2013-01-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 Ms. Szakos said the online GIS viewer provides citizens with an estimate of what they would pay if this fee is enacted, and it was very helpful. She asked if assessments could be appealed based on discrepancies. Ms. Riddervold said they would have a mechanism for this. Ms. Szakos clarified that the bonds would pay for infrastructure work spanning ten years, but we would pay for it for 20 years, increasing the length of time but decreasing the amount we would have to pay. Ms. Szakos asked if a hardship clause would be permitted. Mr. Brown said due to the nature of enabling legislation, if Council wishes to enact hardship clauses, they should do so in a separate ordinance. Ms. Galvin said she is impressed with the process. She asked if the utility fee could carry a sunset clause. Ms. Haggerty said the rates could go down, and rates should be reexamined every three years to determine appropriate rate levels. Ms. Galvin asked about cost sharing, and Ms. Haggerty said their studies show that this has been done successfully in other similar situations. Ms. Galvin asked if the committee made decisions based on consensus. Ms. Riddervold said that was the case. Mr. Huja said he is concerned that we have not discussed financing, and he would like to hold a work session. Ms. Szakos said if we slow down the process at this point, we will not have a decision in time to adopt it into the budget. Mr. Norris asked for examples of what rates would be for larger property owners or commercial property owners. Ms. Riddervold said it would be from $6,000 - $13,000 a year. She said all properties are being treated the same, regardless of their use. Mr. Norris said this is not true because there are exemptions. Ms. Riddervold said legislation requires us to waive the fee for those exempt properties. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Brown if there is any legal implication to imposing a new fee that looks like a tax. Mr. Brown said in a case involving Chesapeake, the Attorney General opined that this is a service fee, not a tax. Ms. Smith said she agreed that financing was complicated and should be discussed further. Ms. Galvin asked Mr. Jones if we can schedule a work session so that we do not lose time in terms of our current budget cycle. Mr. Jones said if there is flexibility, we may be able to schedule one. Ms. Galvin said it would be helpful to see a model ordinance. Mr. Norris said this will be perceived as a tax increase to the average citizen. He said if we are going to increase funding, there are better uses for the money. We should use the same approach we have used with energy conservation, setting out a more aggressive repair schedule and incentive-based approaches to paying for this infrastructure. Just because the state has said we can implement this new tax does not mean we should. Ms. Galvin said this could provide an incentive for people to improve their properties, redevelop our corridors, and accelerate development. Taking care of infrastructure is a very basic function of government.