My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7388
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7300
>
res_7388
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:16:38 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:13:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7388
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-82-17 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications Therefor
Resolution Date Passed
8/9/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />would they still be for it? That might give you an idea of how <br />they feel about the tax increment hearing later. But you do <br />have that flexibility to pull it allover if we commence the tax <br />increment plan within a reasonable period of time - that's <br />normally three or four months. <br /> <br />COUNCIL!1AN KEHR: Mr. Popovich, if we go ahead with this <br />and the assessments are levied to the property owners and later <br />on we go to tax increment financing - that would be transferable <br />to the tax increment? <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: No. What would happen - if you ordered the <br />improvement and called for bids and started construction and <br />let's say four months from now the tax increment was approved - <br />since our assessment hearing on this project wouldn't be until <br />next year anyway and the intervening tax increment plan would <br />come into effect - we would never assess them if that was your <br />choice - or they would have a reduced assessment. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN KEHR: That was my question. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Supposing tax increment financing does not <br />go through - we would' be having the assessment hearing approxi- <br />mately one year from now. They are usually in August - this <br />year they're the 16th and 18th of August. At this point, any <br />person who has an assessment may corne in and say that this <br />improvement serves no purpose for me. If you prove your argu- <br />ment, you could have - you're saying that as a residence this <br />does not serve you, I don't need this, etc., etc. - then that <br />assessment could be deferred until such time - if you could <br />persuade the Council - until your property changed hands. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: If you could convince the Council that <br />you're not benefited by that much, the Council could even reduce <br />the assessment. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: That's right. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Convincing the Council - you're making <br />it sound too ominous. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: 'No - I'm just saying that if someone came in <br />and said - I happened to be in the office after Gloria Thayer <br />called the other day and someone sent it to me and I said, well, <br />we have Corpus Christi Church, who we didn't assess anything for <br />Skillman Avenue - we have property allover the City - the <br />Archdiocese didn't get assessed until that property was sold <br />to Northwestern College. So I'm saying, it has happened - we've <br />had - I'm sure every year we've had assessments adjusted, etc. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: <br />a point that . <br /> <br />I understand. <br /> <br />I just wanted to make <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I'm saying that it's not a formality of <br />them thinking it's going to happen by number one, staying <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.