Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Field asked whether the special assessments process tends to have an averaging <br />effect, and how much of the budget it represents. He added the total of $1.7 million seems to be <br />an over funding if a franchise fee is introduced. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated there is a 50% assessment for new road overlays, but special <br />assessments for seal coating will probably be incorporated into the general operating budget. He <br />added the Charter gives residents the right to petition for or against a project. He noted it is <br />problematic for a project to be completed in terms of assessment issue, and it would be helpful to <br />have a higher bar than 50% to rely on that source of revenue in the future. <br />Debra Musgrove, 15247 Fluorine Street NW, stated the Charter allows residents to appeal <br />assessments but the penalty falls on the taxpayer base. She added the Charter should address this <br />issue as it is unfair for residents to pay for people who do not want their roads repaired. She <br />noted the vote should be higher so that a greater majority would be required, and residents who <br />do not want their roads repaired would have to provide a good reason. She expressed concern <br />that residents with smaller homes and less street frontage will pay the same amount under a <br />franchise fee as residents with bigger homes and more property. <br />Commissioner Zaetsch stated Section 8.6 of the Charter refers to the extension of sewer and /or <br />water and related costs to residents. He noted that residents who do not wish to use sewer and <br />water services will not want to pay the associated fees and may attempt to eliminate the project. <br />He added road improvements in more established neighborhoods could also prove difficult. City <br />Administrator Ulrich stated Section 8.6 does not compel any resident to connect to City sewer <br />and water, but the City may not assess against property owners who wish to remain on private <br />sewer and water. He added there is an availability charge associated with sewer and water, <br />which is separate from assessments. <br />Chairperson Field reviewed Chapter 8.1 which states, "No assessment shall exceed the benefit to <br />the property assessed as measured by the increase in the market value of the property assessed as <br />a result of the local improvement." He noted an assessment is limited to a property's market <br />value. He asked how the increase in market value is determined. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated, in his experience with other cities, a professional appraisal is <br />carried out before and after a project is completed to determine value threshold. He added it is <br />safer to have a threshold of 25 or 35% of the cost rather than assessing at 100% of a project, as it <br />is more difficult to legally prove an increase in value. He noted there has been a general increase <br />in property value in the past few years due to improvements. <br />Commissioner Deemer requested a legal opinion on Section 10.4, which refers to the ability of <br />the Council by ordinance to regulate and control franchise fees, subject to State Statutes. He <br />added he believes this is an administrative function, and it would not be right for the <br />Commission to dictate ordinance content in any case. <br />City Attorney Langel stated Section 10.4 gives the Council authority to approve franchise fees. <br />He added the Charter already contains substantive procedural provisions but does not specify the <br />Charter Commission /October 21, 2013 <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />