2012-02-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair DeBenedet suggested a policy such as: "The existing Assessment Policy applied to properties zoned 1-2 family; with all others assessed at 25% of the equivalent of a 7 ton, 32' wide street, additional related roadway costs (e.g. curb and gutter, medians, turn lanes, drainage, all lighting, signals, and landscaping) assessed at 90% of total construction costs." Chair DeBenedet noted that such a policy would make it much less affordable for small businesses. Member Vanderwall questioned if such a policy would address 4-plexes, if the basic premise was to those larger properties paying for the additional traffic, or that additional traffic being of greater benefit to them, and questioned whether a 4-plex would benefit from additional traffic. However, Member Vanderwall was unsure of where the actual cut off should be. Ms. Bloom clarified R-1 and R-2 properties now being classified as LDR and MDR in the new Zoning Ordinance. At the request of Chair DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom offered to talk to the Planning Division for their input; and Mr. Schwartz noted the need to consider all zoning districts: HDR, Commercial, Retail, Industrial, Residential, as well as Institutional (e.g. schools, churches in R-1 zoning areas). At the request for clarification by Ms. Bloom, Chair DeBenedet spoke in support of the assessment rate being tied to actual land use, not zoning. Member Vanderwall opined that such additional information would be required prior to additional discussion, considering potential controversy of such a policy. With State Aid monies continuing to diminish, Member Vanderwall noted less willingness of the County to proceed with projects; and spoke in support of establishing a funding system, similar to that done with the City's water and sewer utilities, to avoid significant and inconsistent increases for taxpayers from year to year. Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that further discussion was needed on the annual portion of the City's tax levy that was set aside for funding infrastructure needs; with Member Vanderwall expressing his 100% support of such an allotment for funds. However, Member Vanderwall noted that the political ramifications of such a discussion would be translated to individual City Council candidates, as it would be seen as potentially "raising taxes." Member Gjerdingen questioned if levy funds were intended for reconstruction or for maintenance needs. Page 11 of 13