11/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" Councilman McDonald wondered if there was precedent ,for granting some type of adjustment ~n this case. Mr. Teitzel knew of none. The only comparable instance, he said, was in ,another area where the 1/29 per square foot levy for sewer service was waived on the :: . portion of a BPAeasement beyond the l60-foot depth. 'The sewer mentioned by 1 ~ Mr. Montgomery in this instance that was not installed abutting the easemEnt was i actually not installed because that was the point of natural break, in drainage - those I : north of Montgomery's property were served to the north, those to the south were served i to the south. Mr. Montgomery recognized that a street couldn't be cut to skip the I portion abutting the easement,' but he wondered if> the Council would c~nsider the assess- I I ment fair and just. I Mr. McDonald commented on the formula for assessing costs of public improvements and said the assessment would have to be considered fair under the present policy. Mr.Keller agreed and noted that Mr. Montgomery did own the property and that the street would hav,~' ! to be considered of some benefit, either now or at some future time. He said he would have to assume the property was purchased with the BPA easement already on it or that it I , was put through with Mr. Montgomery's a~! -oval. There was no way to-control the influx : of people into an area which resul ted in need for improvements, and the improvements ! did have to be paid for. Mr. Keller said he felt the alternatives were limited, and in trying to make assessments as fair as possible he would have to say this one was fair. He added that sometime before the November 12 Council meeting he would take a look at I the property' in question. ! Bill DeZeeuw quotedifigures invested .in his property (south of Mr. Holverstot't's) to ~ ooint out to the Council, he~said, what residents of that area were experiencing. He ~ said he had purchased the property In 1959 as commerc~al property, ~t had been rezoned to residential about a year ago. He figured he had about $8600 invested, counting this : assessment plus the sewer assessment and property taxes. He said he was advised by the i-,lanners that the property would be assessed (for property taxes) on the ba'sis of two.~ lots because of the street frontage on Echo Hollow, however deed restrictions prevente~ mere than one residence on that property. He said he was "sending out a flyer tonight";:,~ ,that he would like some relief in the form of a variance or other consideration to be ',~ dole to make use of the property for which it was assessed. He said he understood the J : street assessment would' have been hi,gher had the property st.i 11 been commercially zoned, ., ,but he, would have been satisfied to have paid the additional cost if the property were l__ . .' '. _ ','," ...... __d_. _. __,._ '. .... '. ~ ," ..... . _.. _ ..._.__ _..~------,--_., returned to a commercia'l zom~.' Mr. Teitzel explained that the city had no control over \ assessed values, that protest should be made to th'e Countyi f Mr. DeZeeuw was tax(~d for \ two building sites and deed restrictions prevented its use in that fashion. Other than \ that, he said, the street improvement assessment was based on the standard 28-foot I residential width. ' " , i 'Mr. Holverstott inquired about the length of time allowed for payment under Bancrofting. He had understood there was a possibility it could be extended to 20 years making it possible for some of the residents On fixed incomes to meet the payments. George Wilson, ~. .1425 Echo Hollow Road, also inquired about a 20-year program for meeting the assessment. ,., He said he understood something on that order might be worked out, with the option of , paying off sooner if desired. Councilman Keller explained the standard lO-year Bancroft- ing procedure and noted the recently adopted hardship deferral program. It was under- ! stood that Mr. Teitzel would investigate the "20-year program" mentioned and get in ' touch with both Mr. Holverstott ahd Mr. Wilson in that regard. Mr. Holverstott quoted assessment against his commercial property compared 'to the resi- ! dential property next to it and requested a $2.67 per front foot reduction on his assess- · ment to compensate for the cost of the bicycle path for which the residential properties were not charged. ' j Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. f;C.B.672 - Paving, sanitary and storm sewers( and bridge on Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenuei sanitary sewer within area between 160 feet west and 160 feet east of Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenueipaving and s~orm sewer on 15th Avenue from Oak Patch Road to 370 feet west (73-31 and 73-33) Initiated by petition of owners of 37% of the properties ,to be assessed. Total contract cost $145,974.45, awarded on May 29, 1973 after public hearing. - Howard Elder, 1491 Oak Patch Road, questioned the "majority rule" process in making im- 4It. lprovements on a petition representing a minority of the property owners. He said he and Ineighbors had already paid for sewer previously installed and wondered why they were ,being assessed at this time for sewer service. Mr. Teitzel explained that the assessment included cost of the 28~foot paving and the 1/29 per square foot trunk levy which was not assessed when the previous sewer was installed. The trunk levy, he said in reply to Mr. Elder's questions, applied to all properties annexed to the city after 1948 and was ---- -.._.._--,._~ .....- ..- .--- ..-. -_.~.._~..._-_.__... . --_. --- - --..--.-......--.... ,:::.r..~-...~.._.,---_...~,.._---_._--'-~.."----' 390 11/12/74 - lp