CCP 09-11-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- - - ARDEN HlLLS CITY COUNClL -AUGUST 28, 2006 3 property taxes over a I O-year period. Per the assessment policy, the interest is based on the prime rate plus 2%, set on the date of the adoption ofthe assessment roll (current prime rate is 8.25%.) Ms. Giga also noted that there is a payment deferral option for seniors- residents must be 65 or older, need to fill out an application form available at City Hall, and provide supporting documentation of economic hardship. She recommended if there are any questions or concerns received at the hearing that the final adoption of the assessment rolls be continued to the September I I, 2006 City Council meeting to allow staff time to research questions and objections raised at the initial hearing. If Council receives no comments regarding the assessments, staff recommended approval of the resolution adopting and confirming assessments for the 2006 PMP improvements. Councilmember Grant noted the only assessable cost in this project was the road. Mayor Aplikowski opened the publie hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mayor Aplikowski noted there would be no deeision made at this meeting. A deeision would be at the next Council meeting. Esther Dant,35 I I Ridgewood Road, stated she understood there were two payment options. She asked if they would get an additional statement from Ramsey County if it went through their taxes, or would it be on their tax statement. Mr. Filla responded if the City certified the assessment; it would appear on their tax statement as a separate line item, which would go to their mortgage company for payment. Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, asked what was the cost to replace the retaining wall on the west side of Siems Court, and what was the rationale for why they were paying for this as part of the assessment. Ms. Giga responded the cost was $40,000 and it needed to be reconstructed to support the road and utilities along Siems Court. Mr, Nelson stated in order for the property owner to get a driveway in, the retaining wall was put up. He stated the retaining wall serviced the private lot and the only reason the retaining wall needed to be there was because of the driveways. He stated he would like to see when the retaining wall installation was approved by the City and he did not believe the retaining wall was a benefit to all of the homeowners. He believed the wall only benefited the residents in that area. He stated it appeared to him that each resident was paying $600 for the retaining wall when it only benefited a couple of residents. He asked how the City ealculated the double lots. Ms. Giga responded she believed the double lots were assessed on a per lot basis where there was an existing home, but she was not 100 percent sure of this because thc preliminary assessment rolls were generated before she was employed by the City. Mr. Filla noted if there was ever a cOlmection, the City would recapture the cost. Mr. Nelson stated it did not appear to be fair that the homeowners who owned two lots were not assessed double.