Agenda Packets - 1995/07/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CM OF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 9. 111706STAFF REPORT Report Number: 95-1403Ws W AGENDA SESSION DATE July y 10 1995 Report Date: 7-6-95 DISPOSITION Item Description: Continued Discussion of the Assessment Policy Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report \r 'V - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) ,r+UMMARY; At the June 22, 1995 City Council meeting, staff presented additional information regarding the Assessment Policy that Council desired more time to discuss . Among these items, was Staff' s recommendation that the Preventative Maintenance activities involved the Pavement Management, not be included the Assessment Policy. The typical expenditures for these activities has historically been approximately $85, 000 . The reasons it is not cost efficient to include these cost in the Assessment Policy, is that it will require an enormous amount of time for all individuals involved. Public notices and Public Hearing notices (sent to every resident within 300 feet of a proposed street to be sealcoated) , engineering services, and possible assessments of merely $100 would have to be sent to the County. These activities make assessing maintenance activities not cost effective or efficient . Finance Director Don Brager prepared a memo to me on that Monday estimating the levy increase required to raise these funds annually. The increased tax to perform these measures on an average $86, 000 home would be approximately $20 per year. If all streets in the city were rated at the same level, they would be sealcoated every 5 - 7 years . At a 2/3 assessed rate the expense to the resident would be approximately $100 . Theoretically the cost to the resident is the same either way. This memo regarding the required levy increase accompanies this report . Staff also heard from residents, the question, "How much will it cost to reconstruct my street?" Staff prepared a cost analysis based on the Sherwood Estates project for Council for the June 12 , 1995 meeting. The analysis was based on an 2/3 assessment . Comments were heard regarding lowering the assessed rate . Staff has prepared the same project at various rates for Council' s review. Should Council choose to reduce the 2/3 rate, it could be viewed as a comprise, and possibly reduce public concern regarding the fairness of the assessment rate. This summary is also included for Council' s review. Staff is preparing a comparison of the Assessment Policy to Chapter 8 of the Charter. Flip charts will be available for review to show how the two documents work together, or conflict with each other. These charts will be ppr � esented at the July 17, 1995 council meeting. J*COMMENDATION; (over)