Laserfiche WebLink
Charter Commission <br />October 11, 2007 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED <br />131 Ms. Marty stated it is state law that the City can assess the amount your property value increases <br />132 due to the improvement; you only have to pay the amount your value went up. <br />133 <br />134 Chair Duffy asked what the most common scenario is. <br />135 <br />136 Ms. Marty replied the most common scenario is to assess the adjacent property owners and have <br />137 the whole tax base of the City pick up the rest. <br />138 <br />139 Commissioner Trehus asked where the Charter excludes area assessments. <br />140 <br />141 Ms. Marty stated there are conflicting references in the current Charter and proposed <br />142 amendments and stated it is important these be consistent throughout the document. <br />143 <br />144 Commissioner Handrick stated she is opposed to area -wide assessments and that it should be left <br />145 to the City to pick up the rest out of the general fund. <br />146 <br />147 Commissioner Trehus concurred. <br />148 <br />149 Ms. Marty requested the Commission consider the language regarding area -wide assessments and <br />150 get back to her. Ms. Marty asked if it is the intent to restrict the vote regarding assessments to <br />151 allow one vote per parcel or per frontage. <br />,"'N 52 <br />153 It was the concensus of the Commission to restrict voting to one vote per parcel and one name <br />154 per project (in the case of multiple lot owners). <br />155 <br />156 Ms. Marty then addressed the items in the Commission's Bullet List. <br />157 <br />158 Bullet #1: Ms. Marty agreed with the proposed changes in Bullet #1. <br />159 <br />160 Bullet #2: Ms. Marty agreed with Bullet #2. <br />161 <br />162 Bullet #3: Ms. Marty stated this requires 25% of the owners of the parcels; state law requires <br />163 35% of owners of the frontage. Discussion was held whether to raise the percentage consistent <br />164 with state law. <br />165 <br />166 It was the consensus of the Commission to leave this provision as it currently reads (25%). <br />167 <br />168 Commissioner Bening stated this provision begins "a neighborhood may initiate projects..." and <br />169 then talks about a petition for a feasibility study. He asked if the first sentence should include the <br />170 words "petition for feasibility study." Ms. Marty agreed to clarify this provision. <br />171 <br />172 Bullet #4: Ms. Marty requested clarification of this bullet. <br />173 <br />4 <br />