Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 21, 1994 <br />Pedersen agreed. <br />Scalze pointed out that paying for improvements through <br />general taxation would raise taxes, and felt property <br />owners could be asked if they would support higher <br />taxes to improve streets. <br />The Administrator felt the questioned could be phrased <br />so that property owners would understand that a direct <br />assessment for a street improvement would be higher <br />than an increase in taxes to support street <br />improvements through general taxation. <br />Pedersen felt that it would make a difference to <br />property owners whether the tax increase was $30 or <br />$100. Pedersen also pointed out that every year the <br />amount would increase as existing debt is not paid off <br />and more debt is added. Pedersen felt that at some <br />point that increase could be $200 per year. Pedersen <br />felt that the issue was a difficult one to decide <br />without having the numbers. <br />LaValle pointed out that the City has worked for many <br />years to achieve as close to a 0% net tax levy as <br />possible, and now the Council is discussing increasing <br />that levy 4% or 5o to absorb road improvement costs. <br />Scalze pointed out the Council's review of the budget <br />each year, and felt that paying for street improvements <br />through general taxation may cause other city programs <br />to be cut in order for improvements to proceed. <br />The Administrator asked if any Council Member felt that <br />rehabilitated street improvements should be assessed at <br />100%, and there were none. <br />The Administrator felt that some work was needed on <br />Windrow Drive to maximize the life of that street. The <br />Administrator stated that this past winter was very <br />hard on the street, and many problems became evident. <br />LaValle felt an assessment split of 50/50 may be <br />reasonable, but felt that if a situation was unique <br />that percentage split could change. <br />Hanson indicated that the 50/50 split could change on a <br />project that was very expensive. <br />11 <br />