My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-12-93 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
10-12-93 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:40:30 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 12, 1993 <br />The Administrator <br />receive a notice <br />assessment would <br />fee. <br />reported that property owners would <br />of final assessment, and the LaRock <br />reflect deduction of the $75 service <br />LaRock asked if interest on the assessment were tax <br />deductible. <br />The City Administrator replied that the IRS has <br />determined interest on typical assessments to be <br />personal interest, therefore, not tax deductible. <br />However, the Administrator recommended that property <br />owners discuss this with their tax accountants. The <br />City Administrator also indicated that he did not <br />believe that property values would be adjusted to <br />reflect the assessment at this point, noting that <br />properties are usually reassessed at the time of sale. <br />Ingvar Alm, 2979 Edgerton, did not believe that the <br />market value of his home would increase in proportion <br />to the cost of the water main improvement. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the City hired <br />an appraiser to look at the benefits received issue, <br />and the appraiser has indicated that properties will <br />increase in value either equal to or greater than the <br />cost of the assessment. <br />Tony Devich, 2800 Edgerton, expressed concern that <br />property owners were not notified of the timing that <br />the contractor would be working in front of their <br />homes. Had they been, property owners could have <br />arranged for a plumber to make the connection of the <br />water main to individual homes when the trenches were <br />open. Devich pointed out that this would have saved <br />the homeowners' money. <br />The City Engineer pointed out that leaving trenches <br />open for any period of time is a safety issue. <br />Devich understood this concern, but pointed out that <br />with proper notice property owners could have had their <br />plumbers on site when the City's contractor was <br />installing the main. <br />The City Engineer replied that it is very difficult to <br />predict the daily schedule of a contractor given <br />weather considerations and underground conditions. <br />Devich stated that at the improvement hearing this <br />notice was promised to the property owners, and that <br />promise was not fulfilled. <br />Page 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.