Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />February 12, 2014 <br />Engineer Statz stated that the project had been split into two categories; materials and labor, to <br />take advantage of the City’s sales tax exemption status. Engineer Statz reported that bids were <br />solicited, received and found to be competitive. <br /> <br />Administrator Larson reported that as Council was aware, funding had been set aside to fund <br />such project for the last several years; however, if following the street maintenance schedule, it is <br />likely that within several years the line item would have a deficit. Administrator Larson stated <br />that Council needs to strongly consider specially assessing or increasing the levy. Council <br />Member Love suggested that a third alternative would be delaying some of the scheduled dates <br />for road maintenance. Administrator Larson expressed concern that delaying the schedule could <br />result in some streets deteriorating to the point that a full reconstruct would be necessary. Larson <br />stated that an assessment of $500 for benefiting homes together with the current level of funding <br />from the levy, would offset the expenditures associated with the project without requiring a levy <br />increase. Administrator Larson felt that the assessment could be placed on parcels over a period <br />of 2 to 5 years with potentially a fair share of property owners pre-paying the assessment. <br /> <br />Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the potential for increasing the levy in the future due to <br />other short falls such as Lino Lakes’ withdrawal in the Fire District, re-construction of <br />Centerville Road, bond indebtedness, and stagnant property sales. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member Paar to approve <br />Resolution #14-006 – Receiving Report and Calling for Public Hearing on Improvement as <br />amended. Upon voting, all were in favor except Council Members Love and Paar <br />Opposed. Motion passed 3-2. <br /> <br />Legal Counsel stated that although the motion passed, at the public hearing the motion to order <br />the improvement would require a 4/5 vote. It was stated that if both no votes were fixed in their <br />position, the City should not spend money on mailed and published notices of a public hearing <br />on the improvements. <br /> <br />All of Council felt that the City’s goal of maintaining roadways was priority; however, all were <br />reluctant to increase the levy to accommodate such projects although Council Members <br />Fehrenbacher, King and Wilharber all felt that even though in the past Council had stated that <br />there would be a minimal possibility of special assessments for the mill and overlay, <br />circumstances had changed. Council Members Love and Paar felt very strongly that they desired <br />not to go against their word to residents regarding placing assessments on benefiting parcels. <br />Both Council Members Love and Paar felt that consideration of the maintenance schedule and <br />paring back of projects should be considered until such time funding is available. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding the length of assessments (2 to 5 years), billing/notification of pre- <br />paying option, paring back the maintenance schedule, waiting for funding prior to commencing <br />maintenance going forward so assessments would not be needed and future Council’s desires for <br />funding the maintenance programs and budget cutbacks. <br /> <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />