Laserfiche WebLink
JOHN T. CHAPMAN <br />RONALD M. MICHAELSON <br />DENIS E. GRANDE <br />ROBERT W. KETTERING. JR. <br />JEROME J. SIMONS. JR <br />CHRISTINE M. LEICK <br />THEODORE J. SMETAK <br />ROBERT F. STRAUSS•• <br />COLBY 8. LUND <br />ELLEN L.MAAS <br />KIRK A 5 UBBEE <br />BRIAN J. LOVE <br />JAMES D. ECHTENKAMP• • <br />JEFFREY M. NUCEK <br />ARTHUR, CHAPMAN AND MICHAELSON, F. A. <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />1219 MAROUETTE AVENUE <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55403 <br />(612) 339 -3500 <br />4 ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN <br />ALSO ADMITTED IN ILLINOIS <br />.D. ALSO AON.ITTED IN IOWA <br />7. 7. i NTT`^, f'Thi <br />HAND DELIVERED 6 <br />January 18, 1984 <br />The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />St. Paul, MN 55117 <br />JAN VP34 <br />CATY <br />L I i LL CANADA <br />Re: Written Objections to Proposed <br />Assessment Against Property <br />Located at 50 E. County Road B <br />St. Paul, MN 55117 <br />In a letter dated November 21, 1983, Mr. Robert J. Voto, CPA <br />with the firm of DeLaHunt Voto & Co., Ltd. submitted to your <br />attention a proposed formula to be used to calculate connection <br />charges for the use of the city sanitary sewer and water systems <br />by nonresidents of the City of Little Canada. That letter <br />resulted in estimated fees assessed to 50 E. County Road B of <br />$5,797 for sanitary sewer system and $9,721 for water system. <br />This letter objects to certain portions of that proposed formula <br />and suggests alternative information and fees. <br />Lateral Fee <br />The proposed formula calculated lateral charges using an <br />assessment rate equal to 100% of construction costs. According <br />to the proposed formula, these construction costs equal a lineal <br />foot charge of $22 a front foot for sanitary sewer system and a <br />lineal foot charge of $30 a front foot for water system. These <br />lateral charges result in nonresident property paying a one time <br />charge equal to what City property would be assessed and /or taxed <br />over the term of the financing bond issue, excluding assessment <br />interest. <br />The formula supposes that assessment interest should be <br />excluded and therefore the charges should be paid in cash without <br />a present value discount factor. In order for this assumption to <br />be equitable, assessment interest should roughly equate the <br />present value discount factor. Since assessment interest is <br />generally a rate nearly equal to the original bond issuance <br />interest, i.e., 4.75% for the sanitary sewer trunk system and <br />5.75% for the water trunk system, the assumption that assessment <br />interest and the present value factor are equal is most likely <br />incorrect. Instead, Dr. Taylor asserts that a present value <br />�Li <br />