Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.10.28 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 28, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCH.MEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) 4th & Pearl Housing Authority Project. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presented by Andy Anderson, Executive Director, Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County. (b) Historic Preservation Plan (MF #PLAN2012 -004): 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated October 24, 2013. 2. Historic Preservation Plan 2013 (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library and on the City's webpage at www.i)asco- wa.gov/citvcouncilrei)orts). (c) Shoreline Master Program Consultant Agreement (NIF #PLAN2013 -001): 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planer dated October 24, 2013. 2. Professional Services Agreement Summary. 3. Summary of DOE Agreement Task List Revisions. (d) Kurtzman Spray Park Equipment Purchase: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated October 18, 2013. 2. Proposed Resolution. (e) LIDS 148/149: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 24, 2013. 2. Vicinity Map, LID 148. 3. Vicinity Map, LID 149. 4. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 10/24/13. (f) Street Sweeping Program. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presented by Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director. 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 7. ADJOURNMENT REMINDERS: 1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, October 28, Ben - Franklin Transit Office — Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.) 2. 4:00 p.m., Friday, November 1, 3425 E. "A" Street — Tierra Vida Recreation Center Ribbon Cutting Event. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Gary Crutchfr Manager Rick White, Community & P conomic Development Director // V FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Plan (MF# PLAN 2012 -004) I. II. III. IV. REFERENCE(S): 1. Historic Preservation Plan 2013* October 24, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 10/28/13 * Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library and on the city's webpage at httD://www.Dasco- wa.gov/citvcouncilrei)orts. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/28: DISCUSSION FISCAL IMPACT: None HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. One of Council's 2012 -2013 Goals is to assist the Historic Preservation Commission with the development of a Historic Preservation Plan for the City. B. On March of 2013 the City Council approved a contract with the consultant, Brum & Associates, to assist the City's Historic Preservation Commission in crafting the Plan. The Consultant and Commission were charged with the following tasks: 1. Analyze unfilled historic preservation opportunities. 2. Develop a plan for a historic district or consortium, recognizing that historic resources are dispersed throughout the City. 3. Develop a program for establishing a historic resources index/register. 4. Develop an inventory of economic strategies and workable incentives for encouraging private and public sector historic preservation efforts. 5. Establish historic preservation evaluation criteria for restoration/ replacement/reuse of historic resources. 6. Develop a strategy for financing /providing a railroad museum. C. The Historic Preservation Commission held an open house on June 26, 2013 focused on gathering input on the strengths and opportunities in historic preservation. Key stakeholders were also interviewed and the Pasco Historic Preservation Commission provided feedback and guidance for the project. D. A public hearing was held by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 2013 to review the final draft of the Plan and to make a recommendation to the City Council (Reference #1). The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of the Historic Preservation Plan and that it be adopted by reference as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4(b) V. DISCUSSION: A. Highlights of the Plan include: 1. Goals and actions to preserve, develop and maintain historic buildings, such as: i. Increase the capacity of Pasco's historic preservation program through the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. ii. Continue historic preservation downtown through the State Main Street program, and start accepting B &O tax credit donations. 2. Recommendations for increasing heritage tourism efforts, including: i. Develop a preservation/museum consortium to consolidate efforts and improve coordination between historic properties. a. Create a "Pasco Walk;" a walking tour brochure of Pasco Historic Places. 3. Recommendations for raising public awareness of the importance of historic preservation in the community, including: i. Recognize good rehabilitation efforts through awards and recognitions, similar to Pasco's Yard of the Month program. ii. Encourage public agencies to have historic information and historic photographs in their buildings and on their websites, and recognize those that do so with a letter from the Pasco HPC. B. If Council concurs with this planning effort, a resolution approving the plan and incorporating it into the City's Comprehensive Plan will be prepared for Council action. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council ( 1 October 24, 2013 TO: Gary Crutchfie; .t" ) Oanager Workshop Mtg.: 10/28/13 Rick White, i Regular Mtg.: 11 /04/13 Community & Economic Development Director �ZV4 FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Consultant Agreement (MF# PLAN 2013 -001) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Professional Services Agreement Summary 2. Summary of DOE Agreement Task List Revisions II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/28: DISCUSSION: 11/04: MOTION: I move to approve the professional services agreement with Anchor QEA for the update of the City's Shoreline Master Program, and further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Receipt of up to $100,000 for expenses incurred. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires local governments to review /update their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) every eight years. The City of Pasco is scheduled to update its SMP within two years after State funding is made available and the grant agreement is approved by Department of Ecology (DOE). Recent approval of the State budget includes funding for SMP updates. RCW 90.58.080(8) also provides for a 1 -year extension if DOE "determines that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master program within the additional year." Thus, if the grant agreement is approved by DOE on July 30, 2013 the extended deadline for completion of the update is June 30, 2016. B. The overarching goal of the SMA is to prevent harm from uncoordinated or piecemeal development along the state's shorelines and to maintain consistency with State laws and the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The SMA has three basic policies as outlined in RCW 90.58.020, and SMP updates and amendments must be consistent with these three policies: Protect the environmental resources of state shorelines. 2. Promote public access and enjoyment opportunities. Give priority to uses that require a shoreline location. C. At their August 29, 2013 meeting the City Council approved the Department of Ecology (DOE) Agreement which enables the City to receive State funding for the SMP Process, and authorized the City Manager to sign the agreement. Since that time the DOE has revised the agreement format for clarity by breaking the six overall tasks down into ten subtasks and rearranging the budget allocations to align with the tasks; however the tasks have not substantially changed nor has the overall budget amount changed. The 4(c) agreement was delivered to the City for final signature, and shall be signed by DOE, at which time the agreement shall take effect. V. DISCUSSION A. For the first biennium (FY 7/1/13 — 6/30/15) funding will be available up to $100,000; final year funding (FY 7/1/15 — 6/30/16) would be for $25,000 for a total of $125,000. It must be noted that in year 3 (7/15 -6/16) funding has typically been made available as an amendment to the grant agreement and is subject to legislative appropriation. B. The funds will be used to contract with Anchor QEA and to reimburse Planning Division costs for staff resources used for the update. Anchor QEA will incur approximately $81,700 in expenses in the first biennium. The balance of grant funds will be used to cover staff time and other in -house costs. The contract with DOE anticipates a third -year extension and the utilization of an additional $25,000 grant allocation; however at this time, no third -year costs are anticipated. Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Shoreline Master Program Consultant: Anchor QEA Address: 8033 W. Grandridge Avenue Suite A, Kennewick WA 99336 Scope of Services: City of Pasco (City) will be updating and adopting a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) through a local adoption process and submit its updated SMP to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for approval. The Anchor QEA team shall assist the City with the following SMP Update tasks, as described in the full Scope of Work: L Public Participation 2. Preliminary Shoreline Assessment 3. Inventory, Analysis, Characterization 4. Draft Shoreline Master Program 5. Preliminary Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6 Restoration Plan 7. Final Draft SMP / Supporting Documents 8. Local SMP Adoption Process Term: seven hundred thirty (730) calendar days Completion Date: October 21, 2015 Payments to Consultant: ❑ Hourly Rate: $ ® Fixed Sum of $81.700.00 ❑ Other: Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: ❑ $1,000,000 each occurrence; ❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or ❑ $ each occurrence; and $ general aggregate 2. Professional Liability: ❑ $1,000,000 per claim; ® $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit; or ❑ $ per claim; and $ per policy aggregate limit Other Information: Signature by: ❑ Mayor 0 City Manager \ \ \\ [$ \ \ % Ik 0 §$ \ƒ \}\ ƒ\ \ \ \f\ ,e_ \! }\2�� \ . �\ f » k / \$ \c ƒ£ } \; \3\{a» \\ . , 1f \ ƒ \ « _ » \ \ \&u #\ \ \\! \®37 uaz \S \k \ \3' ° )ja - I _2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Gary October 18, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 10/28/13 Regular Mtg.: 11/4/13 FROM: Rick Terway, Director, `A Wative & Community Services SUBJECT: Kurtzman Spray Park Equipment Purchase I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/28: Discussion 11/4: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. waiving competitive bidding requirements for the purchase of spray park equipment for Kurtzman Park and approve the purchase of the Kurtzman Spray Park Equipment from Vortex in the amount of $93,088.66. III. FISCAL IMPACT: $93,088.66 - CDBG Funds IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 2010, when the city renovated the pool facility at Memorial Park, staff researched spray equipment and selected Vortex system because it could be easily interchanged and toys rearranged with a quick coupling system and was one of the top rated systems in the field. We have not had any major issues with our equipment after three seasons of use. Other users we have contacted note that Vortex is quick to respond to any problems or parts needed. V. DISCUSSION: A) The Vortex system proposed for installation at Kurtzman Park is the same system we currently have at Memorial Pool (with different spray toys). Keeping the equipment the same allows staff to only have one system to learn and maintain, and stocking of parts will be simplified. B) The ability to interchange the toys will allow us to rearrange different features at each of the spray parks to give the users a greater variety of fun and enjoyment. C) Staff recommends the purchase of the Vortex spray equipment for the Kurtzman Park Project. 4(d) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION waiving competitive bidding requirements for the purchase of spray park equipment for Kurtzman Park and authorizing the purchase. WHEREAS, the City has previously evaluated equipment and installed Vortex spray equipment at Memorial Park Pool; and WHEREAS, the City is now considering the purchase of similar spray park recreational equipment for Kurtzman Park as an alternative to a swimming pool facility; and WHEREAS, it is functionally desirable to be able to exchange /interchange this equipment between Memorial Park and Kurtzman Park in order to facilitate consistent and dependable operations; and WHEREAS, the purchase of Vortex spray equipment for Kurtzman Park will allow the City to reduce the costs of operation, maintenance and repair, and the inventory of parts by having one system. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.04.280 Vortex is the sole source of spray equipment that is interchangeable with the equipment already installed at Memorial Park and the sole source which will allow the City to interchange equipment for providing variety to users; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council does hereby declare that the purchase of the spray park equipment is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply, and that sole source of supply is Vortex. Section 2. The competitive bidding requirements for the City of Pasco are hereby waived and the Pasco Administrative and Community Services Department is authorized to purchase from Vortex the spray park equipment in the sum of $ 93,088.66. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this day of ,2013. CITY OF PASCO: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Gary Crutchfi anager SUBJECT: LIDs 148/149 I. REFERENCE(S): October 24, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 10/28/13 1. Vicinity Map, LID 148 2. Vicinity Map, LID 149 2. Memorandum to City Manager from City Engineer dated 10/24/13 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/28: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: See below. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) LIDs 148 and 149 were formed and the improvements constructed over the past two years. In conducting the final assessment roll hearings, it was learned that several property owners desired installation and financing of utility stubs and/or driveways for certain vacant parcels within the LID boundaries. Council has continued the assessment roll hearing to be apprised of its options in responding to the expressed concerns. B) Council and staff have received legal advice that permits additional work (driveways and utility stubs) to be added to individual LID accounts only if the additional work and related additional assessment amount is agreed in writing by the respective property owner and if the charges for the additional work are for the same rate as charged others in the same LID. Council has discussed the practical limitations and problems associated with attempting to add more construction cost to the LIDs at this point in time, noting that any such effort would extend the final assessment hearing process well into spring or summer 2014. Such a delay is likely to cause an increased interest rate cost to all LID accounts, not just those wanting the extra work. Thus, it appears most prudent and fair to offer the additional work be accomplished outside the LID process, with the single exception of being able to finance "connection charges" for those homes that have stubs currently in place but are not yet connected to the particular utility (water and/or sewer). C) In addition to the desire of some to have additional improvements made, Council noted during their review of LID 149 final assessments that the range of cost appeared to be too disparate and requested an alternative allocation formula be identified which would result in a cost allocation within closer range of tolerance. A memorandum from City Engineer Mike Pawlak (reference No. 3), addresses the details of this issue and offers three alternative allocation models. V. DISCUSSION: A) To avoid delay of LID closure until next spring/summer, staff urges that the utility stubs (for vacant properties only) be installed by the city with utility funds and not included in the LID. This is generally consistent with past practice, as the city typically installs a sewer stub to each vacant lot when reconstructing a street, to 4(e) avoid cutting the street thereafter. The cost of the stub is recovered when the lot develops and the owner's cost is financed as part of the private project financing (usually a home mortgage). Thus, there is no adverse effect on owners of vacant lots by not including the stub cost in the LID (indeed, it is probably better for the vacant lot owner, as there is no payment obligation until the lot is actually developed). B) There are about a dozen homes (in both LIDS, combined) that are on city water but are not yet connected to sewer. Staff has sent formal written notice to each of those owners advising of their opportunity to include the sewer connection charges in their LID, even if they do not intend to connect to the sewer right away. It is expected that some of those homeowners will take advantage of the LID financing opportunity (it will be easier and carry a lower interest rate than a typical second mortgage); those that do so, will have the additional cost added to their respective final assessment. C) A few owners of vacant property desire driveways to be included on their vacant lots (in addition to utility stubs). Again, this additional work would delay closure of the LIDS until spring. Equally important, however, is the fact that installation of driveways for vacant lots is a gamble, unless the owner is certain about the plan for development of the lot. If the driveway must later be moved, it will cost at least double the original cost to do so. It has been the practice of the city to avoid installation of driveways on vacant lots as part of LIDs for that very reason; however, a couple of owners were accommodated in LID 148 and 149, so others feel shortchanged in that regard. As a compromise solution, staff recommends Council authorize reimbursement of half the cost of a single driveway on any vacant lot in the respective LIDs if installed in conjunction with a residential structure within 12 months of closure of the LID. This provides comparable benefit (the total LID cost was about half paid by grant funds) to that received by the few owners that included driveways already. D) Reallocation of final assessments for LID 149 appears necessary, given the wide disparity in cost for small lots versus large lots. The City Engineer has provided three options for Council consideration; two of the three are variations of the original formula, while the other simply uses the same "front foot cost" for each lot. While the latter option appears on the surface to be the "fair" method, it fails to account for the fact that a substantial portion of the actual costs were paid by federal grant. That grant program is intended to benefit "lower income residents" — not owners of vacant property. As the owners of vacant properties within the LID are already realizing a significant savings resulting from the city's contribution of federal grant funds to the project, it appears most appropriate to use the same formula for LID 149 as was used for LIDs 146, 147 and 148; that is option 3. Use of option 3 will result in a cost range tolerance of 7% (same as LID 148) and will be consistent with prior LIDs in the Kurtzman Park neighborhood. Use of a formula different than the original used for LID 149 requires new written notice to property owners with an explanation and a new hearing process, prior to final action by Council. Staff recommends the current hearing be closed (on November 4) and Council to direct staff to implement a new final assessment process using option 3 to allocate the costs to LID 149. I /L: It O o � O KL <r a R r W W � N E O` _Q I` M`O kJ OU .�i i i TL � rte. � a ..M 1 M •. ij 3nNeYxG dvWyv 10M w. m w E0 K W ' F .. a m 3nN3AV OOnN firm 3 3nN3AV 3HOMOAS " 4 y d Q L� r Z cW C U) U) W'^^ U) Q J Z LL :�. LID 149 z F ` Kurtzman Area Phase 3 Revised Boundary E LEWIS -ST -- Q 28 29 �f= O 2 27 29 I � 3 251 24 30 7 __ _ 21 30 W 8 '- 30 ° U 17� -31 �. ..� _ 31 4n . • J r 1 31 14 - _ 1G 3 - r __ Al Memo To: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director From: Michael A. Pawlak, PE, City Engineer Date: October 24, 2013 Public Works Department Engineering Division Re: LID 149 Final Assessment Calculation Options Memo Introduction. LID 149 constructed street improvements in the Kurtzman Park neighborhood including street reconstruction and paving, curb & gutter, storm drainage facilities, driveway approaches and sidewalks. In addition, the City constructed certain necessary water and sewer main improvements as companion projects to the LIDs. The cost for this utility work was not part of the LIDs, was paid for entirely by City water and sewer rate funds, and was not assessed to individual properties. During recent discussions relative to the Final Assessment Hearing held before City Council, a question was raised concerning the methodology used to calculate individual property assessments for the LID financed portion of project costs. This memo outlines the methodology used and presents information on three other options for calculating individual assessments. The Original Assessment Methodology. The methodology used for calculating individual property assessments utilized the same basic premises that were also used on the preceding Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Area LIDs (146, 147 and 148). That methodology used a `two -part" calculation that a) established a minimum Base Frontage length where all lots would equally share a set percentage of the total costs. b) calculated the second part of the assessment on the basis of the remaining lot front footage (in excess of the Base Frontage) as a percentage of the total "excess frontage" of all lots. In the case of LID 149, the Base Frontage was set at 50 -feet — the size of the smallest lot. This is the same criteria as was used in the previous Kurtzman Park LIDs. It should be noted that the Base Frontage in the other LIDs was 25 feet (again the size of the smallest lot). As in the previous LIDs, the Base Frontage of all lots was used to equally distribute 25- percent of the LID project costs. The remaining 75- percent of the costs were then distributed on the basis described above (Item b). This methodology provides some benefit and cost relief to the smaller lots while shifting additional burden to the larger lots were future development potential and investment returns are available. The resulting "cost per frontage foot' varies for each lot depending on length of frontage • Page 1 (lot width). Depending on lot size, the difference in the "cost per frontage foot" varies between $40.20 / ft. and $93.53 / ft. LID Property No. Total Frontage Base Frontage Excess Total Cost per Frontage Assessment frontage foot LID Costs 4� I 66,327.75 1_ 198,983.25 I 265,311.00 I I I 5 1 I I 50 2,009.93 I I 0 I 1 2,009.93 I 1 40.20 1 30 I 640 I 2,009.93 _I I 57,851.38 I I 59,861.31 I 1 93.53 1 I Option 1: Redistribute the Assessments on a 50/50 Basis. This option explores the individual assessments calculated similarly to the Original Assessment except that the Base Frontage calculation offsets 50- percent of the LID costs, instead of 25- percent. The remaining 50- percent of the LID costs is distributed similarly to the Original Assessment. When compared to the original calculation method, this option shifts some of the cost burden back to the smaller lots and reduces the burden on the larger lots. The resulting "cost per frontage foot" still varies for each lot depending on length of frontage (lot width). Depending on lot size, the difference in the "cost per frontage foot" varies between $66.54 / ft. and $80.40 / ft. LID Property No. Total Frontage Base Frontage Excess Total Cost per 1 Frontage Assessment frontage foot LID Costs 4 132,655.50 1 132,655.50 265,311.00 50 4,019.86 1 0 4,019.86 1 80.40 30 1 640 4,019.86 1 38,567.58 1 42,587.44 1 66.54 This option also increases the Final Assessment over the Preliminary Assessment for 19 of the 33 properties. The total dollar amount of increased assessment to those 19 properties is $9,430.03. Legally, the City may approve /adopt LID final assessments that are greater than the preliminary assessments. Historically, the City of Pasco's policy has been not to do so. There have been occasions when final assessments have exceeded the preliminary assessments and the City has "capped" an individual property's final assessment at the amount of the preliminary assessment. If Citv Council chose Option 1 and decided to cap final assessments at the nreliminary amount. the Citv would assume the added resoonsibility of $9.430.03 in LID costs. Option 2: Redistribute the Assessments on an Equal Front Footage Basis. This option calculates the assessment for all lots on a straight -line, front footage basis. The smaller lots will cant' a larger percentage of the costs when compared to the Original Assessments; and the larger • Page 2 lot assessments will be reduced. The resulting "cost per frontage foot" will be uniform ($72.111 ft.) for all lots, no matter what size. LID Property No. Total Frontage Base Frontage Excess Frontage As Total Assessment Cost per frontage foot LID Costs Cost per frontage foot „r 75.05 265,311.00 0 265,311.00 _2,009.93_ 5 50 3,605.42 1 0 2,009.93 72.11 30 640 46,149.32 0 59,861.31 72.11 This option also increases the Final Assessment over the Preliminary Assessment for 16 of the 33 properties. The total dollar amount of increased assessment to those 16 properties is $3,806.63. If Citv Council chose Option 2 and decided to cao final assessments at the oreliminary amount. the Citv would assume the added responsibility of $3.806.63 in LID costs. Option 3: Redistribute the Assessments using a 25-Ft Base Frontage. This third option utilizes the same basic methodology as the Original Assessment calculation except that the Base Frontage is reduced to 25 feet; and matches the base figure used in the previous LIDs. This option shifts additional cost burden to the smaller lots because a larger portion of the lot frontage is used in the calculation of the second portion of cost assessment that offsets 75- percent of the overall costs. A 50 -ft lot, for instance, would have paid a proportionate share of only 25% of the total LID costs under the Original Assessment. In this option, that same 50 -ft lot would pay an equal share of the first 25% of total costs (25 -ft Base Frontage), plus a proportionate share of the other 75- percent of LID costs on the remaining 25 -ft of its frontage. Again, when compared to the Original Assessments, the smaller lots assume increased costs while the larger lots have lower assessments. The resulting "cost per frontage foot' still varies for each lot depending on length of frontage (lot width). Depending on lot size, the difference in the "cost per frontage foot" varies between $70.13 / ft. and $75.05 / ft. LID Pro perty No. D Cc ats � Total Frontage J r � Base Frontage _ 66,327.75 Excess Frontage 198983.25 1,742.81 -- Total Assessment _ _ - - -- 265,311.00 3,752.74 Cost per frontage foot „r 75.05 _2,009.93_ 2,009.93 42,873.20 -75 .7 44,883.13 -- --05 70.13 This option also increases the Final Assessment over the Preliminary Assessment for 16 of the 33 properties. The total dollar amount of increased assessment to those 16 properties is $5,636.74. • Page 3 ff City Council chose Ootion 3 and decided to cao final assessments at the oreliminary amount, the Citv would assume the added resoonsibility of $5.636.74 in LID costs. Recommendation. The purpose of this memo is to present the various assessment impacts to the properties in LID 149, in order to provide City Council with the information needed to have discussion and make an informed decision on whether or not to re- calculate individual property assessments. Should Council be inclined to revise the assessment calculation methodology, it appears that Options 2 and 3 have less adverse (increased cost assessment) impact to property owners and relatively equal "cost per frontage foot' values. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you need additional information or clarification of the information provided. Attachment: • LID 149 — Final Assessment & Comparison to Preliminary Assessment — Original Assessment and Options 1, 2 and 3 • Page 4 gAAA6-iA RA FaSaB.Aais ^e ^r,aAAE.agq.F a up !!^^^•^ x ^•w9AggiA9qAqAqAAFAAqAAAqqAEAS� gRx €A�,Ra 9, 5 c - -- a 1 Ad ig—R -; »„ n � xaaasm�aaaxganAA WIU,. a a �3'Fi�9 °��359��8s3�� FaG Fen aA, xa A A ". A�Axgz^ o� $ OP HER, I lit _____ ___ ____ OR e p ggZggY .ee yy <a 9 p -- - - - x ^ - w 9AgA9g9q99R A-- AA9gAAS9�� I 9 s E S }�e# a—raxa� ^a�i��� naaA -F�n`gA« M_5 q aqas A ^iq aaaa' d32 ^ae6 a ORD a „ „„ _,�,5^56A5Kn82fi?v w. -AS R =na -a- W!jj 2 A AR«.00Sg9wnnCgA��.^. ..E S99R99R�S�,w°,FRnd S a m �8g8ARSSS y s lit _____ ___ ____ OR e p ggZggY .ee yy <a 9 p -- - - - x ^ - w 9AgA9g9q99R A-- AA9gAAS9�� I 9 s E S