Agenda - Council - 12/13/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE r CON~.DERATION OF MODIFYING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES APPLIChBLE TO THE ANNUAL STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Background: The City's assessrrlent policy is defined in written format in Section 4.50.01 of the City Code; however, many of the details[of the assessment policy are not included in that document. Over the years, the details for establishing as~ssments have varied with the tenure of the City Engineer. At the last public hearing on the assessment yor the 1994 Street Maintenance Program, Council agreed a detailed, written policy should be prepared! The purpose of this case is to consider and recommend such a policy to Council for adoption. One concern associated with the current assessment process included the treatment of comer and double frontage lots. Past~policy has been to assess a full share for comer and double frontage lots when the improvement was ~plied to the street on which the property's driveway accesses. In the past two street programs, assessments to corner lots were made on the basis of assessing one-half share of each street benefitted. I belie'4e the more recent method of assessment is pre, ferable as it alleviates the need for a visual inspection o~the lot to determine where the property owner s access is located. It also avoids the issues of how to as~ss vacant lots, and whether to assess two shares to comer lots having double access onto both streets, t A second point to cbnsider is the treatment for assessing parks. Previous to 1990, parks were assessed a full share. With th~ 1991 program, the assessment of a share for parks was eliminated primarily due to the fact that the Cit~ was contributing 50 percent of the cost of the street maintenance program. Previous to 1990, the prograrg was assessed 100 percent of the cost of the program. I would recommend that we redefine our assessn~ent policy for parks to eliminate any assessment to neighborhood parks. The final issue whi~:h needs to be addressed concerns how to handle individual projects in which the street application o~' the assessment roles will result in an assessment highly disproportionate with' assessment on simil~.r projects, usually due to the fact that a particular project has few assessable units over a considerable length of roadway. This is frequently the case on MSA streets. This was the case in the 1991 Street Miintenance Program. That year, Council decided to address the assessment by assessing the avera~ cost of all sealcoat assessments for that year's program. I would recommend that we utilize this meth~l when such cases arise. Recommendation: Staff recommends fprwarding to Council the attached Policy of Assessments Related to the Street Maintenance Progra~ for adoption. Council Action: Based on discussion.!' Reviewed by: City Engineer City Administrator R&B: 12/13/94 ~ /jkl ~