11-17-92 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Johnson: We need some type of fund and we all benefit from the roads regardless where they are in the city. The better method is to establish a road fund and spread this equitably given the number of residences on county roads and state roads, I think we are going to have to set it up as a taxing arrangement in such a manner that shows a benefit to all residents of having good streets. Then sealcoating and patch and overlay could be put into this same fund. We could use this money from the fund to pay the 10% and 50% and still assess part of the amount. Are we going to define unit as 150 ft frontage? This would cover about 90% of the homes in the city. Councilman Hunt: I have 700 ft. frontage, but I also have sitting on file a resolution stating that I have two buildable lots. Councilman Williams: I favor defining unit as a buildable lot in the zoning category. You could look at the agricultural land as a benefit to everybody because most people would rather look at a farm field than a bunch of houses. Councilman Mottaz: The definition of 90/10 is 90% would be assessed and the city would pay the 10% instead of a flat rate. They would be assessed according to what the project costs per unit up to 90%. CONCLUSION ON SETTING UP A ROAD MAINTENANCE TAX DISTRICT: We would use 90% direct assessment and 10% city participation in the case of major maintenance and 50% direct assessment and 50% city participation in the case of major reconstruction. The Council would like the staff to determine what kind of revenue would be needed on a 20 year cycle of street maintenance to what kind of tax would have to be collected on an annual basis to give the city the desired revenues to meet that scenario. The two caps would be eliminated. The maximum number of lots a parcel could be divided into based on the current zoning category. We would like to receive comments from the staff on the ability of this policy to work.