Agenda Packets - 1995/05/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

example, a single project runs through both residential and commercial area. In such a case, the council might well conclude that the benefit received by the commercial property was significantly greater on a front footage basis then that received by the residential property. This paragraph also raises a question relating to how residential properties should be assessed for street improvements on larger streets, such as collector or arterial streets. Many cities will levy only that part of the cost of the project which is represented by the cost which would be incurred if the collector street were reconstructed as a residential street. It may be that this is what was intended by the language of the last paragraph of Section V.11.1. If so, this could be clarified by adding a sentence whichrads " ssessments for residential properties which are on collector or arterial streets shall be adjusted so that the amount of the assessment shall be the same as if the project were constructed to residential street standards as provided in Section V.11.1. of this policy." Section III, B provides, in the third sentence, that "the assessment rates shall be adjusted from time to time based on the Engineering New Record Index. Such an adjustment makes sense in cities which, from time to time, establish a set rate of assessment for various kinds of improvements. For example, some cities establish a rate (for example $.03 per square foot for storm sewer assessments) which applies on a citywide basis. This established rate, then, is adjusted on an annual basis by the Construction Record Index without the necessity of amendment to the city council's resolution establishing the initial rate. However, there is nothing in this policy which suggests that the city council will be establishing any rates which need to be adjusted by the Engineering Index. If the city does not intend to establish such a uniform rate for street resurfacing, but rather will assess the costs on the basis of the adjusted front footage method applied to the actual cost, I would recommend that the last two sentences of paragraph B be deleted. If, on the other hand, the city council intends to set an initial rate for street resurfacing which will apply to all future projects, adjusted in accordance with the index, I would recommend that the second sentence be amended to read "Assessments shall be determined by the adjusted front footage method applied to a rate, per front foot, which is established by resolution of the city council." The following paragraph, paragraph C, deals with sidewalks. This section provides that 50% of the cost of sidewalk improvements shall be assessed to benefitted properties. There is nothing . illegal about this policy. However, in my experience assessing the cost of sidewalk improvements can be highly controversial. Some cities have simply decided that sidewalk improvements should be treated as a public amenity which is not specially assessed against abutting properties. Controversy may be generated, in cases where sidewalks are not constructed on both sides of the street, relating to where the sidewalk should be constructed. It is common for owners to wish to have a sidewalk constructed across the street, on their neighbors property, rather then in their front yard. You may wish to discuss the procedure for sidewalk improvements with some other cities to determine what their experience has been, and what policies they have adopted for sidewalk projects. The following section, Section D, deals with the sealcoating, and establishes the policy that no assessments will be levied for such projects. Again, this policy is certainly legal, but it is also legal for the city to assess all, or a portion of the cost of sealcoating. As you know, sealcoating prolongs the life of a street and forestalls the necessity of street reconstruction. If the city levies 2/3rds of the cost of street reconstruction but none of the cost of sealcoating, the city council may CLL85803 4 MU125-19