03-23-11 Council Special Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 23, 2011 noted that some parts of the City might have poor soils while another has sandy soils. The assessment cap ensures that all residential property owners in the City pay the same rate for street and utility improvements, rather than penalizing some areas of the City were conditions are less than ideal. The assessment cap is a per front foot rate. In the case of Dianna Lane the assessment cap was factored into a per unit assessment. The Administrator also noted that the general taxpayers are paying the majority share of project costs, and the cost savings realized by competitive bids are realized by the general taxpayers. With regard to the Johnson property at 2345 Arcade Street, the City Administrator stated that he can understand the contention that the Dianna Lane improvement does not benefit this property. He noted the Condit Street improvement where double- fronting properties without access to Condit were assessed, and that assessment was held up in court. The Administrator noted that 2345 Arcade Street is proposed to be assessed as a corner lot, therefore, is being assessed at 20% of the full assessment rate. The Administrator indicated that, in theory, a corner lot is more valuable, and it is the City's policy to assess the full assessment on a front yard frontage, and a 20% assessment on a side yard. The Administrator noted that 2345 Arcade Street was developed prior to Dianna Lane being constructed. In a quick review of similar situations, he noted 7 other properties that became corner lots as a result of a new street improvement. The Administrator indicated that based on the City's past practices in these situations, he would recommended that the proposed assessment for 2345 Arcade Street remain as is. Desai indicated that in his view a corner lot is no more valuable. He also suggested that while a lot of things might be legal, but are not equitable. Desai felt that the assessment of 2345 Arcade Street for the Dianna Lane improvement was not equitable. The City Administrator stated that if the Council decides not to assess 2345 Arcade Street, then either the Dianna Lane property owners should have their assessment increased accordingly, or the City will need to absorb the additional cost. He also suggested the need to amend the Assessment Policy depending on the factors considered. The Council discussed the assessment of 2345 Arcade Street and felt the situation was unique enough that it would not set a precedent nor be considered a deviation from the City's assessment policy. The Council noted the retaining walls at the entrance to Dianna Lane and the fact that the wall and grades prevent 2345 Arcade Street from having any access to Dianna Lane. The walls were replaced by the City at one time, and it was the opinion of staff and the Council that those walls would remain. The 5