Laserfiche WebLink
determinations have to be made: 1. Can the City enter into a contract with <br />bids coming in more than 10% over the estimate or must the process be gone <br />through all over again; 2. Can the City continue the process of borrowing <br />money in lieu of the desirable market right now; 3. Does the City pare down <br />the project to match the funds that are being borrowed or provide for <br />additional funding at a later date. Staff is not prepared to make <br />recommendations at this meeting; suggest tabling the case until September 23. <br /> <br />Steve Gorecki - 14140 Azurite - Stated that a lot of property owners on <br />Azurite did not receive any type of formal notice that the City was planning a <br />sewer and water project in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that it is proper procedure to notify property owners and <br />the City has verification of mailings that went out. The addresses used are <br />addresses of the owners of record. <br /> <br />Mr. Gorecki stated that the owner of record of his property has not received <br />any notices. <br /> <br />Bernie Vevea - 14047 Azurite - Inquired what notices property owners are to <br />receive according to the law. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that law requires property owners to be notified; it does <br />not require that we follow up to be certain the property owners received their <br />notice; the City does the best it can according to the County Auditor's list to <br />notify property owners. The fact that someone does not receive their notice <br />does not invalidate the project; if a large segment of persons did not receive <br />their notice, there would be reason for concern. <br /> <br />Mr. Vevea - Stated that he and several other property owners did not receive <br />any notice. Inquired if the project can be rejected because bids came in too <br />much in excess of the estimate. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that the project can be rejected because bids are too <br />high; the project could be rejected even if the bids were not over. <br /> <br />Mr. Vevea - Inquired if the project can be rejected because a majority of the <br />property owners were not notified. Requested City Administrator to explain the <br />tax increment process. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that the law does not state that a project will be <br />rejected for lack of notification unless there is something terribly wrong with <br />the way in which the notices were sent out. In the City Charter there is a 60 <br />day waiting period provided following the public hearing in which affected <br />persons may submit a petition opposing the project; that 60 days has elapsed in <br />this case. Mr. Goodrich stated that a provision of the Charter indicates that <br />Council cannot proceed on a project or reconsider a project for one year if <br />bids come in more than 10% above the engineer's estimate; staff has to <br />determine if that language applies in this particular case. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that tax increment financing is a way for cities to allocate <br />for a specific purpose the taxes that are levied and received as a result of <br />increased property values; not just the tax revenues that would normally come <br /> September 9, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />