CC 07-28-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. . 15 there at all, and it seems to me down the road we could eliminate another lot of cost by putting in some signals, possibly an island at both ends, and I think we could stop there because we're talking about a lot of cost, especially the burying of utilities, and I'm not sure the general public would really approve it. , MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else? MR. DECOSTER, St. Paul: I have a little lot down there as you come to the access of Steak Inn next to the Standard Oil station, and this question is self serving. I wonder if there had been any consideration made to the feasibility that refers only to a front foot assessment, and it would appear that some of us who have 200 foot deep or (inaudible) or whatever, like Mr. Carroll and the ski house and (inaudible) and maybe Standard Oil, maybe they have a little less to gain than a gentleman like Clayt Rein and Mutual Service, and should there not be, or could there be a question raised as to the assessments based on an area charge and a front footage charge to affect what might be greater improvements to the larger size developments? As an example, if you were to take the $358,000 underground electric, assuming we have 107 feet that would be about $10,000 and there would be considerable question in my mind whether the value of that lot would be increased anywhere near that. It would be almost $90 a front foot and you can get some awfully good brand new roads in for $60 a front foot commercial. Thank you. MR. POPOVICH: The question was raised whether the City could consider an area assessment in addition to justa front foot assessment, and the answer is yes. The purpose of the feasibility hearing is to give you an approach. It's most commonly utilized that it's front footage on streets. The Supreme Court, a week or so ago, had the occasion to review that in a case that came down, and sustained using front foot as a method or criteria if in the end result the property ends up being benefited to the extent of the assessment. That's always the caveat. If you notice, the legal notice that was published had an area description so that technically if that was the inclination you could have an assessment if you felt there were benefits, by area, by front footage, greater front footage immediately abutting, lesser as you go back. Those of you who have read the papers know the assessment considerations in downtown St. Paul have a (inaudible) on that new tower. The problem as you get on back, there's always a question - are they benefited at all, and that's why normally if it's 100% assessment you might go that route, but if you decide to put some on general taxes those people who are away are picked up on general taxes and you don't have a declining assessment where you spread it on general taxes and assessments, but if it's 100% assessed (inaudible). We describe an area based on what the engineers recommend and we can't now increase that area, but you can decrease, but that's up to .the Council at the time of the assessment hearing to take some of those matt ers into consideration.