Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 16, 2008 <br />substantiate that increase in property values. However, given the cap on <br />assessment levels that is in place, as well as the testing of the City's <br />assessment policy, the City is confident that its assessment methods meet <br />the benefits received test. <br />Allan asked what would happen if an appraisal did not support the <br />assessment level. The City Administrator indicated that the court would <br />order the rebate of the unsupported assessment level. <br />Blesener noted that Payne Avenue property owners were assessed at a <br />30% level for urban street reconstruction, and the City is proposing to <br />assess Thunder Bay Road property owners at a 21 % level. Keis indicated <br />that he did not support a change in the City's assessment policy, pointing <br />out that any change will impact the rest of the taxpayers and would set a <br />precedent. Keis also noted that Payne Avenue did not last even 10 years <br />when there was the need to reconstruct that street. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the City's assessment policy has <br />been tested and is supportable. <br />Blesener asked those present for their position on the improvement. Nine <br />property owners indicated they were against, and one property owner was <br />in support of the improvement. <br />Compton Veeramallay, Thunder Say Road, asked how the total project <br />costs were arrived at. Blesener noted that the total project costs are an <br />estimate by the City Engineer based on his experience. Veeramallay <br />asked what happens if actual costs come in lower than estimate. Blesener <br />noted that given the cap that is in place, assessments to property owners <br />will likely remain the same. However, the cost to the rest of the taxpayers <br />in the City would likely decrease. <br />Veeramallay questioned the fact that he would have one of the highest <br />assessments even though he has only 53 feet of street frontage. The City <br />Adminisri•ator explained the odd-shaped lot formula that is used for cul- <br />de-sac lots. He again stated that a per unit road assessment may be more <br />feasible for the Thunder Bay Road project. This would equalize the <br />amount of the assessment for all property owners. <br />Veeramallay asked if there would be any improvement to the drainage at <br />the back of his property. Montour noted that the improvement of Thunder <br />Bay Road would not address drainage at the back of the Veeramallay lot. <br />Jeanne Veeramallay suggested that the assessment level penalizes them <br />for having a larger lot yet the project does not improvement their rear yard <br />drainage. Again, it was noted that the assessments for the road <br />improvement may be changed to a per unit assessment. <br />13 <br />