My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1996 - CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
1996
>
1996 - CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2011 11:50:27 AM
Creation date
8/30/2011 11:50:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
City Council meeting minutes of May 8, 1996 <br /> council has to review other options and will not make a decision without careful <br /> consideration. <br /> Mr. Nyberg stated that apartments should be assessed at a lower rate, generally 80% of <br /> the use of a regular residential unit. <br /> Councilmember Brenner reassured that the assessment roll is a worst case scenario. She <br /> added that the original plan was to adopt the roll tonight, but have come to a consensus to <br /> wait until the project is complete. In the meantime the council will Consider having <br /> appraisals done to assist them in establishing a fair assessment. <br /> Mr. Hellings stated that by law the city can't go any higher then what the notices were sent <br /> out at unless another hearing was held. <br /> Mr. Perron asked if a different approach could be looked at, per child or entire city. A lot <br /> of the residents don't have a problem with helping the school. Councilmember Powers - <br /> Rasmussen stated that everyone does pay by paying city and school taxes. <br /> Mr. Opp stated he feels trapped being an existing property owner, at least the new home <br /> buyers have the option to move on. <br /> Mr. Hellings stated that once an assessment roll is adopted property owners have 30 days <br /> to appeal. They would however need to file an objection by the close of the hearing in <br /> order to appeal. The city cannot assess a property for more than the value of the benefit. <br /> Mr. Tester commented to Mr. Opp regarding the street reconstruction. The city and <br /> school are paying for the street reconstruction and although he has traffic from his <br /> apartment building that uses that he will not be assessed. Mr. Tester also stated that the <br /> city has tried hard to accommodate the needs of Mr. Opp and other residents. Mr. Opp <br /> stated that his tenants cannot even park on the street and this investment is worthless with <br /> this proposed assessment. <br /> Rick Paulsen, 1764 Main Street, stated he can understand paying a hook up fee to buy <br /> into the system but why only 20 people paying for the water to the school. Why isn't it <br /> distributed throughout the entire city. Mr. Hellings replied that it is an assumption that <br /> having city water provides a benefit to the property, what this is is still to be determined. <br /> That it will increase your market value to some extent. <br /> Councilmember Powers - Rasmussen stated that it doesn't benefit those residents who do <br /> not have children, how would the city justify distributing the costs that way. <br /> Councilmember Buckbee stated that as a society it is our duty to provide a safe <br /> environment for the kids in the community. She added that is her way of thinking and not <br /> all people may or may not agree. <br /> CC5- 8MM.WPS 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.