01/18/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # CONSID~ERATION OF MODIFYING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Background: Since its inception, the street maintenance program was financed through special assessments. When the first maintenance projects w~e initiated in 1981 and continuing through 1990, the City's policy was to assass 100% of the costs associated with the maintenance program. Projects were segregated by su ~b~livision and assessed individually. In 1990, the policy was modified such that the City contributdd 50% of the individual project cost. The purpose of this case is to consider any modifications desii'ed in the assessment process. One concern associated with the current assessment process includes the treatment of corner and double frontage lo;~s. Past policy has been to assess a full share for corner and double frontage lots when the improvement was applied to the street on which the property's driveway accesses. In the past two street pm. grams, assessments to corner lots were made on the basis of assessing one-half share of each strict benefitted. This has become significant in that a number of cases have occurred where tine street has received a sealcoat, while the second street received a more expensive overlay~ Staff has preference for the more recent method of assessment, as it alleviates the need for a visual inspection of the lot to determine where the property owner's access is located. It also avpids the issues of how to assess vacant lots, and whether to assess two shares to comer lots hawng ~double access onto both streets. A second point to consider is the treatment for assessing parks. Previous to 1990, parks were assessed a full shale. With the 1991 program, the assessment of a share for parks was eliminated primarily due to ~he fact that the City was now contributing a significant portion to the street maintenance cost. i However, for the 1993 program, Central Park was assessed a significant share of the cost of overlaying 161st Avenue N.W. Primarily because not assessing the park would have resulted in [an unreasonably txigh cost for the remaining property owners. I would recommend that We redefine our assessment policy for parks to eliminate any assessment to neighborhood parks. As was mentioned in the introduction to this case, it has been a policy since 1981 to assess individual project3 on a subdivision basis. The committee may wish to consider consolidating the annual maintenance program such that each annual program would be divided into a sealcoat project and an overlay project, each of which would receive a single assessment Such a change would be a ssgnificant change m policy and would have the following advantages and disadvantages: Advantages: · It would result in reduced administrative cost and effort. Would substantially reduce the number of public hearings and public notices. · It would make it difficult for a project to be defeated by petition, as typically over 200 signatures Would be needed for such an action. · Eliminates the unusually high assessment associated on projects with high costs and few benefitted parcels. 7