Laserfiche WebLink
· No reduction in assessable paving width associated with a "livability factor" <br /> · No imposition of "prepaid" equivalent assessments <br /> · Foregoing the use of irrevocable petitions on local streets <br /> <br />Mr. McVey reviewed the following recommendations of criteria for council initiation of local street <br />improvement projects: <br /> <br /> · Use of a criterion for effect on Fire/Emergency Medical Services response time along <br /> primary response routes <br /> · Application of the criteria for Berntzen Road <br /> <br />Mr. McVey noted that the proportion recommended by staff for greater City participation in costs <br />related to the fire Station was approximately four times the amount of a single-family residence, <br />based on the trip generation rate. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey reviewed the recommendations for modification to the Alley Assessment Policy and <br />priority for establishing an Alley Improvement Program: <br /> <br /> · Basing apportionment of assessments on current land use rather than zoning <br /> · Priority for and timing of establishing an Alley Improvement Program <br /> <br />Mr. McVey stated that the rationale for these recommendations were outlined in Attachment A <br />and comparisons of existing local street assessment policies to the adopted Arterial/Collector <br />Street Assessment Policy and the proposed Local Street Assessment Policy were outlined in <br />Attachment B. <br /> <br />Mr. McVey noted that the some City participation would be necessary for such programs to be <br />successful. He conceded that there was not an identified funding source to pay for such <br />participation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. McVey for an exemplary effort. As a member of the committee, he <br />explained that many of the recommendations were of a housekeeping nature; additionally, he <br />said that when the council adopted the Arterial/Collector Street Assessment Policy, language <br />specific to arterials and collectors was included in the code. He said that this ordinance would <br />delete such language from the "arterial collector only" portion of the code and include it in the <br />"common portion" of the code. Mr. Kelly urged the council to approve the motion to move the <br />ordinance forward to a public hearing. Mr. Kelly conceded that the ordinance was not perfect but <br />that it would significantly improve the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 thanked Mr. McVey for his efforts and concurred with Mr. Kelly that this request was a <br />positive step to align the local streets and alleys with the Arterial/Collector Street Assessment <br />Policy. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr spoke of Berntzen Road and stated that the residents in that area believed the <br />degradation of the road was due to the fire station. He questioned if the City paying four times <br />the regular rate of the trip generation would meet with approval of the residents and said he <br />believed that some negotiation would need to take place. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson questioned how the ratio for trip generation was derived. Mr. McVey replied that <br />the ratio came about from a review of the average daily trips generated by a single-family <br />residence versus a count of the trips to the fire station, with no additional correction for vehicle <br /> <br />MINUTES-Work Session City Council October 31, 2001 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />