Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #5: CITY ASSESSOR TO DISCUSS RESIDENTIAL VALUATION MADE IN 1981 <br />FOR 1988: <br />This was tabled from the Council meeting of October 14, 1980. <br />Please refer to your Council agenda dated October 14, 1980 <br />(D-2 case #2)for this agenda case. <br />CASE #6: CHAPTER 429 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE FOR NEW PLATS: <br />Enclosure (D2 -m) contains a copy of the proposed resolution <br />Council will have to adopt if they want to get involved in <br />financial assistance to developers. <br />At your September 8, 1980 meeting City Staff submitted a pros <br />and cons list to the Council on this issue. Accordingly, I <br />am resubmitting this due to the length of time that there has <br />been between discussion on this issue: <br />a) Pros: <br />1) More to developer economically because of lowering <br />costs. <br />2) No duplication in engineering. <br />3) Less staff time spent in finalizing out projects. <br />Now a tremendous amount of follow up time is spent <br />checking out to see that the developer completes <br />projects. It should be that there will be more ad- <br />ministrative time spent at the beginning of the <br />project for the City. <br />4 ) <br />City has good overall control of quality of project <br />and its timing. <br />b) Cons: <br />1) Major City policy change causing total government <br />involvement in improvements. <br />2) If default in assessment payments City will end up <br />picking up payments, but also will end up owning the <br />land. Special provision will have to be written in <br />agreement to establish some safeguards. <br />3) If cash needs for bond payments, which is not avail- <br />able from the respective improvements fund, City will <br />need to levy for additional, which means the entire <br />City will be required to make the debt payment. <br />