My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-11-27 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2002
>
2002-11-27 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2009 9:36:40 AM
Creation date
5/13/2009 9:34:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
213
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
<br />City of CenterviJIe <br />November [3,2002 <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Zimny indicated that the City's proposed portion was $53,460 and he is curious how <br />that amount was lowered to $41,760. Mr. Peterson explained that the first amount was an <br />estimate and the actual amount was based on the difference between the 10 inch and 6 <br />inch pipe being used. The price per foot was only $11.00 versus the estimated $15.00. <br /> <br />Mr. Zimny asked if the City picks up part of the indirect costs. Mr. Peterson indicated <br />the City picks up its portion of the indirect costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Zimny indicated the flat rate that was discussed was relative to 7281, the two unit <br />area and the discussion ranged from $25,000 to $34,000. He also indicated that there <br />were 8 units attributed to the 7265 Main Street address versus the 6 now being used. Mr. <br />Peterson explained that he had rechecked the lot sizes and determined that there would <br />only be about 6 units possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Bart Rehbein, 1659 Lakeland Circle, addressed Council and indicated that he has an <br />issue with the proposed assessment as his property is being assessed $8,000 per lot versus <br />the $4,330 of the other properties. He then indicated that his two issues are that the <br />assessment cannot be more than the benefit to the property and the second is that there <br />needs to be equity in how properties are looked at and they need to be assessed <br />comparably. <br /> <br />Mr. Rehbein indicated that he and Mr. Rich DeFoe have roughly the equivalent amount <br />of acreage and if he were to plat his property he would end up with the same number of <br />lots. He then said that he feels that he and Mr. DeFoe should have a more comparable <br />assessment. He further indicated that he feels that the nearly $9,000 per lot is more than <br />the value added to the property and is not equitable. <br /> <br />Council Member Nelson asked Mr. Rehbein what he thought would be a fair assessment. <br />Mr. Rehbein indicated that staying with the $4,330 it would add another $41,000 with a <br />balance of$112,000 and he feels it would be equitable to divide that in half between The <br />Shores and Mr. DeFoe. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoell conunented that the benefit to the property could be determined in <br />court, if necessary. He then said that the argument concerning treating the lots equally <br />could be challenged because the City is within its right to treat different types of property <br />owners differently. For example, the residential property owners can be treated <br />differently from commercial property owners or developers. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated he felt the numbers presented may not take into account <br />enough of the benefit added to Mr. DeFoe's property. Mr. Peterson indicated the current <br />home on the DeFoe property takes up a sizeable amount of the property and he does not <br />think it would be possible to get 10 lots. Mr. Rehbein indicated that he has one lot that is <br />one acre and the others are 74 acre so he thinks the development would end up fairly <br />comparable. . <br /> <br />Page 13 of29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.