CC 07-28-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 ., normally been computed at 1% and that's the reason the legislature allowed that 1% this last session. I think the public tonight should not only address the Council on how they feel it should go because these figures are given to you at 100% and if this were to go at 100% over 20 years, assuming an 8% charge; obviously they can relate it back to their property so if they had 200 feet, $150 times 200 hundred would produce the total assessment. If you divide by 20 years you know what the principal would be and add 8% to the full amount with a declining balance and they know what the assessments would be. If you shorten to 15 years or 10, and you would not recommend going under 10, but many of the communities now in the last four or five (inaudible) have been going not to exceed 15 years. We have recommended not going more than 20 if that will make it more palatable if you go up to the 100%. The Council can get some input from the public, but you don't bind the public. The future Council will make the decision, but I have found from experience that there's been some consensus the future Councils will go along with that unless some real intervening fact presents itself a year from now. A year ago when interest rates were low a lot of the communities had feasibility hearings saying since the law didn't permit you to go over 7% on interest rate money, that it would cost so much and anticipate so much on our bonds, add another 1% and we'd go ahead and issue bonds. They would order the improvement and selling the bonds and everything was so much higher that's a big intervening factor that the Council has to take into . consideration in firming up the final figures as such so the percentage of assessments, the length of the assessment, of course are two mat ters that we should get some in put from the public on as such. . . Now, the Council may inquire, on what basis do we determine what that split might be. Normally you move toward 100% of the immediate abutting properties more than other people in the general area. But if you feel there's a general benefit to the people in the area you take that into account. In spite of what I said, when we have our assessment hearing next year, and you know the people have the right to come up and they have a right to appeal to the District Court, the Council can never assess, even 100% for the full cost, more than the benefits to the property owner. And the benefits have been construed as the increase in the market value of that property. If it's $100,000 today and you give them $100,000 assessment next year, is the property worth $200;000, and that's what we determine at the time of the assessment hearing. If it isn't worth $200,000 because the benefit hasn't gone up that much, then obviously there's a chance for somebody to appeal to the Court. If an appeal were taken - and you decided tonight to have 100% assessments and nothing on general taxes - then an appeal were taken and they could show the property wasn't benefited that much, you would