 40% of the road costs to the homeowner and meets periodically to confirm that this percentage is within the ratio Costs/Benefit according to law (Molly Stone, Special Assessment/Accounting Technician-Burnsville). Edina is at risk for a class action lawsuit which it would lose without having a fair ratio well thought out. Taxing residents for a tapering percentage over the next 16 years is ridiculous. link

    Based on the MN Statue 429, a city cannot access more than the benefit to its homeowner. This is somewhat arbitrary but accessing a homeowner 100% is definitely too high and not justified. Lawsuits have proven this point. Burnsville now accesses 40% of the road costs to the homeowner and meets periodically to confirm that this percentage is within the ratio Costs/Benefit according to law (Molly Stone, Special Assessment/Accounting Technician-Burnsville). Edina is at risk for a class action lawsuit which it would lose without having a fair ratio well thought out. Taxing residents for a tapering percentage over the next 16 years is ridiculous.

    Tim Diegel asked over 3 years ago

    Thanks for the comments and information related to the City of Burnsville. Edina has had multiple legal opinions on the matter and we are comfortable with the direction the City Council decided to go with street funding and transitions. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share Thank you for your response to my question. I stated "The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit." You responded the "task force had discussions about determining the special benefit for each property within a project" and noted this could theoretically lead to 100s of different assessments, which would not be legal because assessments must be uniform within a project area. It would also be expensive. Is this approach an accepted, best practice or an extreme example? The city could, like other communities, do representative appraisals of properties within each project area and set the assessment at no more than the lowest special benefit. This would create uniform assessments that do not exceed special benefit. There are no doubt other non-extreme, best practice approaches to determining special benefits that could be used. The problem with the city's approach is that it has always used project cost as the controlling consideration, rather than special benefit. This has been a misuse of the city's special assessment authority. You stated "50% assessments are supported nay past special benefit reports, challenges to past assessments, and the experience of our city attorney working with many other communities that use special assessments." Please post the documents on which this is based and cite the specific portions. These should be handy if they were used in the process and informed the finding that 50% assessments would be supported. If the city covering 50% of project costs "removes most of the concern with the special benefit test" then does most or much of the concern remain as the 50% is phased in? on Facebook Share Thank you for your response to my question. I stated "The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit." You responded the "task force had discussions about determining the special benefit for each property within a project" and noted this could theoretically lead to 100s of different assessments, which would not be legal because assessments must be uniform within a project area. It would also be expensive. Is this approach an accepted, best practice or an extreme example? The city could, like other communities, do representative appraisals of properties within each project area and set the assessment at no more than the lowest special benefit. This would create uniform assessments that do not exceed special benefit. There are no doubt other non-extreme, best practice approaches to determining special benefits that could be used. The problem with the city's approach is that it has always used project cost as the controlling consideration, rather than special benefit. This has been a misuse of the city's special assessment authority. You stated "50% assessments are supported nay past special benefit reports, challenges to past assessments, and the experience of our city attorney working with many other communities that use special assessments." Please post the documents on which this is based and cite the specific portions. These should be handy if they were used in the process and informed the finding that 50% assessments would be supported. If the city covering 50% of project costs "removes most of the concern with the special benefit test" then does most or much of the concern remain as the 50% is phased in? on Twitter Share Thank you for your response to my question. I stated "The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit." You responded the "task force had discussions about determining the special benefit for each property within a project" and noted this could theoretically lead to 100s of different assessments, which would not be legal because assessments must be uniform within a project area. It would also be expensive. Is this approach an accepted, best practice or an extreme example? The city could, like other communities, do representative appraisals of properties within each project area and set the assessment at no more than the lowest special benefit. This would create uniform assessments that do not exceed special benefit. There are no doubt other non-extreme, best practice approaches to determining special benefits that could be used. The problem with the city's approach is that it has always used project cost as the controlling consideration, rather than special benefit. This has been a misuse of the city's special assessment authority. You stated "50% assessments are supported nay past special benefit reports, challenges to past assessments, and the experience of our city attorney working with many other communities that use special assessments." Please post the documents on which this is based and cite the specific portions. These should be handy if they were used in the process and informed the finding that 50% assessments would be supported. If the city covering 50% of project costs "removes most of the concern with the special benefit test" then does most or much of the concern remain as the 50% is phased in? on Linkedin Email Thank you for your response to my question. I stated "The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit." You responded the "task force had discussions about determining the special benefit for each property within a project" and noted this could theoretically lead to 100s of different assessments, which would not be legal because assessments must be uniform within a project area. It would also be expensive. Is this approach an accepted, best practice or an extreme example? The city could, like other communities, do representative appraisals of properties within each project area and set the assessment at no more than the lowest special benefit. This would create uniform assessments that do not exceed special benefit. There are no doubt other non-extreme, best practice approaches to determining special benefits that could be used. The problem with the city's approach is that it has always used project cost as the controlling consideration, rather than special benefit. This has been a misuse of the city's special assessment authority. You stated "50% assessments are supported nay past special benefit reports, challenges to past assessments, and the experience of our city attorney working with many other communities that use special assessments." Please post the documents on which this is based and cite the specific portions. These should be handy if they were used in the process and informed the finding that 50% assessments would be supported. If the city covering 50% of project costs "removes most of the concern with the special benefit test" then does most or much of the concern remain as the 50% is phased in? link

    Thank you for your response to my question. I stated "The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit." You responded the "task force had discussions about determining the special benefit for each property within a project" and noted this could theoretically lead to 100s of different assessments, which would not be legal because assessments must be uniform within a project area. It would also be expensive. Is this approach an accepted, best practice or an extreme example? The city could, like other communities, do representative appraisals of properties within each project area and set the assessment at no more than the lowest special benefit. This would create uniform assessments that do not exceed special benefit. There are no doubt other non-extreme, best practice approaches to determining special benefits that could be used. The problem with the city's approach is that it has always used project cost as the controlling consideration, rather than special benefit. This has been a misuse of the city's special assessment authority. You stated "50% assessments are supported nay past special benefit reports, challenges to past assessments, and the experience of our city attorney working with many other communities that use special assessments." Please post the documents on which this is based and cite the specific portions. These should be handy if they were used in the process and informed the finding that 50% assessments would be supported. If the city covering 50% of project costs "removes most of the concern with the special benefit test" then does most or much of the concern remain as the 50% is phased in?

    jkj966 asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the questions. The city could set assessments within a project area to the property with the lowest market benefit. This would cap the assessment for each project but would be a variable amount with every project and every year. The remaining funding would still come from city taxes and only be determined with each years projects. Taxes would be variable and increase and decrease based on street reconstructions each year. This would be very difficult for the city to plan all the other services and projects that the community values. Instead of setting the levy at uniform rates per the options provided, the levy would be variable and tied directly to the street reconstruction program. The options provided creates known levy changes during the transition. The first year of either option removes subcut from the special assessments. This reduces assessments up to 30% in some cases with an average of 15%. Reducing assessments by 15% year 1 and continuing the transition each year will ensure that most projects meet the benefit test during the transition. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both. The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years. Respectfully submitted David W Clynes, P.E. 5716 Bernard Pl, Edina on Facebook Share Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both. The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years. Respectfully submitted David W Clynes, P.E. 5716 Bernard Pl, Edina on Twitter Share Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both. The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years. Respectfully submitted David W Clynes, P.E. 5716 Bernard Pl, Edina on Linkedin Email Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both. The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years. Respectfully submitted David W Clynes, P.E. 5716 Bernard Pl, Edina link

    Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both. The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years. Respectfully submitted David W Clynes, P.E. 5716 Bernard Pl, Edina

    dwclynes asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the questions. From my research on the history of assessments in Edina, the city starting assessing for street reconstruction 1999/2000 and adopted a formal policy in 2005. I can’t speak to why the council at the time selected this method of funding street reconstruction but I would imagine they discussed the available options and selected the option that fit best. No one in our area assesses 100% for street reconstruction. This is out of the norm for MN communities. Other communities us combinations of assessments, city taxes and franchise fees. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share Why isn't there an option for keeping things as they are? There should be a third option for those that support the status quo. I'm one of the individuals that is paying a special assessment due to recent reconstruction. Let's use common sense and realize that as s household that directly benefits from reconstruction, I should be held fiscally responsible, not Edina citizens at large, the overwhelming majority of whom get no direct or indirect benefit of the reconstruction. Instead of wasting time focusing on crazy or radical ideas, lets focus on improving effectiveness and efficiency. For instance, the reconstruction project went overbudget and was late due to poor city planning and execution by the engineering department. We should be focused on these shortcomings. on Facebook Share Why isn't there an option for keeping things as they are? There should be a third option for those that support the status quo. I'm one of the individuals that is paying a special assessment due to recent reconstruction. Let's use common sense and realize that as s household that directly benefits from reconstruction, I should be held fiscally responsible, not Edina citizens at large, the overwhelming majority of whom get no direct or indirect benefit of the reconstruction. Instead of wasting time focusing on crazy or radical ideas, lets focus on improving effectiveness and efficiency. For instance, the reconstruction project went overbudget and was late due to poor city planning and execution by the engineering department. We should be focused on these shortcomings. on Twitter Share Why isn't there an option for keeping things as they are? There should be a third option for those that support the status quo. I'm one of the individuals that is paying a special assessment due to recent reconstruction. Let's use common sense and realize that as s household that directly benefits from reconstruction, I should be held fiscally responsible, not Edina citizens at large, the overwhelming majority of whom get no direct or indirect benefit of the reconstruction. Instead of wasting time focusing on crazy or radical ideas, lets focus on improving effectiveness and efficiency. For instance, the reconstruction project went overbudget and was late due to poor city planning and execution by the engineering department. We should be focused on these shortcomings. on Linkedin Email Why isn't there an option for keeping things as they are? There should be a third option for those that support the status quo. I'm one of the individuals that is paying a special assessment due to recent reconstruction. Let's use common sense and realize that as s household that directly benefits from reconstruction, I should be held fiscally responsible, not Edina citizens at large, the overwhelming majority of whom get no direct or indirect benefit of the reconstruction. Instead of wasting time focusing on crazy or radical ideas, lets focus on improving effectiveness and efficiency. For instance, the reconstruction project went overbudget and was late due to poor city planning and execution by the engineering department. We should be focused on these shortcomings. link

    Why isn't there an option for keeping things as they are? There should be a third option for those that support the status quo. I'm one of the individuals that is paying a special assessment due to recent reconstruction. Let's use common sense and realize that as s household that directly benefits from reconstruction, I should be held fiscally responsible, not Edina citizens at large, the overwhelming majority of whom get no direct or indirect benefit of the reconstruction. Instead of wasting time focusing on crazy or radical ideas, lets focus on improving effectiveness and efficiency. For instance, the reconstruction project went overbudget and was late due to poor city planning and execution by the engineering department. We should be focused on these shortcomings.

    Mdh1985 asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the question. The current policy is not be financially or legally sustainable. Recent estimates for special assessments in neighborhoods with homes of all sizes have climbed to $32,000, a figure that is not sustainable. Under State Statutes, the City can assess properties for public improvements, but the benefit to property values must be equal to or greater than the assessment. As assessments climb, it may be difficult for the City to prove the market benefit. Appreciate the suggestions on better project planning and execution. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share This sentence is repeated in answers to questions: "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met." What direct evidence is there of this statement? One can watch years of assessment hearings and review years of assessment materials and find no reference to special benefit at all, much less as the controlling consideration when setting the assessment amounts. This is the chief flaw in the task force's recommendations: a failure to make special benefit the controlling consideration in setting special assessment amounts. The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit. Then set that as the cap. Costs above that amount would be paid from property taxes, utility fees, etc. A long transition will not appease those who were over-assessed. The harm has already been done. The intent should be to do no more harm going forward, not stringing it out and gradually reducing it over time. As someone who has followed special assessments for a long time, I am not aware of evidence to support the statement "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met" without misrepresenting the substance of past lawsuits or sample appraisal reports. Please address how either of the task force's recommendations ties directly to a finding of special benefit. Thank you! on Facebook Share This sentence is repeated in answers to questions: "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met." What direct evidence is there of this statement? One can watch years of assessment hearings and review years of assessment materials and find no reference to special benefit at all, much less as the controlling consideration when setting the assessment amounts. This is the chief flaw in the task force's recommendations: a failure to make special benefit the controlling consideration in setting special assessment amounts. The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit. Then set that as the cap. Costs above that amount would be paid from property taxes, utility fees, etc. A long transition will not appease those who were over-assessed. The harm has already been done. The intent should be to do no more harm going forward, not stringing it out and gradually reducing it over time. As someone who has followed special assessments for a long time, I am not aware of evidence to support the statement "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met" without misrepresenting the substance of past lawsuits or sample appraisal reports. Please address how either of the task force's recommendations ties directly to a finding of special benefit. Thank you! on Twitter Share This sentence is repeated in answers to questions: "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met." What direct evidence is there of this statement? One can watch years of assessment hearings and review years of assessment materials and find no reference to special benefit at all, much less as the controlling consideration when setting the assessment amounts. This is the chief flaw in the task force's recommendations: a failure to make special benefit the controlling consideration in setting special assessment amounts. The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit. Then set that as the cap. Costs above that amount would be paid from property taxes, utility fees, etc. A long transition will not appease those who were over-assessed. The harm has already been done. The intent should be to do no more harm going forward, not stringing it out and gradually reducing it over time. As someone who has followed special assessments for a long time, I am not aware of evidence to support the statement "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met" without misrepresenting the substance of past lawsuits or sample appraisal reports. Please address how either of the task force's recommendations ties directly to a finding of special benefit. Thank you! on Linkedin Email This sentence is repeated in answers to questions: "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met." What direct evidence is there of this statement? One can watch years of assessment hearings and review years of assessment materials and find no reference to special benefit at all, much less as the controlling consideration when setting the assessment amounts. This is the chief flaw in the task force's recommendations: a failure to make special benefit the controlling consideration in setting special assessment amounts. The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit. Then set that as the cap. Costs above that amount would be paid from property taxes, utility fees, etc. A long transition will not appease those who were over-assessed. The harm has already been done. The intent should be to do no more harm going forward, not stringing it out and gradually reducing it over time. As someone who has followed special assessments for a long time, I am not aware of evidence to support the statement "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met" without misrepresenting the substance of past lawsuits or sample appraisal reports. Please address how either of the task force's recommendations ties directly to a finding of special benefit. Thank you! link

    This sentence is repeated in answers to questions: "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met." What direct evidence is there of this statement? One can watch years of assessment hearings and review years of assessment materials and find no reference to special benefit at all, much less as the controlling consideration when setting the assessment amounts. This is the chief flaw in the task force's recommendations: a failure to make special benefit the controlling consideration in setting special assessment amounts. The starting place is finding a fair, accepted, best practice way of determining special benefit. Then set that as the cap. Costs above that amount would be paid from property taxes, utility fees, etc. A long transition will not appease those who were over-assessed. The harm has already been done. The intent should be to do no more harm going forward, not stringing it out and gradually reducing it over time. As someone who has followed special assessments for a long time, I am not aware of evidence to support the statement "Historical [SIC], in most cases, the benefit test has been met" without misrepresenting the substance of past lawsuits or sample appraisal reports. Please address how either of the task force's recommendations ties directly to a finding of special benefit. Thank you!

    jkj966 asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the comments and ideas. The task force had discussions about determining the special benefit for each property within each project. Theoretically this would create 100’s of assessment amounts per project. This would add an additional appraisal cost for each property to the project cost. It has been estimated at $500 to $900 each. It would determine the value of special benefit that each property could support. The problem with this is that we can’t assess different amounts to properties of the same class. Properties within the project area are receiving the same transportation benefits of the new street. The task force recommendations removes most of the concern with the special benefit test. 50% assessments are supported by past special benefit reports, challenges to past assessments, and the experience of our city attorney working with many other communities that use special assessments. The 100% tax option removes the special benefit test out of the process entirely. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share What stature did the lawyer give for why we can't charge different neighborhoods differently? Yes, if we call it a tax we can't but there are other ways for the city to collect money that will fall under different rules. on Facebook Share What stature did the lawyer give for why we can't charge different neighborhoods differently? Yes, if we call it a tax we can't but there are other ways for the city to collect money that will fall under different rules. on Twitter Share What stature did the lawyer give for why we can't charge different neighborhoods differently? Yes, if we call it a tax we can't but there are other ways for the city to collect money that will fall under different rules. on Linkedin Email What stature did the lawyer give for why we can't charge different neighborhoods differently? Yes, if we call it a tax we can't but there are other ways for the city to collect money that will fall under different rules. link

    What stature did the lawyer give for why we can't charge different neighborhoods differently? Yes, if we call it a tax we can't but there are other ways for the city to collect money that will fall under different rules.

    JP asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the question. Minnesota’s power of taxation is found in Article X of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. The article states that taxes will be uniform. The City cannot tax properties of the same class differently based on the fact that they were previously subject to a special assessment. All single-family residential properties must have the same tax rate.

  • Share What is the median value of a home in Edina? on Facebook Share What is the median value of a home in Edina? on Twitter Share What is the median value of a home in Edina? on Linkedin Email What is the median value of a home in Edina? link

    What is the median value of a home in Edina?

    Lisagardener asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the question. The median valued family home is valued at $551,300.

  • Share What is the deadline for Comments and Questions? 1/8/2021 Roberta C. on Facebook Share What is the deadline for Comments and Questions? 1/8/2021 Roberta C. on Twitter Share What is the deadline for Comments and Questions? 1/8/2021 Roberta C. on Linkedin Email What is the deadline for Comments and Questions? 1/8/2021 Roberta C. link

    What is the deadline for Comments and Questions? 1/8/2021 Roberta C.

    Roberta C asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the question. The deadline to complete the feedback form is noon on January 19. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share It would be helpful if examples can be given so the situation could be more easily understood. If our street was completed a few years ago and I was assessed $15,000, how would the options being discussed impact those homeowners who have already been assessed? Do we pay more to lower the cost for new street projects to those future residents being impacted? Or do we get a refund because a better solution has been formulated? Personally, I have no problem with someone getting a $30,000 street assessment if they have a $1.5 - $2M house. It's proportional and relative. When a condominium association has an assessment for an improvement, the larger units pay more of the cost than the smaller units. The Country Club area likely got a good deal where homeowners paid $10-15K each for new streets and all their home values are $1-3 Million. That's a rounding error when a house of that value is sold, and same applies for a $30K assessment. Like the condo example, I think it should be based on the taxable value of the house so every resident in Edina is eventually charged a fair amount relative to the value of their home. on Facebook Share It would be helpful if examples can be given so the situation could be more easily understood. If our street was completed a few years ago and I was assessed $15,000, how would the options being discussed impact those homeowners who have already been assessed? Do we pay more to lower the cost for new street projects to those future residents being impacted? Or do we get a refund because a better solution has been formulated? Personally, I have no problem with someone getting a $30,000 street assessment if they have a $1.5 - $2M house. It's proportional and relative. When a condominium association has an assessment for an improvement, the larger units pay more of the cost than the smaller units. The Country Club area likely got a good deal where homeowners paid $10-15K each for new streets and all their home values are $1-3 Million. That's a rounding error when a house of that value is sold, and same applies for a $30K assessment. Like the condo example, I think it should be based on the taxable value of the house so every resident in Edina is eventually charged a fair amount relative to the value of their home. on Twitter Share It would be helpful if examples can be given so the situation could be more easily understood. If our street was completed a few years ago and I was assessed $15,000, how would the options being discussed impact those homeowners who have already been assessed? Do we pay more to lower the cost for new street projects to those future residents being impacted? Or do we get a refund because a better solution has been formulated? Personally, I have no problem with someone getting a $30,000 street assessment if they have a $1.5 - $2M house. It's proportional and relative. When a condominium association has an assessment for an improvement, the larger units pay more of the cost than the smaller units. The Country Club area likely got a good deal where homeowners paid $10-15K each for new streets and all their home values are $1-3 Million. That's a rounding error when a house of that value is sold, and same applies for a $30K assessment. Like the condo example, I think it should be based on the taxable value of the house so every resident in Edina is eventually charged a fair amount relative to the value of their home. on Linkedin Email It would be helpful if examples can be given so the situation could be more easily understood. If our street was completed a few years ago and I was assessed $15,000, how would the options being discussed impact those homeowners who have already been assessed? Do we pay more to lower the cost for new street projects to those future residents being impacted? Or do we get a refund because a better solution has been formulated? Personally, I have no problem with someone getting a $30,000 street assessment if they have a $1.5 - $2M house. It's proportional and relative. When a condominium association has an assessment for an improvement, the larger units pay more of the cost than the smaller units. The Country Club area likely got a good deal where homeowners paid $10-15K each for new streets and all their home values are $1-3 Million. That's a rounding error when a house of that value is sold, and same applies for a $30K assessment. Like the condo example, I think it should be based on the taxable value of the house so every resident in Edina is eventually charged a fair amount relative to the value of their home. link

    It would be helpful if examples can be given so the situation could be more easily understood. If our street was completed a few years ago and I was assessed $15,000, how would the options being discussed impact those homeowners who have already been assessed? Do we pay more to lower the cost for new street projects to those future residents being impacted? Or do we get a refund because a better solution has been formulated? Personally, I have no problem with someone getting a $30,000 street assessment if they have a $1.5 - $2M house. It's proportional and relative. When a condominium association has an assessment for an improvement, the larger units pay more of the cost than the smaller units. The Country Club area likely got a good deal where homeowners paid $10-15K each for new streets and all their home values are $1-3 Million. That's a rounding error when a house of that value is sold, and same applies for a $30K assessment. Like the condo example, I think it should be based on the taxable value of the house so every resident in Edina is eventually charged a fair amount relative to the value of their home.

    John W asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the question. For owners that have been previously assessed, there would be no change to those assessments. Each owner would continue to pay that assessment in the manner they so choose. With either option being considered, future street reconstruction would be funded in part or wholly by city taxes. All dollar values and transition timelines are estimates but for both options in year 1, city taxes would increase on average for the median family home by $37.90. For each additional year of the transition, city taxes would increase either $4.01 (Option #1) or $9.49 (Option #2) per year for the median family home over 16-years. You comment that funding should be based on the taxable value of the house, the 100% city tax option is the way to accomplish this. City taxes are based on the value of each individual property. The higher the value of the property, the more in city taxes that property pays. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.

  • Share If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest? on Facebook Share If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest? on Twitter Share If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest? on Linkedin Email If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest? link

    If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest?

    swjepsen asked over 4 years ago

    Thanks for the question. I'm a little unclear on the exact question but maybe this will help. If the 50/50 option is adopted, the costs are split 50/50 between the property owner and the City. This split includes the respective amount of interest to fund the project. If the owner decides to pay the entire assessment upfront (50% of the cost), the owner would not pay the long term interest on their portion of the cost. The City's portion including the interest would be covered by the City as we see fit. Thanks, Chad Millner, City Engineer.