Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Kurak stated that she understands why this issue was brought up last year based <br />on the proposed Bright Keys development, but she would caution the Council with changing the <br />policy at this time. She stated that she was uncomfortable with changing the policy because of <br />one incident based on a possible development. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if there was a street improvement project completed in a rural area with <br />the majority of the lots being ten acres and one lot being 20 acres, would the 20-acre lot be <br />charged two assessments. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied yes. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if there was a way for the City collect an assessment on a larger lot that is <br />subdivided after the improvement project is completed. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson replied that the City could not force the property owner to pay <br />additional assessments. If the Council chooses to go with alternative A than the property owner <br />would have already paid for those additional lots. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired as to how many complaints staff had received on the current <br />assessing policy. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that staff has not received many complaints regarding larger lot <br />assessments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson inquired if they were to change the policy would the City be at risk with <br />having property owners coming before them complaining about the way they were assessed. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that in the past people with longer frontages have probably seen <br />the benefit. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec felt that at this time it made sense to keep the policy as it is currently written. <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson stated that the problem with the Bright Keys property is that the <br />improvement project was already done and the assessments had already been determined. If the <br />Council were to add alternative A it would reduce the overall assessment per property in certain <br />developments because it would add more lots. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that he did not think that it would be beneficial to change the policy at this <br />time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak pointed out that residents that would move into the Bright Keys <br />development would not be assessed for 149th Avenue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig inquired as to what occurred that brought the issue before the Council. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 25, 2003 <br /> Page 4 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />