Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 24, 1995 <br />under the pavement, which the City is paying for. This <br />is an attempt to equalize assessments between areas <br />with good soil conditions versus bad. <br />The City Administrator noted that the City previously <br />received a petition from property owners supporting a <br />$35 per front foot assessment rate. The rate proposed <br />this evening is $35.786 per front foot, and is purely <br />coincidental. It is proposed that assessments would be <br />spread out over a 10 year period at 7.25%. Assessments <br />can be pre-paid within 30 days of adoption with no <br />interest. Once assessments are levied to the County, <br />interest begins to accrue from the date of adoption of <br />the assessment roll. <br />The Administrator reported that the City offers a <br />senior citizen deferral option as well as a development <br />deferral option. The Administrator explained these <br />options in detail noting that interest would accrue on <br />the deferrals. <br />The City Administrator explained that the assessment <br />policy tries to equalize the assessment based on types <br />of lots involved. The Administrator explained the odd- <br />shaped lot formula, which he noted was applied to the <br />property at 164 Lake Street. <br />Fahey noted that if anyone intends to contest their <br />assessment, a written objection must be filed with the <br />City by this evening. Fahey asked if there was anyone <br />from the general public present wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Barb McDonough, 164 Lake Street, noted that other than <br />the City park, her property is receiving the highest <br />assessment even though the property has the smallest <br />amount of frontage on Lake Street. McDonough reported <br />that she pays high property taxes because she does have <br />a large lot. McDonough viewed the assessment as double <br />taxation, and felt she was being penalized for having a <br />large lot even tough it has the smallest amount of <br />street frontage. McDonough stated that at the <br />improvement hearing she was told that their assessment <br />would be based on 75 feet of frontage. She is being <br />assessed for 125 feet. <br />The City Administrator reported that in reviewing the <br />assessment policy, the Council felt it was not <br />equitable from a standpoint of paying too much or too <br />little on certain types of lots. The odd-shaped lot <br />calculation was reworded to include other types of lots <br />19 <br />