Laserfiche WebLink
weight. He added, however, that the proposed policy included a factor for extra depth of asphalt <br />which may apply to the fire station. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson referred to staff's recommendation of no imposition of "prepaid" equivalent <br />assessments. She pointed out there could be a lengthy time period between prepayment for <br />improvement and the actual construction and voiced her concern that this lag could lead to <br />difficulties when home-ownership changed and a future homeowner did not understand his or her <br />residence was on a private or a public street not built to standard. Mr. Kelly explained that it was <br />a fairness and (potentially) legal issue to state that as a condition to build a single-family house <br />on an improved street, the homeowner would be required to pay the current rate to improve the <br />street even though it may not be improved for many years. He conceded that it was a delicate <br />balance as he struggled with that issue but that he did not want the use of irrevocable petitions to <br />be restored. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thanked the committee members for their efforts in the challenge of resolving needs <br />and equity. He stated he would support the suggested motion and commented he was pleased <br />that the issue of alleys were addressed as there were substantial concerns, especially in the east <br />Blair area of the Whiteaker neighborhood. He said that this area was zoned for upgrade and <br />redevelopment but filled with single-family homes and alley apartment complexes. Mr. Meisner <br />suggested that if a petition was presented to improve an alley and there was an application <br />pending for a development use, zoning may be inconsistent. He emphasized that an alley <br />improvement program was essential. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she would support moving the recommendations forward to a public hearing; <br />however, she said she could not support all of the recommendations. She specifically stated she <br />could not support no reduction in assessable paving width associated with a 'fivability factor"as <br />she believed the City was using local streets as arterials and collectors in many situations and <br />pointed to the equity issue of a resident on a local street paying for additional pavement. Ms. <br />Bettman encouraged staff to find a way to reach out to affected property owners and provide <br />information on the impact of the policy so that these owners could understand the costs involved <br />at the end of the process. She also suggested that future liability for street improvements be <br />flagged in real estate transactions. Ms. Bettman raised the issue of the timeline and pointed out <br />that if the council moved forward to adopt a local street program, the timeline would be <br />compressed to do more projects. She also spoke to the new revenue sources and questioned <br />what the City's liability would be and whether it would be appropriated from the Transportation <br />Utility Fee. Mr. Kelly remarked that there was no interest on the part of the council, prior to Ms. <br />Bettman's term, to improve all the local streets - over and above the timeline due - and <br />assessing a large amount of property owners against their will. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor referred to the Street Assessment Policy and stated that it was unjust. She <br />questioned how a homeowner would benefit from the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. McVey <br />responded that specific changes to the proportionment of assessments provided some benefits <br />for current homeowners as (1) single-family properties with more than 100 feet of frontage would <br />have their assessable frontage capped at 100 feet, and, (2) some of the over half-acre lots that <br />had an existing homestead would only pay for the actual frontage or a limit of 100 feet with an <br />equivalent assessment collected at the time of future development. Ms. Taylor pointed out that <br />these examples would not apply to typical homeowners. Mr. McVey pointed out there were <br />programs for Iow-income families to defer or subsidize an assessment. Ms. Taylor asked about <br />the assessment on Onyx Street and pointed out that those residents would be assessed $25,000 <br />if the street was improved. Mr. McVey said a poll was underway to determine if there was <br />support by a majority of the residents to move forward with that improvement. He explained that <br /> <br />MINUTES-Work Session City Council October 31, 2001 Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />