My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 02-28-1983
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
CC 02-28-1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:17 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 2:38:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />what the market value of the property would go up. You can <br />ascertain that by appraisers and what have you as to whether <br />the property has increased in value or not. That's why the <br />Council wants to hear from you. <br /> <br />MR. STEVEN MINDLIN, 4526 Pleasant Drive: I agree with <br />everybody. (Inaudible) on France. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: That's true on France (inaudible) similar <br />to this. <br /> <br />MR. MINDLIN: But the thing is, that is quite a bit <br />different. I don't think it's fair to compare that with this <br />project. Not on the Arden Hills side anyway, because most of <br />us have our driveways (inaudible). <br /> <br />MR. DONALD EATON, 4472 Pleasant Drive: I might as well <br />throw in my two cents worth too. I agree with what everybody <br />else says. My property does not exactly front on Lexington <br />Avenue, although the back of my house is looking out over <br />Lexington Avenue. I see that in no way can it improve the <br />value of my property or the property of my neighbors. In <br />fact, in my opinion, it does decrease the value of that <br />pcoperty. I understand that that's up for debate here. The <br />way that we approached dealing with this situation with the <br />County Engineer was largely on the basis of a statement that <br />was made in the first meeting by the City Council that.there <br />probably would not be any assessments, based on the individual <br />property owners. I think had we been working under the <br />assumption that there was, there might have been a much <br />stronger opposition to any improvement on Lexington. <br /> <br />MR. ANDY HOLEWA, 4480 Pleasant Drive: I don't quite <br />understand the 20% assessment involved with bonding. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: It's very simple. If the City has to <br />finance it by issuing bonds - say they have no funds - they <br />have to come up with '$66,000- they have to sell bonds. <br />You have to assess at least 20% to avoid having a public <br />election. This is a small piece of property in the whole <br />City. <br /> <br />MR. HOLEWA: You have to assess 20%. Whoserequirement <br />is that? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: That's State law. <br /> <br />MR. HOLEWA: And who do you have to assess? <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The benefitted property - that abuts the <br />property. <br /> <br />MR. HOLEWA: So that would be 20% of $66,000? <br />MR. POPOVICH: Right. <br /> <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.