Laserfiche WebLink
Relating to cost, what if funds are not available to support the project? What if taxes need to be <br />raised to accommodate the work? The issue of cost should be of paramount concern. A large <br />improvement may require many months of financial analysis once it is determined what the cost of <br />actual improvements would be. Should the project be financed with general fund dollars? <br />Enterprise funds? Tax increment? Park dedication dollars? Should bonds be issued? While all <br />these same questions would need to be answered for any resident -initiated Local Improvement, at <br />least with petitions involving special assessments, the City Council can simply resolve that the <br />project is not feasible from the beginning, or if the project is desired, it would be not be hamstrung <br />by arbitrary deadlines and timeframes. <br />Another issue relating to cost is the feasibility report itself. There is a cost involved in determining <br />whether a proposed project is feasible, cost-effective and necessary. Naturally, the amount varies <br />based on the specific project, but a feasibility report for a large project could cost as much as <br />$50,000. Who pays for that? Generally speaking, an unplanned expenditure of that magnitude <br />would require a Council approved budget amendment and would necessitate that staff coordinate a <br />process that it might not have time to coordinate. The City goes through a fairly comprehensive and <br />detailed five-year financial plan every year, one of the components of which is the five-year capital <br />improvement plan. The identified projects are analyzed and ranked by need and estimated by cost <br />and determined how each would be paid. If residents feel a certain project or improvement is <br />needed, it would seem more appropriate to attend the annual five-year financial plan public hearing <br />or any City Council meeting, for that matter) and make the suggestion. To allow resident petitions <br />for improvements without special assessments regardless of the signature or cost thresholds — <br />would seem to undermine the extensive work put into the five-year financial plan. <br />The final concern involves residents petitioning for projects that are simply not viable. There are <br />seemingly countless examples of impractical, unfeasible improvements, and one would like to think <br />that most residents would not circulate or sign a petition for a project that makes no sense. <br />However, it would not be difficult to imagine someone circulating a petition for a well-intentioned <br />improvement that other residents might support, only to find that the project cannot be <br />accomplished due to financial constraints or factors completely outside the City's control or <br />authority. If the Charter is amended to allow for resident petitions for improvements without <br />special assessments, a clause should be included too permit the Council to resolve that the <br />petitioned project is either frivolous or not feasible as submitted, or not feasible after a feasibility <br />study has been conducted. As proposed in the draft flowchart (see Box 14), if the Council does not <br />support a petitioned project, it would be forced to add the project as a ballot measure —even if the <br />improvement is impractical, unneeded or fiscally imprudent. <br />In conclusion, there are many projects the City undertakes that are not specially -assessed to <br />benefitting property owners. With the exception of emergency repairs and minor maintenance, all <br />of these projects are identified in the City's five-year financial plan. Amending the Charter to <br />allow petitions against such non -assessed improvements and allow petitions for non -assessed <br />improvements would seem to be an unwarranted revision and an unnecessary constraint on the <br />ability of the City to function efficiently and effectively. <br />Page 4 <br />