Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose voluntary curb-replacement reimbursement policy for property owners
Summary
City staff presented a proposal to let property owners share replacement costs for existing curb and gutter, modeled on the sidewalk reimbursement process; staff recommended a limited pilot fund (proposed $25,000) and said the program would apply only to existing curb/gutter replacements that meet city standards.
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff briefed the Leavenworth City Commission on a proposed voluntary curb-replacement reimbursement policy that would let private property owners partially fund replacement of existing curb and gutter and seek partial reimbursement from a city program modeled on the sidewalk reimbursement process.
Staff said the city currently budgets funds for curb work tied to pavement projects and does not routinely replace curb at individual properties outside those projects. The proposed program would be voluntary, require applicants to meet city construction standards and would apply only to existing curb and gutter replacement (not new curb construction). Staff suggested a pilot limitation of $25,000 from the current curb/pavement funding to test demand, noting staff had received two recent business requests for assistance.
Commissioners discussed equity and maintenance questions and asked whether the city would repair curb damaged by snowplows, trucks or other public uses. Staff said the city would continue to replace curb tied to street projects and clarified the reimbursement pilot was intended to stretch existing funding rather than replace those core responsibilities.
Staff described the proposed administrative process as similar to the sidewalk program: applicants would apply, the city would inspect and approve work to the city standard, and then reimburse the property owner for a portion of eligible costs. Staff emphasized the program would not require property owners to pay a fixed share in all cases and that staff would return with policy language and further public outreach, particularly to commercial property owners who had inquired.
No formal policy vote was taken; the commission provided direction to pursue developing a policy and to solicit business input.

