Loading...
CC - 05-15-84 - Adjourned MeetingAPPIROVED CITY OF Idf)SF3 FEND MINUTES OF THE STUDY SESSION ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL MAY 15, 1984 The adjourned meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor for a Study Session regarding the Street Assessment Policy of the City at 8:05 p. m. in the Conference Room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Imperial. The Invocation was delivered by Councilman Bruesch. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, Cleveland, Imperial, Tury and Mayor Taylor Absent: None I. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. COUNCIL POLICY ON STREET ASSESSMENTS Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated the purpose of the Study Session is to take a look at the present Council policy as it relates to street assessments for local residential streets primarily. He stated that there is a situation where those property owners who are dedicating property gratis to the City in order to make improvements are generally paying more money for the assessments than those persons who are selling the pro- perty for the necessary right of way to the City. They receive money from the City in the way of an appraisal and then they are assessed at basically the same cost for the improvement as those who have dedicated their property. He stated that the reason for this is a couple of things: 1. The appraisal value for the property is increased substantially during the past years since this policy had been established. 2. There has been a drastic reduction in the prices in the construction industry, and have,in some cases,had 20% lower bids than the engineer's estimates. He added that should the leveling of property values continue and the bids are beginning to come in a little higher this could then balance the costs more evenly. Councilman Tury inquired why the amounts paid to the owners vary drastically. He commented on lots 39 and 42. Tom Howard, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the amounts paid to the property owners are based on three things: 1. Value of the land 2. Improvements which are on the particular property 3. Benefits which offset damages that may occur. He stated that improvements can be landscaping, walls and etc. Councilman Tury stated that if a fence or wall is removed, it is then replaced for the property owner by the City. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that under the appraisal law, the City has to pay the fair market value for that fence even though the City replaces it. Mayor Taylor stated that that was not the intent of the policy. He stated that if something was taken out, it was replaced by the City. He inquired if the City removes a fence and the owner is re-imbursed for the fence, can the City then charge for the new fence to off-set the payment that was given to them. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated not if they built it on their property. He explained that the law now requires these assessment districts to be handled in this fashion. Prior to new legislation being introduced, the City could approach the owner with the offer that if the owner dedicates the land, the City would pay for the pave-out,the engineering permits and inspections and the owner would be assessed for the concrete in place. Study Sgessio: g Pale 81 r~ u Frank Tripepi stated that the law now states that the property has to be appraised, go to the property owner and tell him that the City is going to improve the street, we need 10 feet of right of way and we have had your property appraised and you have coming to you $3,250, however, if you would like to dedicate it at no cost, we would like to accept it and we will.pay for.... Obviously once people are told what their land is worth, very few of them are going to dedicate on a gratis basis. Mayor Taylor stated that the Council's policy was a policy of fairness. If the owner had an existing wall or fence that needed to be taken down, the City would replace it at no cost, however, now an appraisal must be made for the existing fence and the owner must be reimbursed for that. Tom Howard stated that the fences are included in the appraisal. Mayor Taylor stated that the owner would be allowed money in the appraisal for the fence, and then the City is replacing that fence at cost to the City. He felt that policy should be changed. Councilman Imperial inquired how the value of the fence was arrived at. He questioned if it were market value or a depreciated value. He felt that the City should replace their.fence with a like kind. Councilman Tury stated that he felt that the policy of putting the fence back at the same state as it was the proper.way. He could not see paying them for the fence and then replacing it at City's, expense. Councilman Bruesch inquired how the appraiser is calculating the value of the land and improvements. Tom Howard, stated that the appraised value for land is exactly that. Just land. The improvements are added to that. The basic land value for this property is $4.50 per square foot.. Robert L. Kress, City Attorney, stated that the City is re- quired by law to offer just compensation for the fence, however, from the conversation of the Council, he felt that the Council' would like to replace the fence, but doesn't want to pay on both ends. It would be possible to tell the owner, if they,want to be paid the appraisal amount for the fence, that would be fine, how- ever, if the owner decided not to take the appraised amount for the fence,the City would build a new fence for the owner instead. This would fullfill the legal end and moral obligation to restore the fence and at the same time not pay for it twice. Councilman Bruesch inquired if the change from paying the owner the appraisal amount for the improvement and replacing the improve- ment also to doing either/or, would help balance the charges made to the owners who dedicate land instead of being paid for it. Tom Howard stated that it might help, however, it is an amount that would vary from $100 to $500/$600 as far as improvements. Councilman Bruesch inquired what the policy of replacement of shade trees. Tom Howard stated that it was not in the past included in the projects any shade trees. They..have replaced grass and restored sprinkler systems which exist. Councilman Tury stated that he was anxious to reduce the rate for the people who dedicated their land, however, he does not know how it can be done. He suggested that these assessments be more closely monitored and try to barter with the owners to either pay. them for the improvements or replace the improvements. Mayor Taylor stated that the assessment policy be monitored and be reviewed in six months for any changes. 'Study Session Page #2 5-15-84 There being no further business, the Study Session was adjourned to the next regular Meeting on May 22, 1984 at 8:00 p. m. Respectfully submitted: City Jerk Study Session Page #3 5-15-84