Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />October 7, 1981 <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 81-10-591 - CONTINUING TNE DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS <br />ON THE FOLLOVJING PROPERTIES LOCATED ON ARCADE STREET: KUSH <br />PROPERTY, PARCEL N0. 53-03700-150-13; ERAHAM PROPERTY, PARCEL <br />N0. 53-03700-140-13; BLUE PROPERTY, PARCEL N0. 53-03700-1.00-13; <br />KADLEC PROPERTY, PARCEL N0. 53-03700-420-13; MASSIE PROPER7Y, <br />PARCEL N0. 53-03700-450-13> LANE PROPERTY, PFlRCEL N0. 53-03700- <br />130-13; WODASZEWSKI PROPERTY, PARCEL NO.f53-03700-040-13; <br />SENTY PROPERTY, PFlRCEL N0. 53-03700-460-13; AND THE HAZARD <br />PROPERTY, PARCEL N0. 53-03700-470-13 UN7IL SUCH TIME AS THE <br />PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED, DIVIDED, DEVELOPED, OR CONNECTED TO <br />CITY WATER <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Flyes (5) Fahey, Scalze, Flanson, Nardini, Forsberg. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 7, Page 384. <br />Mr. Kush and Mr. and Mrs. Braham stated that they would like the record <br />to show that they appeared before the Council and were opposed to interest <br />being charged on their deferred assessments until such time as water stubs <br />were installed on their property. <br />Mr. Hanson commented that the people on the west side of Arcade Street <br />petitioned against the water improvement, but agreed to the improvement <br />as it was for the good of the rest of the neighborhood. Hanson, therefore, <br />felt that the interest should be deferred on their assessments. <br />Mrs. Scalze felt this was unfair as the Council levied interest against <br />other assessments where people probably petitioned against the improvement. <br />Mr. Forsberg commented that the Council told these people that their <br />assessments wnutd be deferred. Forsberg commented that he was putting <br />himself in the position of these property owners, and did not feel it <br />was fair to levy interest against their assessments. <br />Mr. Hazard commented that he would have to sell his property because of <br />all the costs beiny levied against it. <br />Mrs. Scalze commented that the costs are deferred until the time the <br />property is sold. Scalze also stated that all the rest of the taxpayers <br />are picking up this cost right now. <br />Mr. Hazard stated that he was informed by the Council that this would <br />not cost him anything other than the front footage assessment. Now the <br />City is adding 10% interest on the cost. <br />Mr. Fahey stated that if the Council deletes the interest on these <br />assessments, it should be prepared to answer to the other people who <br />have had the interest levied against their properties. <br />Page -24- <br />