09-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 5 September 8, 1994 Zoning File #1860 Upon notice that Ms. Siegler’s request would be presented to the Council at their September 12th meeting. Ms. Siegler’s attorney, Gary C. Eidson, has submitted a letter dated September 1, 1994 posing certain questions of the staff related to the City ’s assessment policy as follows: 1. What is the established policy? 2.When was it established? 3. Who established the policy? 4. To identify similar situated properties to which this policy has been applied in the past. Staff will attempt to provide a brief history and summary of the assessment policy of the City. On September 10, 1984, Council adopted at 15 page summary memo of the City ’s assessment policies (Exhibit G). Prior to that time the policy or approved practice of the City can be traced in the assessment rolls of various sewer and water projects approved by the Council. Prior to the Metropolitan Urban Service Charge of 1974, assessment rolls were developed by the City ’s contract engineer. Dorothy Hallin, the City Clerk, and John Gerhardson, the Public Works Director, confirm that in-house staff such as the Building Department would not have been consulted for improvement projects prior to 1974. The engineer appeared to base an assessment on the apparent visual use or known history of use of the structure. The applicant’s attorney has asked for similar situations or examples of the application of this policy for other similar properties. Staff would refer to a land use application for duplex use in 1987 (#1059) for the property located at 2259 Shadywood Road (property located to north side of railroad). Prior to 1963 the strucmre contained a grocery store and upper level apartment. From 1963 to 1976 the lower level housed a dry cleaning operation. In 1976 the lower level was converted to an apartment and the upper level was offered for rent. Piior to 1974 the City had no written formula for determining multiple units or multiple family residential properties. The property was assessed two residential sewer and two residential water units although there was apparent commercial use. Hallin and Gerhardson noted because the property is located in a residential district. The apartments located above the commercial establishments in Navarre were included as commercial units because they were located in a commercial district. The review of the 1987 duplex application called for a review of the number of sewer and water units charged against the property. ■■ iVirr