Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />Page Four - City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 25, 1987 <br /> <br />is doing a good job. She felt that if the City of Centerville wants <br />good roads, they have to pay for them. She also felt that the citizens <br />not on the roads considered for reconstruction and future citizens of the <br />city should not be burdened with the payment of the currently proposed <br />reconstruction. Fritchie supports 100% front footage assessment to <br />benefiting property owners. <br /> <br />City attorney advised that tax increment financing was not a feasible <br />option for the City of Centerville. <br /> <br />Discussion of Senior Citizen Deferment. City attorney advised that <br />the City of Centerville would have to set some criteria, such as to <br />whether the interest on the assessment will accumulate or be waived. <br />He cautioned that if interest is waived, the City of Centerville may <br />have to subsidize from somewhere else, because the same amount would <br />have to be borrowed in the form of a bond and the same amount of <br />interest would have to be paid. If there were many senior citizens <br />who would qualify for the Senior Citizen Deferment, then waiving of <br />interest may not be feasible as the interest difference would come out <br />of the general fund or the City would have to acknowledge as to how the <br />waived interest would be financed. Block Grant Fund and Green Acres <br />programs were. suggested by the city attorney as possible ways to handle <br />the waived interest. It was decided that the Block Grant Fund was not <br />an applicable solution for the City of Centerville, as the availablity <br />of funds through the fund is very limited. Clerk will look into Green <br />Acres Program. The above criteria is to be decided at the time of the <br />assessment hearing. Clerk will try to determine how many seniors <br />could possibly be involved in the Senior Citizen Deferment in the <br />City of Centerville. <br /> <br />A poll of the Council members was taken to determine their stand on <br />the cost split for the road reconstruction project: <br />-Council member Neumann advised that he has looked at every survey <br />that has been previously presented to the City Council, from this <br />he feels that the road reconstruction is wanted by the citizens. <br />He is confident that the engineer's recommendations are valid. <br />Neumann thinks the city should upgrade itself and supports 100% <br />front footage assessment to the benefiting property owner. <br />-Council member Laska questioned the guarantee of the length of <br />time the new roads would hold up. He supports city wide burden <br />of payment for the proposed road reconstruction project. <br />-Council member Robischon supports 80% front footage assessment to <br />the benefiting property owner, 20% advalorem tax. <br />-Council member Fritchie feils the entire road reconstruction project <br />should go through and supports 100% front footage assessment to <br />the benefiting property owner. <br />-Mayor L1Allier feels ttlat Peltier Lake Drive is the only area that <br />is developed enough to put in nevI roads and supports 100% front <br />footage assessment to the benefiting property owner. <br /> <br />Donna Erickson, 1548 Peltier Lake Drive inquired as to the interest rate <br />and number of years the assessment cost would be spread over. City <br />attorney advised that it would probably be over a 15 year period at a <br />