Laserfiche WebLink
- 4 - <br />Mr. Copeland stated that the project would be started the summer of 1970 <br />provided the financial market remained approximately the same. The townhouse <br />construction would start in the summer of 1971 and the commercial property <br />would begin to be developed when 407, of the living units in the remainder of <br />the project were occupied. <br />Valuations: Value of the R3 area was estimated at 8.1 million dollars. Value <br />of the double bungalows $960,000, the limited business $350,000, townhouses <br />1.2 million dollars, single family homes 3.6 million dollars and shopping <br />center 1 million dollars, giving a total market value of over 15 million <br />dollars. Mr. Copeland stated that this would yield annually a tax of over <br />$410,000. <br />Mr. Copeland stated that a sample was taken in Mounds View and the average <br />tax was $376.54 on a single family home and multiple dwelling taxes averaged <br />$492.47. Mr. Copeland stated that for the purpose of this study let us assume <br />that a single family home pays an average tax of $400.00 and a multiple dwelling <br />unit pays an average tax of $500.00. Since 70% of the tax dollar goes to <br />schools and since there is approximately .16 school age child in each multiple <br />dwelling unit and since it costs an average of $600 to educate a school age <br />child in School District #621 the multiple dwelling units pay an average school <br />tax of $350 per unit and it costs approximately $96.00 per unit to educate <br />each school age child. The single family home pays a school tax of $280. <br />Therefore there is a net loss of over $200 on a single family home. The <br />real estate taxes to the Village would be approximately $40,000 per year if <br />this project were approved, plus the Village would get approximately $12,000 <br />in shared taxes, sales taxes, cigarette and licenses, gasoline taxes, etc. <br />Traffic: Mr. Copeland stressed that there would only be access to County <br />Roads and that no traffic would run past any single family homes with the <br />exception of some R2 development on Woodale Drive. Mr. Copeland stated that <br />this project met the needs of middle income families. The engineers stated <br />by letter that there were facilities for utilities. Mr. Copeland said there <br />was a good buffer zone and that not only was the health and welfare protected <br />but it was enhanced. <br />A11 of the following questions were directed to and answered by Mr. Copeland <br />unless otherwise noted. <br />Mayor Rustad called for questions from the floor. John Robertus, 2055 County <br />Road H, objected to the presence of a court reporter. Mr. Copeland stated <br />that the Court reporter was present in case the decision of the Council was <br />adverse to his clients and they felt it was necessary to seek recourse in <br />the courts. <br />Henry Dyslin, 5092 Brighton Lane, stated that he felt the citizens were <br />acting small townish and that he felt that there was nothing wrong with <br />the presence of the Court reporter. Richard Paradise, 5191 Eastwood <br />Road, stood and stated that he had no attorney present and that his (court <br />reporter's) notes would be recognized by the courts and that it would be unfair <br />to him since he was not represented by an attorney and cautioned as to what <br />he could say. <br />James Nerdahl, 7941 Edgewood Drive, stood and stated that he felt the statements <br />in regard to a recourse should be stricken from the record and Mr. Nerdahl noted <br />that a tape recorder was present at the meeting also. Gordon Ziebarth, 5150 <br />Bona Road, felt that the recorders presence was threatening to the Council. <br />Henry Dyslin stated that he felt the people should find out where they stand, <br />that if someone has threatened them don't get mad when they threaten you. Mr. <br />Copeland stated that if the Council had decided to ask the recorder to leave <br />that his clients would abide by their decision. <br />