Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />CASE <br /> <br />PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY <br /> By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The methodology for assessing various types of improvements has varied considerably in the last <br />several yearS. Nor example, street program assessments used to be assessed 100% to property <br />owners but C3~'ty Parks would be considered for an equal share. The City used to assess the cost of <br />the MSA road, but credited property owners a fair value for the land acquired. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Direct Staff to begin work developing a policy for consideration and adoption by City Council. It <br />is Staff's intention to prepare a single document which would summarize all of our current <br />assessment pOlicies. We should begin this process with a review of various areas for which the <br />City routinely assesses. Below is a partial listing of potential issues to consider. <br /> <br />Potential Issues: <br /> <br />Street Program: <br />· How should comer lots be handled, 1/2 share or full share on the side the drive <br /> enters? <br />· Should City Parks be assessed a full share now that the City pays 50% of the <br /> project cost? <br />· Should the City consider placing an assessment cap on overlay projects? <br /> <br />MSA Road Development: <br />· What, if anything, should benefitted, but not contiguous property to an MSA road <br /> be assessed? <br /> <br />Sewer and Water Extensions: <br />· How should lateral benefit be determined for connection made to existing trunk <br /> u~ty? <br /> <br />Reviewed By: <br /> <br />City Engineer <br /> <br />RB:07/27/92 <br /> <br /> <br />