02/08/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # CONSIDERATION OF MODIFYING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Background: Since its incepti~°n, the street maintenance program was financed through special assessments. When thc first maintenance projects were initiated in 1981 and continuing through 1990, the City's policy was to as,~ess 100% of the costs associated with the maintenance program. Projects were segregated by sdbdivision and assessed individually. In 1990, the policy was modified such that the City conmibu~ed 50% of the individual project cost. The purpose of this case is to consider any modifications de~ired in the assessment process. One concern assOciated with the current assessment process includes the treatment of corner and double frontage ~ts. Past policy had been to assess a fttll share for corner and double frontage lots when the improvement was fa,de to the street on which the property's driveway had access. In the past two street programs, assessments to corner lots were made on the basis of assessing one-half share to each street benefitted. There are an increasing number of cases where a particular corner lot may receive aisealeoat improvement along one street in one year, and a subsequent sealcoat or a more expensive Overlay on the other street in a future year. In this year*s proposed program, there are ten such properties. While it is certainly possible to continue the current practice of checking where the property's driveway accesses the street, this policy doesn't address the issue of how to assess undevelot~ed lots, or whether to assess two shares to corner lots having access onto both streets. A proposed policy would read: "It shall bp the policy of the City to assess comer lots one-half of the assessment of non-corner, lots on each street for a street maintenance improvements. This policy shall not apply to comer lots on which frontage occurs along County or State trunk highways~or City MSA streets. Such comer lots shall pay a full share equal to non- corner lotS". This change in policy is simpler to administer, and is still fair. It eliminates the need to check whether a partic _,ilar comer lot was assessed on a previous project. It alleviates the need for a visual inspectioni of the lot to determine where the property owner's access is located. It also avoids the issuesE of how to assess vacant lots, and whether to assess two shares to comer lots having double access onto both streets. Ciw Parks A second point to consider is the treatment for assessing parks. Previous to 1990, parks were assessed a full share. With the 1991 program, the assessment of a share for parks was eliminated primarily due to She fact that the City was now contributing a significant portion to the street maintenance costi However, for the 1993 program, Centrai Park was assessed a significant share of the cost of ovgrlaying 161st Avenue N.W. Primarily because not assessing the park would have resulted in~ an unreasonably high cost for the remaining property owners. I would recommend that ,,ye redefine our assessment policy for parks to eliminate any assessment to neighborhood parks.