My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 06-19-1978
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
CC 06-19-1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2024 9:36:00 AM
Creation date
11/27/2006 10:26:07 AM
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.
/
41
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
MR. HUSNIK: Number 1 would indicate - that portion of it <br />we would carry the brunt of the assessments we wonld not need <br />in Arden Manore That is one I'm opposed to. The other one - <br />along the Highway 10, south of Highway 96 where the red line <br />• indicates we would be carrying the brunt of the assessments for <br />45 acres which wauld a�unt to $65,000, <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That line is on the weat side of <br />Highway 10 and would not serve your property. The base line <br />that loops around and down Highway 96 and down Snell.ing would <br />affect it. <br />MR. HUSNIK: (Inaudible) alone on the east side would <br />amount to $16 plus per front foot plus $450 an acre would <br />amount to $65,000 for that tract, (Inaudible) indicated where <br />I see (inaudible) that you go from 35-fd and (inaudible) to loop <br />the area around the (inaudible) part and come back to Highway <br />96 and go east to Hamline, that's what I read (inaudible) not <br />Snelling, but to Iiam].ine. I didn't read anything that it was <br />going to be going along Highway 10, or is that a 6-inch line <br />and wouldn't serve the property? <br />MR. CHRISTOFE'ERSENs This is an 8-inch line indicated on <br />the map and is not proposed to serve your property because <br />obviously there's Iiigttway 10 separating it. <br />tnR. HUSNIK: You got 45 acres of farmland there, and does <br />it co� under green acres deletion o£ being assessed immediately <br />ar until it's put in use, or what is it? <br />MR. POPOVICH: I don't have the green acre law here, but <br />under that there are certain requirementa that the oc+mer has to <br />meet before he can qualify for deferred assessments, and that <br />�ans you have to farm it, you have to have certain income from <br />it in order to be classified as green acres. Then, if he meets <br />those tests, then the assessment deferments come into play. If <br />he doesn't �et the original tests, then the deferments don't <br />come under the green acre law. <br />MR. HUSNix: i quess we startad out here - your last <br />hearing on this thing, it was going to dead-end at Highway 96. <br />our front footage, or acreage footage, we`re up to $65,000 on <br />that 40 acres and now take the acreage on 96 and it will push <br />us up possibly to $80,000 for assessments on the southeast <br />corner of 694 and 10. That's a pretty stiff deal when you're <br />not doing anythinq with the land. The other thing is, going <br />• back to number 1, who wants water along Highway 10, but are we <br />paying for all of it, or how much of it? We have about 50 <br />acres, maybe 60 acres, but S think it's a lot of assessments <br />for water system we don't need, and if someone needs it along <br />Highway 10 we can give them water, <br />MAYOR CREPEAU: Anyone else? <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.