Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />October 8, 1985 <br /> <br />Schmidt asked city attorney, in order to receive a fair contribution from <br />what are otherwise tax-exempt properties, what recommendation he would <br />have for the City to procedurally establish a plan to deal with that con- <br />tribution. LeFevere responded that would have to be done through <br />special assessments. <br /> <br />Benke asked, as this policy is somewhat different from policies the City <br />has used for storm sewer projects, for an explanation of this type of <br />assessment versus the other sewer projects we have been using. <br /> <br />Poston responded this would be treated separate from the basic storm <br />sewer system; would not want to disrupt the traditional policy; in the <br />cost-sharing and the method of allocating cost every property is either <br />part of the problem or part of the solution; wanted to make sure that it <br />was just the non-public property that bore the cost of the project, but <br />only to the extent of 25%. <br /> <br />Harcus asked for clarification that this policy does not include the <br />storm sewers themselves; Poston so clarified. <br /> <br />Harcus stated this policy may be used a lot more than we anticipate, as <br />there is discussion in Washington regarding storm water outlets and a <br />permit may be required for every outlet into open water; estimated cost <br />is $8,000. <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Janecek, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT <br />THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FINANCE POLICY FOR FLOOD CONTROL CAPITAL <br />PROJECTS. <br /> <br />Although willing and ready to support the adoption, Benke feels that the <br />assessment policy is different in terms of which costs are being <br />assessed; suggested publishing the fact that the council is about to <br />adopt it so residents have an opportunity to comment. <br /> <br />Harcus stated we are .not adopting a method to recover the costs, rather <br />adopting a policy. <br /> <br />Benke stated the policy would be forwarded to the next project by the <br />engineer and, when asked questions about assessments, he will be asked <br />to explain it; that is when the questions will arise and he feels it would <br />be better to discuss it now. <br /> <br />Schmidt assumes this policy will not be put into effect until next <br />Spring; Proper confirmed that that was also his impression. <br /> <br />Schmidt felt there would be adequate time to get the information on the <br />policy out to the public and they could respond accordingly. <br /> <br />Benke felt the difference would be that the City would be preventing a <br />project with a policy in place, as opposed to a pOlicy that we are <br />considering; feels there is a fairly subtle distinction. <br /> <br />Schmidt stated he would withdraw his motion. <br /> <br />Page Four <br />