03/08/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # CONSIDERATION OF MODIFYING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES APPL1C~BLEI' TO THE ANNUAL STREET MA/]N~ENANCE PROGRAM By: Steven 3ankow~ki, City Engineer Background: Since i~ inception, the street maintenance program was fnnmccd through special When the first ~naint~nan~e lea'civets we:m iniriut~ in 1981 and continuing through 1990, th~ City's policy was to a~sess 100% of the costs associatcA with the mu4ntcnance program. Proj~cu segregated by ~ubdivision and assess~l individually. In 1990, the pokicy was modified such that the City contributed 50% of the individual proj~t cosu The purpose of this case is to consider any modifications d~sired in the assessment proces;. One concmm a~ociamd with the cur~nt assessment process includes the ur. aunent of cermet and cioubie fi-ontagdlom Past policy had b,-~en to assess a full shm-~ for comer and double frontage 1o~ when the improvement was made to the street on which the property% driveway had acces;, in the past two street pmgram~, assessments to comer lots were rn~de on thc b~is of ~sessing one-half sha~ to each sti'e~t benefiucti Thcr~ m-e an mcrr. asmg numbm, of cases where a pardcuiar comer lot nmy r~ceive ia sca.lc, oat improve'merit along one cur. ct in one yea.r, and a subs~uent sealcoat or a moro ~xoensiv6~ov~lay on thc other street in a fumm y~az. tn ~ y~ar's proposeA program,~.~em are ten such prdp~n:icz. W'niie it is certainly posiible to condnu~ thc cra'rant pracfce of checking where the prop ~'ty's driveway a~cesses the street, this poiiey doesn't ~r~ss the issue of how to assess undevelOp~ lou, or whether to assess r~vo sba_ms to comm' lots having access onto A proposed poiicy would mai: "It shall 'be thc poiiW of the Ci~, to assess com~ iot~ one-half of the assessment of non-coram, tots on each sn-eet for a sue. ct ma~ntcnknce improvemenm. 'i-his po]isy shall no~ apply to comer tots on which fi-outage occm-s along County. or State u-~mk highways or CiO' MS,& streets. Such comer iota shall pay a ~ share equal to nor:- corner i0ts" This chan~e in polJcv is simolm, to adrninistm., and ~ s~ f~. It elimqnates ~e ne~ to ch~k whelm, a~~ ~omer for was ~sess~ on a previous pr~ It ~e;fiams ~e n~d ~,r a ~su~ ~¢~cfion of ~e lot to dem~ine wh~e ~e pmpe~ omer's access is l~at~ it ~so avoids ~e issues of how to ~sess yacht lots, ~d whereto, to assess ~o sh~es to comer iots hax~g double abcess onto bo~ s~eem. ~'i~, Pa/rs A second point: to consider is the treatment Ior assessing parks. Previous to 1990, parks were assess~ z f-nil ~ta.?. 'WSt. h the 1991 .m'o~-~m~ the assessment of a share for varks was c~mquated prknar~y due ro the fact that the City was now conudbuting a siguificmut'vorfion to the s~reet maintenance co~t. However, for the 1993 pro,_m, Cenu--al Park was assess2~5 a si~o'n~Scant share of the cost of oyeriaymg 161st Av~nue N.'W. Primafi)y b~aus¢ not assessing the park would have resulted m au unreasonably high cost for the remaining property owners. I would recommend that we redefine our assessment poi/cy for pm:ks to e~m~nare any assessment to neighborhood p~trks.