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