Laserfiche WebLink
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES <br />By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />CASE <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />As discussed at the previous Road and Bridge Committee meeting, the 1994 Street <br />Malntenaneeiconmins no unusual assessments. That is, assessment amounts which are <br />substantially ~flifferent from similar irnprovcmcnts for similar properties. We have had such <br />situations in the past. For example, the sealcoating of 167th Avenue N.W. in 1992, where <br />19 propertie{ would have been assessed $410 each for the project, when average <br />sealcoating ~as $119. You may recall that these projects were actually assessed the <br />average charge that year. <br /> <br />We will haver similar situations in the future. For example 161st Avenue N.W., west of <br />Armstrong w.~ere only 16 properties have frontage on one-half mile of street and four of <br />those properures have already been assessed a full share when Forest Hideaway was sealed <br />two years ago. <br /> <br />I believe it is. necessary to agree on some uniform method for addressing these unusual <br />assessments.. There was only consensus at the February 8, 1994 Road and Bridge <br />Committee m~_e. eting to study the issue further before making a decision. Attached are both <br />the case and ~minutes from this meeting. Also attached is an analysis of the 1994 Street <br />Program which identifies the assessment differences if the 1994 Street Program were <br />performed as two projects, sealcoating and overlays with assessments aggregated. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Based upon discussion. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />City Engineer: <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />R&B: 03/08/94 <br /> <br /> <br />