Laserfiche WebLink
 <br /> <br />Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds – MSA funds are proposed to pay for the majority of <br />project costs and will pay for the portion of project costs ultimately proposed to be <br />recovered from special assessment payments. <br /> <br /> <br />Stormwater Management/Utility Funds – SWM/SWU funds are proposed to pay for all <br />stormwater related project costs using a 50/50 split. <br /> <br /> <br />Special Assessments – Assessments are proposed to be levied at a flat rate of $5,000 per <br />benefiting property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley referenced the Feasibility Study, which is only required if properties are to <br />be assessed. He asked and received confirmation that the assessment process adds about five <br />percent to the total project cost. He compared the cost to follow the assessment process to the <br />proposed amount of assessments that would be collected. He noted that while he appreciates the <br />desire to be fair, using assessments would increase the cost of the project by more than the amount <br />that would be collected in assessments. He commented that this is also a collector roadway <br />traveled by thousands of vehicles and only 13 properties would be assessed. He stated that this is <br />an example of a bad road to use assessments on and would not support that option. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kuzma asked for details on the costs involved in the assessment process. <br /> <br />City Engineer Westby reviewed the different elements that are required for a project involving <br />assessments, noting that a Feasibility Report is only part of that cost. He commented that there is <br />value in at least a light version of a Feasibility Report, whether or not assessments are involved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heinrich asked if other MSA road projects have included assessments or only use <br />of MSA funds. <br /> <br />City Engineer Westby stated Andrie Street, Alpine Drive and Sunwood Drive are examples of <br />MSA streets that were recently reconstructed, and commented that those properties were assessed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kuzma commented that the policy has been to assess the properties and therefore he <br />believes that the properties should be assessed in the amount of $5,000. He stated that if the policy <br />needs to be changed, it should be changed as a whole. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley noted that there would be an additional cost of $65,000 above the amount <br />collected through the assessments just to follow the assessment process. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kuzma stated that differing from the set policy would set precedent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that he would want to discuss changing the policy of the City to not <br />assess when it does not make financial sense. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kuzma agreed that there should be additional discussion by the full Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that the City has never assessed for a lesser amount than was required <br />to follow the assessment policy and therefore this would financially not make sense. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee / September 17, 2019 <br />Page 6 of 13 <br /> <br />