Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Gamec replied that the intention is to protect the property owner <br />that would be paying for the improvement in the event actual costs exceed by <br />more than 10% what was estimated at the improvement hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Data stated that section 8.05.02 gives the city as a whole a voice <br />regarding an improvement and/or financing method even when less than 80 percent <br />of the estimated cost to the city is to be paid for by special assessment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bauerkemper noted that even if the assessment to the property <br />owners is at a fixed amount, the City's portion of the cost could fall back on <br />the city as a whole. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that there are revenue streams, like tax increment <br />financing, that the City may want to take advantage of. Tax increment <br />financing is future tax dollars that instead of going to the school district <br />and county would be funneled into projects within the community. Mr. Itartley <br />inquired if the intent was that bids coming in at more than 10% above estimate <br />would postpone a project for another year or that it would cause there to be <br />another public hearing? <br /> <br />Commissioner Sieber stated that the intent is that when project bids come in at <br />more than 10% of what was estimated and presented to the public, that project <br />is no longer the same project that was presented to the public. Commissioner <br />Sieber stated that changing the specs somewhat would make it a different <br />project and it could be brought up again. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that staff would like to work within the charter and not <br />avoid it. With the changing market climate, waiting another year may mean <br />foregoing certain funding; it may deprive people of essential services. Do not <br />believe the intent was to postpone a project another year when people want the <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich and Mr. Hartley brought up for discussion section 8.05.04 that <br />states when bids for an improvement project come in at over 10%, 'Council shall <br />not vote on the same improvements within one year . . . ' Is that to be <br />interpreted as none of the prepatory work taking place for a year or just that <br />the hearing and ordering the project cannot take place for one year. The <br />prepatory work is time consuming and requires Council approval. The charter <br />implies that no action whatsover on a project shall take place for one year. <br /> <br />The Commission had no objections to prepatory work taking place during the one <br />year delay period with the improvement hearing not taking place until one year <br />from project disallowment date; directed Mr. Goodrich to prepare appropriate <br />language for Commission review. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich inquired as to what would be the 'disallowment date'. <br /> <br />Chairman Sieber stated that the disallowment date should be 60 days after the <br />public hearing to allow for the petitioning provisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that the charter says one year after the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that if the disallowment date is to be 60 days after the <br /> September 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />