Laserfiche WebLink
v <br />COWiCILMAN CRICHTOiJ: I think it will lessen the coste <br />Aut. GRUDNOSKE: I'm just kind of concerned about qoing on <br />the south side of the lalce - if there's going to be any problem <br />• about ruining the bottom - if they're going to run into a <br />problem on the south side so they'd look out for it I don't <br />know how you could test it so the lake doesn't go dry. <br />CAWiCILMAN CRICHTON: I guess I'm assuming that the proba- <br />bilities are about the same on the south side as on the north <br />side, but I admit i don't know. <br />MAYOR CREPEAUe Any further discussion? Ready for the <br />question? <br />COUNCILMAN 4400DBURIQa I'm not sure, but there are negative <br />aspects in addition with non-assessable land there. Any part <br />that°s non-assessable will end up being paid by the other bene- <br />fitted property and I think it (inaudible) but it doesn't lower <br />it $45,000 and the benefitted property will not pay that much <br />less for two reasons. 6Je have less benefitted property and we <br />have property we can't assess so while there's a wash there of <br />6000 (inaudible). It isn't $45,000 difference. <br />MAYOR CREPEAU: How much less (inaudible) assessing? <br />COUNCILi9AN CRICHTON� The front footage on the other side <br />is 1300 feet but there will be some £ront footage picked up on <br />the south side so about 1000 feet assessments less, assuming <br />there will be an acreage charge across the street (inaudible) <br />tttat's $16,000. <br />A9AYOR CREPEAU: $16,000 will be spread on the rest of the <br />assessments. <br />COUtVCILMAN CRICHTOND Nlaybe $20,000 that would be assessed <br />to the property on the north side which obviously would have to <br />be spread over (inaudible) but the total cost would be $44,000 <br />so a net reduction to all the other property of $24,000. <br />COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: 1300 at, say $16.00, is $20,000 of <br />assessments that are lost and additionally there's about 600=„. <br />feet that wouldn't be picked up so that's 600 times 16 so that's <br />$30,000 that �aould be lost for income. <br />COUNCILMAN CRICHTONa <br />� we will pick up this, plus <br />we°11 lose 1300 and pick up <br />1000 front feet even though <br />1300 you will assess 300< <br />(Inaudible) if we take 1300 out here <br />this - I don't know - 30a feet, so <br />300 so we have a net reduction of <br />you cannot assess this. Instead of <br />COUNCILP7AN WOODBURNs <br />(Inaudible) $16.00 a foot for nothing. <br />35 <br />