Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

 The subcommittee recommended the City develop a uniform assessment methodology for residential prop- erties based upon a single-family residential assessment unit (RAU) with single-family and duplex homes being assigned one RAU. Mr. McVey noted the issues on which the subcommittee was unable to reach consensus, which included the RAU multiplier for multi-family properties. The subcommittee discussed RAU multipliers of 0.25 per dwelling unit and 0.35 per dwelling unit. Staff recommended a multiplier of 0.25 per dwelling unit because it moderated the cost shifts that staff anticipated for multi-family lots. The subcommittee could not concur on proportion of total lot area or proportion of total lot frontage as the method of apportionment to be used for the initial apportionment of assessable costs between residential and non-residential lots within an LID. Staff recommended the use of proportion of lot frontage. Mr. Clark solicited comments from subcommittee members. Ms. Taylor commended the work of the subcommittee and staff. She encouraged the council to support the subcommittee’s recommendations and advocated for a separate vote on the consensus and non-consensus items. Ms. Taylor wished that the City could stop assessing property owners altogether. She had long-time concerns about the injustice of the system. She thought the proposed code and policy changes were a step toward greater justice for those assessed. Speaking to the recommendation that those who lived on dead end streets and cul-de-sacs be included in LIDS for unimproved roads to which they connected, Ms. Taylor believed the recommendation was justified by those residents need to use the unimproved road to reach other locations in the community. She said that if the City was to assess for such improvements, it should assess more than just the adjacent properties. She was pleased that the City had changed the term “benefiting property owner” to “abutting property owner.” Ms. Solomon also thanked staff. She said adding dead end streets and cul-de-sacs to an LID helped dilute the impact to property owners and would have made a significant difference to the residents living along Maple and Elmira streets as well as those living on Crest Drive. She thought the code changes increased fairness and would help mitigate the impact of street improvement projects on residents. Mr. Poling also commended staff. He reminded the council that the revisions would go to a public hearing so the process was at the starting point. He looked forward to the council discussion. Mr. Poling agreed that the changes the subcommittee made spread out the costs of projects more evenly. He anticipated more streets would be improved as a result and there was a possibility projects could be larger, resulting in cost efficiencies. Mr. Poling concurred with Ms. Taylor that the council should vote separately on the consensus and non-consensus recommendations. Mr. Clark expressed concern that the inclusion of dead end streets and cul-de-sacs in an LID could potentially result in property owners living on those streets being assessed multiple times for road projects. He referred to the Crest Drive project as an example of his concern. He said those residents had to pay the cost of their own street when it was built and now the City was suggesting that they pay for improvements on roads that they could potentially use. He asked on what basis someone must participate in the LID, and if those living on cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets paid a different rate. Mr. Schoening said the properties of the cul-de-sac would have paid the costs of the cul-de-sac. The subdivision developer would have paid for the development and apportioned a cost to the lots. While the City could not codify the goal, the goal would be that when a project was developed, staff would examine the network of MINUTES—City Council September 22, 2010 Page 2 Work Session