Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Meeting Minutes <br />June 13,2001 <br /> <br />information. Mr. Hannah also stated that he would like two (2) weeks to consider the <br />assessment amounts and additional information. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft indicated that Council did not need to determine the assessment method at this <br />meeting and could wait for the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg questioned whether there was a maximum dollar amount for <br />assessments that would make the developer decide not to proceed. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah indicated he could not speak to the number as the money would corne out of <br />the principal owner's pocket, not his. Mr. Hannah stated he needed time to review the <br />matter with all the players. <br /> <br />Mr. Hannah indicated he would like two (2) weeks to review the matter and would like <br />the public hearing held in two (2) weeks. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft noted that, at the assessment hearing after receiving public input, Council <br />might decide to spread the assessments differently. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg indicated he would like Council to try to find a consistent method for <br />calculating assessments. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that, in prior years, there have not been <br />projects that went long stretches that affected other property owners until the Hunter's <br />Crossing project and this one. The City has not had a need to address issues similar to <br />this in the past. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers noted the City is trying to accomplish the best <br />procedure for the most people and stated _ she feels the City did a good job with the <br />assessments for the Hunter's Crossing development. <br /> <br />Mr. March noted the City does have an assessment policy and he reviewed it hoping it <br />contained black and white language as to how to do the assessment. He then noted that <br />the document leaves a large amount of discretion for Council to determine the assessment <br />method, provided the assessment does not exceed the realized benefit to the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft indicated that it might be possible to defer assessment for the Wilharber <br />property, as they are not able to use the improvements at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft indicated that under State Statute, the City is allowed to charge interest at any <br />rate it desires, provided it does not violate the usury laws. Mr. Hoeft also stated that if the <br />City desired, it did not have to charge interest on the deferred assessments. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilharber indicated that he realizes there would be a benefit to his property; <br />however, paying almost half of the assessment and not being able to realize the benefit <br />until several years down the road seems unfair. <br /> <br />Page 7 of 25 <br />