Ordinance No. 19961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

connected to the public sewer system in connection with this project, and the assessable area was determined by measuring a 160 foot arc from the connection point. Another 160 foot measurement was made for this property from its frontage on the cul-de-sac, because of the possibility of dividing the property into more than one parcel. Mr. Lyle then explained that all of the parcels within the subdivision were being assessed for their full size, except for Tax Lot SOO which was being assessed as previously described, and the City property, for which 160 foot depth measurements were used. The total costs of the sewer improvements were then divided by the assessable square footage to determine the sewer assessment unit cost for this project. He indicated that this assessment method had been used for a long time by the City, including recently in matters heard by the Hearings Gfficial. He also stated that Tax Lot 800 now has one dwelling and potential for more, and that assessments included potential for future development. The proposed storm sewer assessments were the next matter addressed by Mr. Lyle. He stated that the streets were the main factor creating the need far storm sewers, and that this cost was mostly assessed to the lots in the subdivision, as were the street costs. He also noted that no storm sewer assessment was proposed far Tax Lot 500, because Mr. Jasper, the subdivision's owner, had paid for an extension of this line in return for easements from the Woodtique property owner, and the balance of the system was for street drainage. Mr. Lyle explained that all assessed praperty owners were eligible for ten-year financing through the City, and that the owners would be notified of financing and payment options after the City Council approved the assessment, if it did so. He added that the City Council action would create a lien on properties within the local improvement district. Mr. Lyle also described a contact with staff made by an affected property owner. Mr. Neilson, the owner of Tax Lot 9300 ~#18-04-02-14-09300} had called staff to object to the sanitary sewer assessment for his property. zn response, Mr. Lyle indicated that he felt the proposed sanitary sewer assessments were appropriate, and that extension of sanitary sewer service to Mr, Neilson's property was both logical and appropriate at this time, given its fiuture development potential. 1n response to a question from the Hearings Gffxcial, Mr. Lyle indicated that the cost of the bike path included in this project was not assessed to the property owners, and Mr. Weber confx.rmed that the City was paying for the cost of the bike path. Mr. Lyle also stated that the City was paying fvr the cost of intersections and the width of the cul-de-sac greater than 28 feet, in accordance with City policy. These costs were approximately $20,000, and the City was also paying the assessment for the City park property within the local improvement district, which was approximately $42,000. None of these costs were being assessed to the property owners within the local improvement district. Mr. Walch then invited the members of the public present to ask any questions or offer any comments they might have, and Gary Draper was the first to do so. He indicated that he was there to represent Henry Norton, the owner of Tax Lot 800, who was unable to attend because of his health. Mr. Draper initially noted that the 160 foot arc on Tax Lot 800 should 2