Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 13, 1992 <br />The Administrator reported that partial payments are <br />prohibited by State Statute. However, at any time <br />during the assessment term, the property owner has the <br />option of paying off the assessment in full. <br />Roy French, 2988 Edgerton, reported that he was opposed <br />to the water main improvement as proposed. French <br />suggested a poll of the property owners involved. <br />French suggested that a letter be sent out to the <br />property owners asked their position on the <br />improvement. <br />Kleis agreed. <br />Karon pointed out the amount of interest that would go <br />to the City from this assessment. <br />Collova pointed out that the interest does not go to <br />the City, but rather for repayment of the bonds that <br />the City would have to sell to finance the improvement. <br />Mr. Dunn was concerned that it appears that the smaller <br />lots would be subsidizing the larger lots along <br />Edgerton under the assessment policy proposed. Dunn <br />commented that the City is using the justification of <br />increased fire protection to justify the improvement. <br />Dunn reported that his fire insurance costs are minimal <br />compared to the amount of taxes he pays in Little <br />Canada. Dunn reported that if the cost of the <br />improvement only increased 160 over the last 10 years, <br />he was willing to take the chance and wait. <br />Hanson pointed out that if a larger lot could be <br />divided into two, that lot would receive a double <br />assessment. <br />It was also pointed out that the cost of the <br />improvement to the property owner was increasing only <br />16% over the last ten years due to the fact the City's <br />assessment policy was 80/20 in 1981, and under the <br />proposal this evening the City would be paying 350 of <br />the cost of the project. It was again noted that the <br />total cost of the improvement increased by over 44%! <br />Dunn suggested that the two portions of the improvement <br />be split, with the area south of LaBore Road beinq <br />considered separately from the area north of LaBore <br />Road. <br />Blesener felt that water main must go in and the best <br />time to put it in would be today. Blesener stated that <br />project costs are now 50% higher than they were in <br />1982, although the cost may only be 16% higher to the <br />property owner. <br />Page 19 <br />