Laserfiche WebLink
-4- <br />As it would appear to he a rresnnahl0 conclusion that the <br />City wishes to continue to maintain streets nn a regular <br />basis with sea lcoat and overlay, the question before its is <br />how do we continue to do so when the City's other capital <br />needs are increasing and our traditional source of funding <br />for such Items, Revenue Sharing, is in it decreasing or nt <br />best stable level of funding? Ouc LO our limited options for <br />funding capital projects, staff would recommend that the <br />Council discontinue the funding of the Street Maintenance <br />Program with Federal Revennc Sharing funds and assess these <br />costs over a five year period (average frequency of main- <br />tenance for it street) to the benefited (abutting) proper- <br />ties. Such an action would release Revenue Sharing funds for <br />use on one-time projects as has been the past practice of the <br />City. <br />The cost per abutting property owner fur such a program would <br />be quite minimal and can he. Illustrated by using the 1982 <br />Scalcoating Project. The information developed is as <br />follows: <br />Total footage sealcoat 39,742 ft. <br />Total project cost $52,390.42 <br />Cost per foot $1.32 ft. <br />Cost per average 90 foot lot $118.80 <br />Based on a five year assessment at 9% interest on the out- <br />standing balance, a property owner would pay a total of <br />$152.70 if the assessment were not prepaid, or $30.54 per <br />year. <br />Staff acknowledges that these are extremely difficult issues we <br />place before you, but we hope you will agree that they are <br />extremely important and the decisions resulting from your consi- <br />deration will be major building blocks in the development of the <br />1984 Budget. We stand ready to respond to any questions or <br />requests for additional information you might have and look for- <br />ward to a positive exchange of viewpoints during the discussion. <br />F <br />J <br />J <br />1 <br />