My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
80-038
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
80-038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:22 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 3:46:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />there at all, and it seems to me down the road we could <br />eliminate another lot of cost by.putting in some signals, <br />possibly an island at both ends, and I think we could stop <br />there because we're talking about a lot of cost, especially <br />the burying of utilities,' and I'm not sure the general public <br />would really approve it. <br /> <br />, <br />MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else? <br /> <br />MR. DECOSTER, St. Paul: I have a little lot down there as <br />you come to the access of Steak Inn next to the Standard Oil <br />station, and this question is self serving. I wonder if there <br />had been any consideration made to the feasibility that refers <br />only to a front foot assessment, and it would appear that some <br />of us who have 200 foot deep or (inaudible) or whatever, like <br />Mr. Carroll and the ski house and (inaudible) and maybe Standard <br />Oil, maybe they have a little less to gain than a gentleman <br />like Clayt Rein and Mutual Service, and should there not be, or <br />could there be a question raised as to the assessments based <br />on an area charge and a front footage charge to affect what <br />might be greater improvements to the larger size developments? <br />As an example, if you were to take the $358,000 underground <br />electric, assuming we have 107 feet that would be about $10,000 <br />and there would be considerable question in my mind whether the <br />value of that lot would be increased anywhere near that. It <br />would be almost $90 a front foot and you can get sOme awfully <br />good brand new roads in for $60 a front foot commercial. Thank <br />you. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The question was raised whether the City could <br />consider an area assessment in addition to just a front foot <br />assessment,.and the answer is yes. The purpose of the feasibility <br />hearing is to give you an approach. It's most cQmmonly utilized <br />that it's front footage on streets. The Supreme Court, a .week or <br />so ago, had the occasion to review that in a case that came down, <br />and sustained using front foot as a method or criteria if in <br />the end result the property ends up being benefited to the extent <br />of the assessment. That's always the caveat. If you notice, the <br />legal notice that was published had an area description so that <br />technically if that was the inclination you could have an <br />assessment if you felt there were benefits, by area, by front <br />footage, greater front footage immediately abutting, lesser as <br />you go back. Those of you who have read the papers know the <br />assessment considerations in downtown St. Paul have a (inaudible) <br />on that new tower. The problem as you get on back, there's <br />always a question - are they benefited at all, and that's why <br />normally if it's 100% assessment you might go that route, but if <br />you decide to put some on general taxes those people who are away <br />are picked up on general taxes and you don't have a declining <br />assessment where you spread it on general taxes and assessments, <br />but if it's 100% assessed (inaudible). We describe an area based <br />on what the engineers recommend and we can't now increase that <br />area, but you can decrease, but that's up to .the Council at the <br />time of the assessment hearing to take some of those matt ers <br />into consideration. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.