79-041/042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , 3 . improvement that they should receive an acreage charge, and the front footage, depending on the number of front feet you have, would be the front footage charge in of itself. The. charges for services are explanatory because there are different amounts for different size services, and the difference between residential and commercial is justified because of different uses of the property, but as I said, the approach is to find out what the total cost is. The cost has to be financed and apportioned out as equitably as possible based on the benefits the property has received for the improvement that's been put in. It's proposed the assessments be spread over 20 years so the first installment would be collected beginning with taxes next year .and the first half of the installment would be due on May 31 and the second in October of 1980. The carrying charge would be at 8% on .the unpaid balance. The Council has adopted in the past, a policy that if people wish to prepay to save the interest charges they can pay in full within 30 days after the assessment roll is adopted and pay no interest, but you have also gone a bit further and said you will accept 50 percent of the total assessment, so if somebody has a $5,000 assessment and doesn't want to. pay the full $5000, although they have the right to do it, they could pay $2,500 and the other $2,500 would be spread over the 20 year period of time. COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I'm assuming the figures you were quoting were approximate ones - just for the record. MR. POPOVICH: I left out some pennies. Mayor Crepeau announced that the meeting was open for the con- sideration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessment. All persons present were then given the opportunity to present oral objections, and all written objections theretofore filed with the City Clerk Administrator were presented and considered, . and all such objections were tabulated as follows: Written communications: Edith Ervin, 4441 Highway 10: Protested the area assessment, indicating that she felt residents should only be assessed when the improvements are made where they live. Dwight and Georgia Carlson, 4345 Highway 10: Also objected to the area assessment.