Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

there could be a separate assessment element for such things as additional sidewalks or other features. The council could direct staff to take that approach as part of the LID formation process. Mr. Clark suggested that if one accepted the principle that if one lived on an improved street one had already paid for the street, someone living on an improved cul-de-sac landlocked by an unimproved road, that person on the improved cul-de-sac will be paying two full assessments. Mr. Schoening agreed. Mr. Clark said that merely because one had to drive on a road did not overcome the inequality of paying twice. Ms. Taylor believed there was so much inequality in the system that it could not be entirely eliminated. She said a person who chose to purchase a property where they had to drive on an unimproved road benefited from the road improvement project and should help pay for it. She thought they benefited even more than the people who lived on the road, because they were getting a good way to get out of their home while people living on the road suffered from the construction impacts and the possible loss of trees and frontage. She believed that those individuals should have thought of such issues when they bought a house that took access onto an unimproved road. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the consensus recommendations of the sub- committee. Mr. Poling reiterated that LIDs must have the approval of a majority of property owners. Mr. Pryor supported the motion with the expectation of further conversation around the subjects of cul-de-sacs, dead end streets, and fractionalizing RAUs to recognize special circumstances. Ms. Ortiz pointed out the council could modify LIDs to address specific issues raised by residents. Mr. Clark supported the motion because the process was in the early stages, but would not support the final ordinance without alteration. The motion passed 7:0; Mr. Zelenka did not vote. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the RAU be 0.35. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to change the RAU to 0.25. The motion to amend passed 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. The amended motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to use area rather than frontage for commercial assess- ments. Mr. Brown indicated support for the motion. He said the council could wait for an actual example and might want to consider a combination of approaches. He did not think each LID had to be governed by ironclad rules and there might be some changes that could be made that were beneficial to everyone. He called for a commonsense approach. Mr. Clark questioned the impact on the City share of project costs. Mr. Schoening said in some cases it would make no difference but in other cases in would make a big difference. Staff recommended frontage because frontage did not change but lots could be divided between the time the LID was formed and assessed. MINUTES—City Council September 22, 2010 Page 4 Work Session