Ordinance No. 20053 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing on the assessment was held on May 21, 1996. The Hearings Official Minutes of the public hearing are attached. (Exhibit A) One property owner and the representative of a second property owner appeared and testified at the hearing. The common concern expressed by those who appeared at the hearing focused on several parcels that were partially or completely separated from the sidewalk improvements by a strip of unused state right-of-way. When the state acquired right-of-way along Highway 99, the right-of-way was wider in some areas than in other areas. When the Highway was resurfaced and improved, including the installation of sidewalks, no additional right-of-way was acquired. To create a straight edge to the Highway, portions of the right-of-way were left behind the area improved by the sidewalk. Approximately ten parcels were totally or completely separated from the sidewalk improvements by portions of the left over right-of-way. The owners who appeared objected to the proposed assessment for the sidewalks adjacent to their properties for two reasons. First, the property owners objected because their property did not touch all of the sidewalk. For some properties, the entire property was separated from the sidewalk by additional right-of-way. For other properties a portion of the property actually touches the improved sidewalk, while another part of the property is separated from the sidewalk by the right-of-way. The owners also objected to the proposed assessment because the state may sell the unused right-of-way, creating an intervening private property owner between the sidewalk and the property assessed for the sidewalk. 1. Non-contiguity with the sidewalk The mere fact that some or all of the property does not touch the sidewalk does not mean that the property should not be assessed. Properties are assessed because they are specially benefited by the development It is not necessary for the property to touch the sidewalk to be specially benefited. For example, the gutter portion of a sidewalk improvement channels drainage off a street and keeps the runoff from invading the adjacent property, whether or not the sidewalk actually touches the adjacent property. The sidewalk contains foot traffic and keeps it from wandering onto the adjacent property, even if there is also otherwise unmarked right-of-way between the two. As the opinion from the City Attorney points out, the City Council has determined that even a property across a street can be benefited by a sidewalk on the other side of a street. While it may be more clear to the property owner if the sidewalk for which the assessment is being levied touches the property, a simple analysis of the situation supports the City's conclusion that the properties that do not touch the sidewalk should nevertheless be assessed because the sidewalks and curbs and gutters do benefit the properties. 2. Potential sale of intervening right-of-way The property owners argued against being assessed because it is possible that this intervening right- of-way may be sold to a new, private property owner. While it may be possible for such a sale to take place, it seems highly unlikely that any person other than the assessed property owner would ever INSTALLA TION OF CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND ACCESS DRIVES FOR HIGHWAY 99 FROM BARGER DRIVE TO ROSSEVELT BOULEVARD FINAL ASSESSMENT PAGE 2