Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Engineer Jankowski stated the first funding scenario shows that a continuation of the City's <br />current policy of assessing 50% of the project costs for both sea1coating and bituminous overlays <br />would require an average annual contribution of $433,558 from the City's general fund. This <br />would increase to $623,769 if the assessments were to be eliminated for sealcoating and to <br />$867,116 if the assessments were to be eliminated on both sealcoating and overlays. Mr. <br />Jankowski stated staff looked at other options to reduce the general fund contribution by <br />delaying some of the projects and moving them out to future years to reduce revenue <br />requirements; however, staff is not recommending this option. Mr. Jankowski explained while <br />staff is not recommending deferrals for sealcoating projects, an analysis was prepared to <br />determine what some level of deferral would have on needed funding levels. If half of the <br />scheduled sealcoats were to be deferred until after the 2012 program the impact on the City's <br />annual funding levels would be reduced by approximately $95,000 per year. This savings would <br />be only about half the amount of revenue needed to offset the lost revenue from elimination of <br />the sealcoating assessment. It would appear that additional general fund revenue would be <br />required to offset the loss of special assessment revenues. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated when the street improvements were pushed out previously they came back <br />at a higher cost and the streets were in worse shape. The Charter states that the property owners <br />can bring in a petition to deny the project being done and every time that has been done it has <br />turned out to cost the people more. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig commented he is always intrigued to attempt to do this. He pointed out if <br />they were to proceed with trying to eliminate assessments, in addition to the projected cost they <br />would need to look at what is assessed on the books that people are presently paying because the <br />City will probably need to pay for those also. He does not know how they could say they are <br />stopping the assessments this year, but the property owners that are currently being assessed will <br />continue to pay over the next ten years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson pointed out there also needs to be consideration of the property owners <br />that have already paid their assessments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated there is always the problem with stopping and starting if they start <br />a new policy, and there is an inherent perceived unfairness. He asked what is involved in the <br />assessment process and noted there is a cost to going through an assessment process, including <br />notification of all the homeowners. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson indicated plans and specifications need to be prepared regardless. <br />The assessment process requires notification of the public hearing and a waiting period of 60 <br />days after the public hearing. The cost of notification is approximately a couple thousand dollars <br />and includes notification in the newspaper. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained there are two notifications required; one to hold the public <br />hearing on the project and one to hold the assessment hearing after the project is done. Anoka <br />County charges per project to set up an assessment account. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / May 15, 2007 <br />Page 2 of9 <br />