Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> <br /> I <br /> ,' 1 <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> would also need be determined. It should also be noted that Andover reported a policy of <br /> assessing multiple shares to lots which could be divided. <br /> <br />Observation: <br /> <br />It is necessary tO identify and adopt a clear assessment policy. Selecting either of the options for <br />the comer lot o~ the MSA issues will not make a significant impact in the amount of revenue <br />generated fromithe assessment procedure. I believe these issues focus on what thc Council <br />considers to be f~fir and equitable. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff recommends that the City continue to use the per-unit assessment method due to the <br />significant incre~tse in administrative work associated with a front footage assessment. We also <br />recommend ag .~inst assessing large lots multiple assessment shares, however, would suggest <br />establishing a prO. icy of charging a fee toward the City's stat maintenance cost when a large lot is <br />split during a mihor subdivision. <br /> <br />I believe either}option for ~ealing with comer and double frontage lots and MSA streets is <br />workable, and g recommendation should be made based upon policy preference for what the <br />Council conside~ fair and equitable. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Make recommendations to :City Council for dealing with each of the issues relating to the <br />assessment poli%, described above, and direct the draft of a policy for review. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />City Engineer <br />Finance Officer <br /> <br />R&B: 2/14/95 <br /> <br /> <br />