minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

February 11, 1998
Harris Hall Main Floor - 1:30 p.m.

Chair Steve Cornacchia presided with Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson, and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Tarra Withers, Recording Secretary.




a. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 98-2-11-15/In the Matter of Certification of Final Assessments for Improvements to Irving Road from River Road to Highway 99 and Setting Lien Values Against Properties. (NBA & PM 1/7/98 & 1/21/98).

Don Maddox provided an overview of the Order. Maddox said from the January 21, 1998 public hearing, the Board gave direction to review the projects deferral policy, to review the assessment for residentially shared driveways, and to review the quality of assurance when a project is completed.

Maddox stated the Board received an attachment for the Order which allowed the Board to choose Option A, which does not include the deferment for the final amount assessed against each parcel, or Option B, which does include the deferment for properties that do not have direct vehicular access to Irving Road.

Maddox provided the Board with a map of a residential shared driveway and explained how the current policy only assesses the front abutting properties (see material on file).

Cornacchia expressed concern for properties that were not assessed but shared the driveway with the properties that were assessed.

Steve Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, said if the Board was to deviate from the code process for assessment and deferrals it may lead to a broader ramification. He said when a project begins, the property being assessed is under one ownership; however, parts of the parcel may have been sold, resulting in several homes sharing a driveway and the abutting properties in the area of road improvements are the only ones assessed.

Weeldreyer stated that the assessment policy in UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) areas and in filling should be reviewed.

Responding to Sorenson's question of who owns the shared driveway, Maddox said the fee ownership of the driveway is divided among the owners and each owner has a receptacle easement. Maddox stated the driveway was not a public road.

Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, suggested that Vorhes and Maddox work on the Board's concern about assessment of shared driveways.

Cornacchia suggested a possible assessment for residents who share a driveway is to take the front footage of the abutting properties, which determines the assessment, and then divide that figure among the residents who share the driveway.

Green said because the foot frontage of a property results in a disparity of assessment among residents, which share a drive, he would be interested in having a policy discussion to address this type of situation.

Weeldreyer said in determining residential assessments for road improvements, sidewalks should be a cost shared among the community and that assessment should not be placed on the abutting property resident.

MOTION: Approve the director's report and Order 98-2-11-15 with the deferral rates of Option B Exhibit A.

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

Responding to Sorenson's concern about assurance of quality control, Ollie Snowden, Public Works, said public comment about quality control concerned cracks on the sidewalk. He said many of the cracks that occurred took place on the street corner sidewalk, but the contractor did construct the sidewalks as specified; however, the contractor did not calculate the need for more scoring, which may have prevented many cracks from developing. Snowden said the assessment on the sidewalk included only five to seven feet and many of the cracks were beyond the assessment mark.

Green asked if the aesthetics could be fixed.

Snowden said it was possible; however, it would cost several thousand dollars because the cracking occurred at nearly every intersection of the project.

VOTE: 2-3, Cornacchia, Dumdi, and Weeldreyer dissenting.

The Board gave staff direction for County Counsel and Public Works to determine an alternative for assessing households that share a driveway. The Board provided two possible options, one was Sorenson's suggestion to assess the right-of-way of the shared driveway among the property owners who use the driveway, and the other was Cornacchia's suggestion of taking the frontage of the abutting properties and dividing the assessment equally with all properties taking indirect access on a shared driveway.

The Board gave direction to present this matter for the first meeting in May.

Maddox said a form letter would be sent to all properties on this project notifying them of the Board's action.



There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.


Tarra Withers, Recording Secretary
Edited by Zoe Gilstrap

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices