|
A propose~ rm,5.s~ pohey would
<br />
<br />"Neighborhood CiD' parks shall not be consirtered s bcncfin~ property for the
<br />purpose of assessment".
<br />
<br />Each ytm,' it seems we ~ confronted v,-ith ,~ situation where application of th:. project assessment
<br />rules would result in an assessment which is out of propomon ',Sth tTpical assessments on similar
<br />pro.pm-des. T).,-picalt),, these proj~ts involve MSA coli~tm: romSw~),s where many of mt lots
<br />frontage on subdivision roads and rcmmmng lots on large pm'eels. This results in relarivet,,, large
<br />proje2.t costs being ciisn-Sbutexl over few of para, els msulnng in unusuMiy high or dispropor~:ionate
<br />assessmenL Se',,eraJ ahm"natives n-fight bt consifer--c.d to n::m~y this problem
<br />
<br />Aggregate projects and ?..ssessments: Mnintenance pro. ie:ts could be aggregated into one
<br />large prqitct by type. !got example, all scMcoa: and ovcriay projr..crs could b: combmed
<br />and one uniform assessment be, applied to tach property receiving that D."Pe, of
<br />improvement, t.n addiuon m etirnman~g the d/sproPornonate mssessmenr, s, this would aisc
<br />re. duct arimimsn'auvt effon and cost by rr..dumng the numb~ of public htarmgs and legaJ
<br />not:ices. Although it hasn't been a problem in recent years, larger street maintenance
<br />projects would be, more difficult to defeat by psrinon, in the, vmtt on some, pro3tcts having
<br />on])' a dozen or, so properties, street mm.nmnance proj~.'-,:.s have iX:eh defeat.ed.
<br />
<br />The largest dismSvantage of agra'=gating .re, foists, is that sm. all su'txiivisions subsi~i:,e larger
<br />sui::d.iv~orm. Armche.,ci is an tx.h/bit =ndfied "Fman~r:d imoam of Aggregatmg Assessments
<br />for Annu~ Srre:.t Mmnmnance Propmrn". Tms is a compilation of th: vast three,
<br />street vrom'-~m assessments coached to what ~,'~, would have been if oroiects were
<br />
<br />suadivisions ~.,nf this might be, rtsfi, fled by. a,:,_~'~a.:in,~,:,~ ~ .~. proDmms berwesn m-ban an~
<br />subdivisions, bu~ the most si=m',.h~c~._n: assessmem ~~ference would have ocr. m-red, :for
<br />T,'-'aom:k Commons whi:h is a nn'-at subdi',dsion. "
<br />
<br />(b)
<br />
<br />Esr. a. btishing a poi/cy of ~sessing as seem.'-ate charge for unusu~ and dis~ro~o,--don~.re
<br />~ssssmenr. s: Tms z.ln.%--nzrive, would simo)v a:imowi~ge thc.: oarfisuim- cases m~), o~m- m
<br />which me avDiicanon of the no.~al assessm:m ~ies would result i~, an assessment
<br />diserooomona~e, ,,,,'iff, assessmem for ~e ,;mvrovement on s~mii~.- VroDemes. in such
<br />cases, we would assess me, ~verage cos; for that D.,pe improvement {n the cm"rsnt ye~'s
<br />pro,'am for simiim- assessmenu.
<br />
<br /> disadvantage of this alternative may lie in de,DzS_ng what is an unusu~ or
<br />&soroooi"fionate, assessm:m in borderiine, c~es. Tms may bs :im=~'h~ somewhat by
<br />ad~g =miideiine,s. Psrhzvs where ~e, ass:ssm:n~ wo~d D~ic~>' :xc::d ~e avenge
<br />~ssssm:m by !~ percent We ~t ~o consider csmbls~g z cay ~ssssm:m m re:se
<br />~.s, bm i ~s~eve most :~es wo~d apply to ~A s=eeu wh~e mere ~>, be s=ong
<br />oppohfion ro pang ~s ~ghest ~sss~sn~ ~tb~n ~e ~o~ f~ m~mn~:e on a hi~
<br />
<br />Recommendation:
<br />
<br />h is my recommendation that the change in 'policy for comer lots and oar'~ bs ~_.commended to .the,
<br />Cou.ncil for adoodon. ! b:iieve a reco'mmgndarion on dealing W/th ~ii. somoordonate assessments
<br />should be made. based, on the.w~i=mn=,~'~," = of ms merits and disadva_nr.a,,,~=~ of the ~ternadves
<br />presented_
<br />
<br />
<br />
|