79-041/042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 7 Asked how many 35% of theproperty MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: petitioners there were, and whether they were owners, or represented 35% of the property. Mr. popovich noted that it isn't the number of people that count under the law, but rather the amount of affected property. It's 35% of the affected property - not 35% of the number of individuals. He also said that he and the engineer had checked the petition and it did exceed 35~ of the affected property. At this time the Clerk Administrator re-checked the petition, and Mayor Crepeau announced that it was 46% of the property owners who asked for the improvement. MR. JOHN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10: Said that if a water main is extended on Highway 10 at some future time, the entire front footage assessment will be on only one side of Highway 10 since there are no properties to assess across the street. Since they're being asked to pay an acreage assessment now, who will help them pay the cost when they get service to their property. Councilman Woodburn explained that acreage charges are necessary to pay for trunk mains of an appropriate size to serve the area. MR. JIM WINIECKE, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if someone could explain what the cost would be to the people living on Old Highway 10 when they get water service. The consensus of the Council members was that it will be expensive for. the comparatively small segment of watermain, which can only be assessed to benefit ted properties. It was pointed out that this fact was brought out at the feasibility hearing for the improvement. MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: Asked amount of his assessment.. He was referred to the assessment roll, and.it was explained that this assessment represents a full front footage and he would not be assessed for water again. MR. LEONARD GRUDNOSKE, 4445 Highway 10: Asked if assessment policy for this improvement is different from previous water improvements in the city. Councilman Crichton explained that previously $7.50 a front foot was charged for residential property and $11.00 a front foot for commercial, plus a certain percentage of the costs exceeding this amount, which brought the assessment to very close to the method presently used. MR. JIM WINIECKI, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if the assessment amounts shown in the assessment roll are final, or if they could be revised upward. Mr. Popovich replied that if an error should be found or any parcels of property omitted, a supplemental assessment hearing would have to be held to amend the assessments upward.