Ordinance No. 19932 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and $12.15 per foot for sidewalks. The assessments for the ~b foot street widths are lower in this case because only two parcels are assessed fora 36 foot equivalent street width, and one of these is a flag lot so the number of front feet assessed exceeds the actual number of front feet. ' Mr. Lyle stated that these assessments were comparable to the costs estimated at the revious . P public hearing. Mr. Lyle then stated that all property owners qualify for ten-year frnancing from the City for their assessments. He then indicated that two letters pert~ainiuug to the assessment had been received from property owners. One was from a Mike weech, and Mr. Lyle summarized his letter as expressing concerns about his ability to pay the assessment and the number of front feet determined for his property. The other letter was from Kevin Storey, and Mr. Lyle summarized his letter as expressing concerns over the sidewalk, though Mr. Lyle Hated that his propert does . y not have any sidewalk and ~s not berng assessed. for any. At that point Mr. watch invited the members of the public present to ask questions of the staff members. Mr. Melich began by asking if Marshall was considered a collector street west of Hughes Street, and Mr. Lyle answered that is was. Mr. Melich asked if the properties along the collector part of the street were assessed at rates higher than properties along the residential part of the street. Mr. Lyle explained that properties along the collector part of the street were assessed for the equivalent of a 2Q foot wide street, which is less than the 28 foot street customarily assessed to properties bordering on residential streets. Mr. Klope added that the 2~ foot equivalent assessment was given to properties with single-family residences built on them, but not for vacant lots. Idabelle Goode, another member of the public present, next asked why Marshall Street was designated as a collector while being adead-end street. Mr. Lyie answered Chat designations are based a:a traffic volume, and that Marshall Street is a collector for art of its P length because of high traffic volumes. Ms. Goode added that the street has more traffic and higher speeds since the construction. Another area resident in attendance, Daral King, then stated that residents should be given credit for the prior paving of the street, and Ms. Goode added that she had paid for street paving previously. Mr. Lyle responded that the City's policy is that when a street is built to the City's standards, the City will thereafter maintain those streets. In this case the street is an existing deteriorating asphalt mat, and it is unknown who paid far it. He added that the Cit . y ~s also concerned about traffic safety problems resulting from street quality, Mr. Lyie stated that property taxes do not pay for streets, but that streets are funded by initial assessments for construction and gas tax revenues for maintenance. Mr. Klope added that for this project, the City was paying for extra street widths and storm drains, so that the City was paying 51 % of the overall project cost. Mr. Melich asked if the City also paid for the water lines, and Mr. Lyle answered that utility lines were installed by the respective utilities, in this case EWEB, with no direct cost to property owners. 2