Ordinance No. 19932 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Doris Maddox, another property owner in attendance, next asked if property owners would be required to pay for utilities later, and Mr. Lyle answered that they would nat, because the utilities' franchise agreements with the City required the utilities to install or move utility lines. Ms. Maddox then stated that she was glad the street was paved, as it was now much safer for her children to walk to school. She explained that she owned a panhandle lot and had recently learned that the driveway was not on her property, so she had just acquired the land under her driveway. Since she now owns two lots, each with 12~/z feet of frontage, she asked if she would be assessed the minimum 60 feet for both Tots. Mr. Melich added that he also owned two lots. Mr. Klape answered that Ms. Maddox' driveway was assessed at I2~/z feet,' and Mr. Lyle added that one of Mr. Melich's Lots was assessed for 20 feet of street width because it was improved with a residence, but his flag lot was assessed for 36 feet of street width at the minimum frontage of 60 feet, because it was vacant. Mr. Melich then stated that his wife was over 60 years old and he soon would be, and asked if they would qualify far a deferral. of their assessment. Ms. Grandona asked if either of them were 62 years old, and Mr. Melich indicated that one of them would be in November 1993, and that their income was less than $10,000 per year. Ms. Grandona indicated that under those circumstances they would probably qualify, and they should request an application for deferral. Mr. Lyle added that after the Hearings Gfficial's findings were presented to the City Council assessment forms would be sent to property owners with applications for defen~al and financing. Ms. Goode asked for an explanation of the deferral, and Ms. Grandona explained. that the deferral set aside payment of the assessment for qualified property owners at 3 interest, and Mr. Lyle added that when the property owner no longer qualified for the deferral, the assessment could still be financed for ten years through the City. Ms. Goode stated that she was the sole owner of her property, and asked if her new husband's wages would be included in determining eligibility for the deferral. Ms. Grandona answered that his wages would nat be included if he did not reside on the property, but that would change if he moved onto the property. No more questions being asked of the staff, Mr. Balch then asked if any members of the public present desired to make statements regarding the proposed assessment. Mr. Melich stated that he was concerned about the amount of the assessment, but that he had discussed the matter with staff before the hearing and was less concerned now. He added that with his frontage of $7.9 feet, his assessment was about ~/~ of his property value. Mr. Lyle responded that the cost per front faat was laver here than for most projects; mast projects cost appraximately $50-$60 per front foot, and higher if hillside work is involved, so this project had a good price. Mr. Melich confirmed that his friends in the south hills area of the City did receive higher assessments for street improvement projects. I Immediately after the hearing, Mr. Klope reviewed the project fd.e and corrected this to indicate to Ms. Maddox that for her two I2~/2 foat lots she was assessed a total of 60 feet of frontage, the minimum for a residential lot. 3