1977-03-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C: 4. Specific Criteria and Scheduling in C.I.P.: Discussion: Parallels similar discussion in Section'_I and II 5. Barrier Curbs Only: Discussion: See Section II, 5. 6. Utilities included where necessary: Sewer, water, and storm sewer work when required should be included as a part of the reconstruction. Since the appraisal would include the benefit of utilities when proposed as well as street, the formula specified in (1) above would be used. Section IV - New Improvements The earlier administrative report raised concern that it was possible that certain new improvements would not meet the benefit principle and therefore if fully assessed may be challengable. The Council has therefore directed that other options be researched. we also believe it worthwhile to explore methods to speed the improvement process while at the same time having the same safeguards as presently exist. If in certain cases a year can be saved, construction costs would be less, development cost would be less, and therefore housing costs could be potentially reduced. The Council guidelines state that new improvements should be 100°/ assessed. In order to adequately protect the City an appraisal should be ordered for a given project at the same time the preliminary report is ordered. If the appraisal does not indicate 1000% benefit, then the Council may wish to not order the improvement without guarantees as discussed below. At the present time the only other option a petitioner would have would be that as provided in Section 1040:12 of the City Code. The problem with this option is that few petitioners have sufficient front end funding to pay a 12 times deposit. A second feasible option is to accept an irrevocable letter of credit from a banking institution in an amount equal to 12 times the estimated cost of a project. The City would bill the bank for various partial estimates as the contract became due. This option is likely to be more realistic than the first in that the large front end capital is not required. The normal improvement hearing process should be followed with both of the above alternative options to assure that if for some reason they do not properly function they can still be assessed. The hearings can be held at virtually any time; however, since bond funds would not be required. In this way in certain circumstances it may be possible to make the improvement process two rather than three years in length.