Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />financing. NOvl, while Mr. Popovich was talking, I did a little <br />quick arithmetic here and we have a 435 foot frontage which, <br />assuming that, and only for the widening of the road, assuming <br />they go'for the narrower road, we would be looking at roughly <br />$80,000 in cash outlay as our part of the assessment. And, if I <br />took Mr. Popovich's 9% or 1% over the bonding rate for the 15 <br />years, averaged at 4 1/2% for 15 years would be 67 1/2% to <br />add to that bill. So now we have $47,850 of direct assessment, <br />$32,000 interest. I see no justification for that whatsoever. <br />It does nothing for us, it serves no purpose as far as we're con- <br />cerned, it does not add to the value of the property, and I <br />object. <br /> <br />~.YOR CRICHTON: Are there any further comments? <br /> <br />MR. WAYNE BERKLAND, Attorney for Tri-state Land Company: <br />Tri-State Land Company is an owner of some property in this area. <br />I must apologize first because I was here late and didn't hear <br />the entire presentation but as I pieced it together, at least <br />the end, am I correct in assuming that these projected assess- <br />ments are against the property adjoining the entire length of <br />this proposed and existing roadway in equal amounts? <br /> <br />MAYOR CRICHTON: Yes, as suggested by the engineer. <br /> <br />MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: And that the City is proposing to <br />assess 100% of this road construction against those particular <br />properties? <br /> <br />MAYOR CRICHTON: The decision is 100% assessment against the <br />properties. That's what the discussion was about - whether it <br />should be 100% or. . . <br /> <br />MR. WAYNE BERKLAND: First of all, that leads Tri-State <br />Land Company to two particular objections to the project. First, <br />we have an existing road that services the Tri-State Land Com- <br />pany property in this industrial development. Obviously an <br />additional width of the road or an extension of the road is of <br />no direct immediate benefit in giving access to Tri-State Land <br />Company to the property. The other problem, and that compounds <br />the unfairness of assessments. Of course, somebody who has no <br />access from a road may get the same proposed assessment. The <br />other thing that I consider, again coming very late (inaudible). <br />I should backtrack. Is there a petition to the Council "that <br />has initiated this project? <br /> <br />MAYOR CRICHTON: No. Perhaps if anyone wishes to correct <br />me, our City's comprehensive plan has indicated that this road <br />would be built to go through. This .has come up now because it <br />appears there is some discuss.ion of storm drainage which may <br />very well impact this particular road and this might be the <br />right time to do this road too. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: To correct or amplify something else, <br />this is not a proposal to - this is not an assessment hearing. <br /> <br />7 <br />