Laserfiche WebLink
• The subcommittee recommended the City develop a uniform assessment methodology for residential prop- <br />erties based upon a single-family residential assessment unit (RA U) with single-family and duplex homes <br />being assigned one RA U. <br />Mr. McVey noted the issues on which the subcommittee was unable to reach consensus, which included the RAU <br />multiplier for multi - family properties. The subcommittee discussed RAU multipliers of 0.25 per dwelling unit and <br />0.35 per dwelling unit. Staff recommended a multiplier of 0.25 per dwelling unit because it moderated the cost <br />shifts that staff anticipated for multi - family lots. The subcommittee could not concur on proportion of total lot <br />area or proportion of total lot frontage as the method of apportionment to be used for the initial apportionment of <br />assessable costs between residential and non - residential lots within an LID. Staff recommended the use of <br />proportion of lot frontage. <br />Mr. Clark solicited comments from subcommittee members. <br />Ms. Taylor commended the work of the subcommittee and staff. She encouraged the council to support the <br />subcommittee's recommendations and advocated for a separate vote on the consensus and non - consensus items. <br />Ms. Taylor wished that the City could stop assessing property owners altogether. She had long -time concerns <br />about the injustice of the system. She thought the proposed code and policy changes were a step toward greater <br />justice for those assessed. <br />Speaking to the recommendation that those who lived on dead end streets and cul -de -sacs be included in LIDS for <br />unimproved roads to which they connected, Ms. Taylor believed the recommendation was justified by those <br />residents need to use the unimproved road to reach other locations in the community. She said that if the City was <br />to assess for such improvements, it should assess more than just the adjacent properties. She was pleased that the <br />City had changed the term "benefiting property owner" to "abutting property owner." <br />Ms. Solomon also thanked staff. She said adding dead end streets and cul -de -sacs to an LID helped dilute the <br />impact to property owners and would have made a significant difference to the residents living along Maple and <br />Elmira streets as well as those living on Crest Drive. She thought the code changes increased fairness and would <br />help mitigate the impact of street improvement projects on residents. <br />Mr. Poling also commended staff. He reminded the council that the revisions would go to a public hearing so the <br />process was at the starting point. He looked forward to the council discussion. Mr. Poling agreed that the changes <br />the subcommittee made spread out the costs of projects more evenly. He anticipated more streets would be <br />improved as a result and there was a possibility projects could be larger, resulting in cost efficiencies. <br />Mr. Poling concurred with Ms. Taylor that the council should vote separately on the consensus and non - consensus <br />recommendations. <br />Mr. Clark expressed concern that the inclusion of dead end streets and cul -de -sacs in an LID could potentially <br />result in property owners living on those streets being assessed multiple times for road projects. He referred to the <br />Crest Drive project as an example of his concern. He said those residents had to pay the cost of their own street <br />when it was built and now the City was suggesting that they pay for improvements on roads that they could <br />potentially use. He asked on what basis someone must participate in the LID, and if those living on cul -de -sacs <br />and dead -end streets paid a different rate. Mr. Schoening said the properties of the cul -de -sac would have paid the <br />costs of the cul -de -sac. The subdivision developer would have paid for the development and apportioned a cost to <br />the lots. While the City could not codify the goal, the goal would be that when a project was developed, staff <br />would examine the network of streets and consciously develop a project so that one street was not assessed <br />repeatedly. Mr. Clark thought that seemed fundamentally inequitable. <br />MINUTES —City Council September 22, 2010 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />