01-26-1998 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Elk River City Council CIP Worksession January 26, 1998 Page 2 and sanitary sewer facilities; design of the transportation corridor; applying for permits for construction; completing soil surveys and additional survey work; continuing to work with the railroad for a crossing at 171,t and the closing of the 173rd crossing; and updating the assessment estimates based on revised appraisals as prepared by Patchin and Associates. The Council concurred with the content of the memo and that the memo accurately outlines the direction it intended to give city staff regarding work assignments on the east Elk River improvement project. The City Administrator stated that there are a lot of variables involved in both a large or small east Elk River project which make it very difficult for the City Council to make a decision on which project is desired. The variables include: 1 .) the cost estimates as not all of the large or small project identified in the feasibility report will be constructed at once, and 2.) which funding sources will be available to address the financial shortages in the utilities, storm drainage, and street components of the project. The Administrator noted that regardless of these uncertainties, if the Council wanted "pipes in the ground'" as soon as possible, then this direction needs to be received soon. In order to get "pipes in the ground" in 1998-99, the city needs to conduct public hearings on the project, to conduct public hearings for the assessments, and to negotiate with a number of property owners for right-of-way (this may include negotiating for homes and could include relocation expenses). The Administrator noted that the timeline is getting tight in order for anything to be under construction in 1998, especially when a proposed TIF District being considered, and that the city still has not received a valid petition for improvements from the owner of the trailer court. Trunk Utilities - The difference between the cost of trunk sewer and water and the assessments for these utilities for the large project, Area C, is $1.1 million. This shortage may increase to $1.3 million when deductions are made for the Cargill property, which is to be put into land trust, and for the single family homes in this area. This shortage is "only" $1.3 provided that the City Council assess the petitioners (Earl and Waddy - 273 acres) and all the other property owners (approximately 400 acres) in the benefited area. The most likely funding source for this .$1.1 to $1.3 million shortage is TIF monies from the trailer court redevelopment project. Funds need to be accessed in order to finance the bringing of utilities through 169 to the project site. Another 'source of funds for the shortage could be the water utility for the water shortage and the sewer utility for the sewer shortage. The last alternative for the shortage may be a city wide tax levy. It was noted that if the Patchin Appraisal update shows benefit in excess of $6,000 per acre, the shortage can then be reduced. For example, if the benefit is at the $7,000 range, then an additional $650,000-700,000 can be generated through the assessment process. It was noted that the shortage for the smaller project, Area A, is actually worse and is in the $1.45 million range. However, the shortage in Area A includes about $1.1 million in deferred trunk assessments which can be