Laserfiche WebLink
The whole thing might be best incorporated within the <br />recodification instead of being adopted separately. If adopted <br />separately, prepare a resolution and summary for publication also. <br />2. The second action should be adoption of an ASSESSMENT POLICY <br />resolution. I suggest including the following points: <br />a) Adopt as a guideline to be usec' in determining future <br />project assessment formulas, but may be altered as <br />project needs vary. <br />b) In areas of new development, utility projects could be <br />assessed as follows: <br />trunk service: by area and unit <br />lateral service: by front footage and/or uni- <br />service stubs: include with lateral "unit" <br />c) In areas of existing development, projects could be assessed <br />as follows: <br />trunk service: by area and uni <br />lateral service: by unit only <br />d) Street projects could be assessed by curb -frontage and by <br />area in existing developments, and by unit only in new <br />developments. <br />e) Storm sewer projects should be assessed by area only in <br />existing developments, and by either area or unit in new <br />developments. <br />f) Private developers in the rural area should install all <br />improvements as private projects without City assessment. <br />g) Private developers in the urban area should install new <br />improvements as private projects without City assessment <br />except when off -site improvements or off -site benefit is <br />involved. <br />h) For consistency, new sewer projects connecting anywhere <br />to the old 63-1 project should inciide in their formula <br />the $225 "plant charge" unit [or it's current dollar amount <br />see proposed 25.854(f)) as a deferred unit charge on future <br />building sites. <br />i) Connections to new privately -installed sewer or water <br />e:.tensions should still pay the City trunk sewer or water <br />availability "unit" charges, but obviously no lateral unit <br />charges. <br />