CC 08-21-1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'V i fNinufies ot Speciai Council Meeti�g Page Two August 21, t979 Ansaer by Christoffersen: Each improvement in this Vtllage has been assessed front footage anQ acreage charges. Hanson noted that the area charoe xas brouoht out at the Improvement Hearings. 5. Jim Wtniecki, 4471 Hiahway 10 Asked for Minutes of the tormer meettn�s; recalls no mentlon of properties betng assessed en area charge prevtously. Popovich read trom verbatim minutes of ineetina of June 19, 1918, tn which "acreage charges" were dtscussed and it was explained that, under • the base plan, Engineer wtll have to place an area assessment "at least on an area basis" even thouah no water wTll be provided in front of your houses. Popovich explatned that the Durden of proof of "no benefit" ts on the property ow�er, which is the purpose of tonigk�t's meetTng; beneflt is a Judgemental matter; there is a basis for an area assessment; determination must be made as to whether fihe dollar charge is appropriate. 6. John 6rudnoske, 4439 Hiqhway 10, further noted that if a water main is extended on Highway 10, entiae front footege assessment will be on only one stde of ftighaay 10; there are no properties� ta assess across the street. Woodburn explained that acreaae charges are necessary-to pay for mains of an approprTate size to serve the area. 7. Jim Wl��teck�, 447t Hiqhway 10 Asked the cost to serve the few property owners along Highway 10, not currently served In this area. Answer: It wtli be expensiwe for the comparatively small sec�ment of main, whlch ean only be assessed to.� benefitted properties; noted that this was brought out at the Improvement Heari�g. 8. �lenn 6eqqfn� 4519 Lakeshpre Place Asked amount of hEs assessment - was referred to Assessment Roll. It aes expiained that this assess- ment represents full front footage. 9. Leonard Grudnoske. 4445 Hiqhway 10 Asked if assessment policy for this Improveme�t fs different from previous water improvements in the City. Answer: It was explained that previously $7.50lfront foot (residenttal) and $II.00/tront ft (commerciai) • was used, plus a certain percentage of the costs exceeding this amount, which brauoht assessment to very close to the method presently used. (0. Jim Wtniecki aaked if the amount listed in the Assessment Roll is finai; assessment can't go any higher than ttgure re co rde d? Answer by Popovich: AIl costs have been added and spread as recorded; it an error is found, a supplemental Hearino would be necessary to amend the assessments up-ward. _Z_