03-10-99 Council Workshop Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 10, 1999 improvement projects have not been happy with that figure. Morelan suggested that the Council listen to its customers and reduce that 85% amount. Morelan su~gested that debt levy reduction dollars could be used to lower this percentage. Scalze pointed out that the effect of lowering the percentage is that the general taxpayers will pick up a~reater share of improvement costs. LaValle suggested that property owners who have been recently assessed for road improvements will not be happy with a reduction of the 85% figure when that is what they paid. Pedersen expressed concern that there will not be adequate dollars from the debt levy reduction to do all the things that have been proposed. Pedersen also pointed out that property owners in new neighborhoods have paid 100% of the cost of their street. Reconstructed streets have been assessed at 85%. Those property owners will not support the reduction. Morelan suggested that if more assessments are appealed, the City may have difficulty in proving benefits received. Another suggestion was to maintain the City's $45 per foot cap over an extended period of time, which will result in the City's payin~ a greater share of the cost of an improvement. The City Administrator indicated that residential properties are assessed 85% of project costs, commercial properties are at 80%. However, with the cap of $45 per front foot in place, the split is closer to 50% assessed and 50% paid by the City. The Administrator indicated that the results of a survey a couple of years ago showed Little Canada's assessment policy at the high end of other cities. Pedersen pointed out that Little Canada's taxes were too high and that is the reason that the cost of improvements was shifted to users. Fahey stated that he would like to see the impact of changing the percentage. The City Administrator reported that the $45 cap is teetering on the ed~e of sustainability, and agreed that freezing the cap for a period of time will have the same effect as decreasing the percentage of costs assessed to property owners. The Administrator pointed out that the only assessment appeals the City has had have been for corner lots. Morelan felt that the City had a unique opportunity to reduce this assessment percentage while not impacting property taxes if debt levy reduction dollars are used. Fahey suggested that this idea be presented to the Debt Levy Reduction Committee for consideration.