Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 11, 1995 <br />well. Frison pointed out that the City's maintenance <br />crew has not been involved in patching, and the <br />contractor, Valley Paving, has ignored the patching. <br />Frison again expressed concern with the City's <br />assessing a project that the property owners did not <br />want five to six months before the job is completed. <br />Morelan pointed out that the City's arrangement with <br />the contractor is on a pay-as-you-go basis. Morelan <br />agreed that the project will not be completed for <br />another year when the final lift of asphalt is put on. <br />However, the project will be assessed in 1995. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the City has <br />issued bonds to cover the cost of the project. If the <br />City carries the cost of the project through 1996, <br />there would be additional interest accruing which would <br />have to be picked up by the property owners, thus <br />increasing their costs. The Administrator pointed out <br />that the City is paying a significant portion of the <br />project costs. The City does know what the cost of the <br />final lift of asphalt, therefore, knows the total cost <br />of the project. Patch work is not an additional cost <br />to the project. The Administrator did not know the <br />City would be doing property owners any justice in <br />delaying the assessment given that there would be <br />additional interest charges added to the assessment <br />driving up the assessment rate. <br />Morelan pointed out that the property owners' <br />assessment represents half the cost of the project and <br />that the road was over half done. <br />Frison stated that there was more than a little <br />controversy on the issue of whether or not the <br />improvement resulted in an increase in property value <br />equal to the amount of the assessment. Frison reported <br />that realtors have indicated to the property owners <br />that the improvement will increase their property <br />values 2% or less, so that is less than half of what <br />the City is proposing to assess. Frison reported that <br />in addition to concern about the timing of the <br />assessment and the assessment amount, there is concern <br />that the work is grossly inadequate. <br />Morelan pointed out that the City cannot assess more <br />than what the property value increases. The City has <br />had appraisals on other projects that show a certain <br />amount is supportable. It is not the City's intention <br />to assess for more than the benefits received. <br />16 <br />