Laserfiche WebLink
policy on this project and asked Bloom to talk about two or three options <br />that could be included in the feasibility report. Member Shiely said he had <br />a suggestion to make this real simple. He said there ought to be a different <br />assessment on Phase I and Phase II. Bloom asked why would there be a <br />separate assessment. Member Shiely said because of a geographical <br />impediment. Member Wilke said the project would be let as one project <br />with two phases. <br /> <br /> Member Wilke said he thought the City should be consistent in charging <br />assessments and follow what has been done on recent projects. <br /> <br /> Member Shiely said he thought the residents on the private road should be <br />assessed 50% of what the other residents were assessed; and if they <br />reconstruct the private drive, they should be assessed nothing. <br /> <br /> Member Wilke said he liked the idea of taking all the property owners <br />from Phases I and II and charging them a flat rate. <br /> <br /> Member Shiely said that it’s not the fault of the residents that there’s a <br />geographical impediment on one side of the street so it’s only assessable <br />on one side. He said they should be charged a fixed rate, then said the cost <br />should be figured as if there were two sides of the street to assess and <br />charge them according to that. <br /> <br /> Member Fischer said that for years we’ve been assessing based on footage <br />and wondered if this is an odd enough situation that assessing at a flat rate <br />can be defended. Bloom said other communities always assess at a flat <br />rate per lot. Schwartz said any assessment can always be challenged. <br /> <br /> Member Wilke said he thinks the flat rate is a fair way to assess. Member <br />Fischer said he agreed. <br /> <br /> Bloom summarized what she heard the Commission recommend: two <br />possible scenarios to look at as a part of the feasibility report—per lot <br />charge and two times the total frontage. Schwartz said do you want to <br />recommend two scenarios to the Council. Member Wilke said yes. <br /> <br /> Member Shiely said he was absolutely vehemently opposed to all lots <br />being charge a flat fee. Schwartz said the city attorney should look into <br />what constitutes a benefit to the property. <br /> <br /> Member Wilke said what if the assessments were canceled for these <br />residents and the whole city was assessed for it. Bloom asked what the <br />benefit is to other residents if this street is constructed. Other residents <br />paid assessments when their street was redone so how is it fair for these <br />residents not to pay an assessment. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br />