SAC CITY, IOWA – NOVEMBER 22, 2010
SAC CITY COUNCIL – At the opening of the conversation, Sac City Administrator, Adam Ledford notified the council that he was preparing a request for proposal to be sent out to engineering firms so that the city can begin fixing the streets.
In order to give the engineering firms as much information as possible, Mr. Led ford asked the council to give him some direction regarding what they would actually like to accomplish. In particular he asked them to consider from what source the funding will come. Mr. Ledford expressed the opinion that the city would be lucky if it could get 10% in matching grants. He further revealed that Lake City is putting together a general obligation bond for between $300K and $800K every three years (depending on need,) and receiving 0% in matching grants.
The three options he presented to the council for consideration were:
1. General obligation bond, (taxing property owners directly.)
2. Special assessment, (requiring that the owners adjacent to the streets in question pay for the repairs.)
3. A combination of G.O. and Special Assessment.
Special assessment is the method the city has historically utilized for repairing streets. Because the amount of money that the city can charge residents in any given area is capped at 25% of the assessed value of the property, the city will not be able to assess enough money to actually pay for some repairs. The most likely scenario for covering those overages will be to do A general obligation bond.
Sac City Councilperson Jim Johnston expressed a preference for a 10-year special assessment based on the fear of not having enough money for emergencies should the city’s bonding capacity become maxed out. He further stated a preference for the special assessment’s “pay as you go” functionality.
Johnston also expressed concerns about how it might be considered unfair to the people who live on streets that have been repaired, (three streets have been worked on since he took office,) who were assessed. Sac City Councilperson Nick Frohardt disagreed with Mr. Johnston saying that even though the street repairs have always been paid for that way in the past, it doesn’t mean that residents agree with that method. Mr. Frohardt said, “There’s always been a lot of contention with that.” Mr. Johnston suggested that if the council were to decide on using a G.O. Mr. Frohardt should be the one to tell taxpayers.
Mr. Frohardt moved the conversation past this squabble and asked the city administrator what it will cost to fix a block of Sac City streets. According to Ledford, an overlay of one block could cost between $40,000 and $60,000. If the street need totally bored out and replaced right down to the bed, it could cost between $110,000 and $140,000 per block.
Sac City has roughly $3,000,000 in bonding capacity.
Sac City Councilperson Jim Frederick suggested asking the city maintenance department head, Bob Scheffler , and the street committee to identify the streets that should get priority. He went on to express the opinion that if the streets identified are being upgraded from gravel to concrete or asphalt, that it should be paid for via assessment, but if it’s just a maintenance issue, (doing an overlay,)it should be paid for via G.O. bond.
The council ended up directing the city administrator to do two things:
1. Have identified via the street committee the 10-12 worst streets in town.
2. Put together a estimate of what a million dollar bond would do to the amount of taxes each property owner pays broken down to a per thousand dollar of assessed value.
Sac City Mayor Barb Powell seemed to caution the council against using special assessment due to the fact that it is based on value of property and doesn’t take into account the owner’s ability to pay. Sac City Councilperson Bill Brenny seemed to be in agreement with her on this point, calling the special assessment a “regressive tax” for lower or fixed income people.
A representative of the business community ended the conversation by cautioning the council to carefully consider the long term ramifications of whatever action they might ultimately take.
Copyright (c)2007-2010 Curtis Bloes All Rights Reserved
It is unfortunate that the past councils have chosen to throw the community's dollars towards pet projects that have benefited a few and created ongoing funding issues, while the crumbling infrastructure has languished on the sidelines. Granted, these amenities are important to promoting a community, but without a viable economic development plan bringing jobs, no amount of glitz will convince families to relocate. This has been a classic case of trying to keep up with the Jones ie Carroll, Storm Lake, and neighboring communities with better-run city governments, competent economic development, and healthier bottom lines. How about a "special" special assessment for those council people and cronies that ignored the streets, sewers, etc. for the past decade and flushed $$$ down the sewers that still work just to feather their caps with their special projects. Dozens of streets don't just crumble overnight. Are we going to have to dig up these new streets later to start replacing the sewer and water later? Where was the fore thought or long term planning?? We've torn down so many habitable properties that special assessments aren't even a viable option anymore.
ReplyDeleteGiven the mass migration out of town and the county over the past 30 years, and continuing trend of a dwindling tax base, it's time the current council rethink the community priorities established by past councils. Otherwise, they just may have a well-paved ghost town.
Other communities use their road use money to repair some streets every year on a rotating basis. No special assessments, no general obligation bonds, no tax increases. Maybe the City of Sac City should consider a similar strategy.
ReplyDelete