2012_1210_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 of 3 mainly because of the Special Benefit Test. 34 Utilities: The PWETC recommends that the City continue to fund major maintenance for City 35 utilities using existing utility infrastructure funds. However, in the case where additional utility 36 capacity is needed as a result of redevelopment or rezoning, then 100% of these costs would be 37 assessed to property owners 38 Pathway Construction: The PWETC believes that pathways included as priority segments in the 39 Pathway Master Plan serve a regional benefit. As a result, they do not recommend that the costs 40 to build these pathways be assessed to the property owners abutting the project. However, they 41 do recognize that pathways along other stretches of road may benefit the property owners along 42 those streets. As a result, they recommend that projects requested by property owners be 43 considered for assessments, based on the Special Benefit Test. 44 Streetlights: No changes were recommended for the streetlight assessment policy. 45 In putting together the final draft policy for this meeting, staff took a look at format, content and took 46 another look at the policy to ensure that all of the different types of public improvement projects that the 47 City may undertake were included. The purpose of this was to ensure that the policy was 48 comprehensive and to eliminate conflicts. As a result of this review, some modifications have been 49 made since the September 17, 2012 worksession. A summary of the major changes made in this draft: 50 City Property: Added section 2. g. Consistent with existing practice, when calculating the total 51 assessable frontage, we include the assessable fr ontage from all properties, including City owned 52 property. 53 County Open Space Property: County Open Space was addressed in Resolution 9703, we have 54 added the language from that resolution to the policy in section 2. h. 55 Regional Improvement Projects: Projects such as noise walls and interchange reconstruction can 56 benefit all property owners in the area surrounding the project, not just the property owners 57 directly adjacent to the improvement. Staff felt that additional flexibility should be added to our 58 assessment policy for these types of projects. To accomplish this, we have added section 6- 59 Regional Improvement Projects and some associated definitions. The purpose of this section is 60 to provide for an alternative to the front foot assessment methodology in cases of public 61 improvements that create an area-wide benefit. When a project benefits an area, the properties 62 expected to receive positive impacts from the proposed public improvement would be assessed 63 for the cost of construction. The Benefited Area would be determined on a project- by- project 64 basis as a part of the Feasibility Report. Assessment amounts would be subject to the Benefit 65 Test. 66 Traffic Management Program: Added section 7 for consistency with the new policy. 67 Finally, during the Council discussion a question came up regarding Sanitary Sewer and Watermain, 68 sections 8 (d) and 10 (d), of the policy. These sections state: 69 “New development property, or property which has altered its land use within the past three years, shall 70 be assessed at 100% of the city’s expense for the improvement”. 71 The question was- Why does it use 3 years for consider ation of land use changes? Staff did not find a 72 rationale for this timing. The City Attorney looked into state statute and determined that this timing is 73 not set by statute. It is likely that it was set as a “reasonable amount of time”. 74