Minutes - Council - 10/22/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Jankowski sated there was going to be a couple of small pieces of pavement, but for the most part, it would have been turf restoration. Mr. Hendriksen continued that he has no problem with street lighting, postage, publication, etc. He pointed out that his total comes to $123,515 versus the City's total which is $183,893. He referred to the second page (Exhibit B). The assessments were ordered at the last meeting. The amount for Juskiewicz Lots 1 and 2, and Green, is $103,605.14. In his (Hendriksen's) conversation with the City Engineer, he understood that the SAC and WAC charge is $15,000 per unit. You come up with $19,890. The total revenue generated is $123,495.14. The total cost is $123,515, total revenue is $123,495.14 showing a loss of $19.86. Mr. Hendriksen stated he is a business man. He buys and sells and hopefully makes money. When he buys something for $100 and he thinks he can get $200, but he sells it for $99, he does not tell anyone that he lost $100, he lost $1. He felt the City lost $20. The City will more than recover this amount next time. You should not tell people you lost $90,000 because you wanted to pay for other things with this money. During an election, people were being told it would cost $90 to $100 per household. We predicted the worst case scenario was $20. One person paying $20 would make this project whole. This was the first case - the first project. Because of failure to finish on time, it was covered by the Charter amendment and this should not be made a political issue of. He explained that when he wrote the Charter amendment, he tried to write it with a lot of latitude to implement it fairly. You are taking a hard line in terms of some of these issues. He stated he has talked to people about this and they do not agree with the City. He urged the City Council to hold a public hearing to hear what the citizens want. Mr. Schroeder stated that the assumption is, if Mr. Hendriksen is correct in the amount of revenue made, then what should be done is a recalculation of the assessment and they would have to be assessed a lesser amount. The assumption that the City would be revising that revenue is not accurate. For any amount that is not recovered with this project needs to be recovered from somewhere. It's a cost, or lack of revenue, overhead revenue ($10,000) in this project. That's revenue realized by the general fund. If it is not realized, the general fund has to take care of it. We assume we will receive revenue, if not, there's a deficit. It has to come from somewhere. If this project assumed a certain expense, that's set aside and it has to come from there or from somewhere. Mr. Hendriksen stated you would have to assess less if his numbers are correct. You did the assessment correctly - you ordered the project to service the school and the Fox Knoll addition. When you incurred the expense, I am assuming you have to pay for that and that was before Haubrich was ordered. It's fair to assess for those who participate but not fair to say you expended an extra $24,000. It's reasonable to assess those who want to hook up. You did not reach into your pocket for an additional $25,000. This addresses the three points you made. You are charging twice for some items. You are assessing this project for a price you were going to put in anyway. Mr. Schroeder stated that for every project similar to this, there are costs that are related directly to the project and some that are related indirectly. We charge a basic trunk charge based upon analysis that occurred when water and sewer first came to the community. The math says that eventually every area will be serviced. That will cost money. The trunk fee is sometimes more than expended in that project but we do it on a unit basis in order to provide for funding. Some of these costs might be similar to that. The watermain, sewer, etc., may or may not have been completed anyway. We have to assume that these would be constructed in that project. It should be computed as if it were a stand alone. Mr. Hendriksen stated that at the time you make a commitment to do sewer and other utilities for the school or Fox Knoll, you had no idea when that land would be developed, this year or next City Council/October 22, 1996 Page 8 of 13