Laserfiche WebLink
February 21, 1978 Page 5 <br />Mr. Short replied that every person who owned a house had water running <br />off it, which contributed to the problem for everyone else. <br />Phil Johnson, 7474 Groveland Road questioned how the $437.02 assessment <br />figure was arrived at, if interest was paid at 8 percent a year for 20 <br />years. <br />Mr. Swanson replied that the $437.02 was the amount of assessment, and <br />that if it were paid in full when first assessed, there would be no <br />additional cost, but if the property owner chose to spread it out over <br />the 20 years, the interest would be added in. <br />Duane McCarthy, 8060 Long Lake Road stated that he was interested in the <br />square footage assessment and asked how much of a tax increase could be <br />expected. <br />Mr. Swanson replied that the year 2000 is the final payment year for the <br />project and that the tax rate was based on what is presently used, and <br />that no changes were taken into consideration in assessment formulas, <br />and thus, if the State did change the formula, the rate would change <br />accordingly. <br />Mr. McCarthy questioned how much importance was placed on Well 25, which <br />Mr. Sunde had used during the slide presentation. <br />Mr. Sunde replied that he had chosen Well 25 just as a visual example <br />to present, but that the study had included all wells. <br />Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road questioned why the project was brought <br />up at a public hearing rather than a referendum. <br />Administrator Achen replied that as written in Chapter 429 of Minnesota <br />Statutes, a City Council decision is required and a public vote or <br />referendum is not necessary. He added that a referendum has no <br />legal bearing or weight and could only advise the Council of the public <br />feeling, which is what the public hearing was intended for. <br />Mr. Glazer asked what the criteria was for assessing benefit to property <br />since many would be paying for the project but few would be directly <br />benefitted by it. <br />Mayor Pickar replied that not everyone would be getting assessed for the <br />project, as anyone who had been assessed during 1973 -4 would not be <br />assessed again. <br />Mr. Glazer read the definition from the State Attorney General for deter - <br />ming benefit to property and stated that he did not believe all the homes <br />would increase in property value. <br />Mr. Swanson stated that the burden of proof is to show that the property <br />in question increased in value and stated that the figures he had pre- <br />sented earlier were not legal or valid until an assessment hearing is <br />held. He added that at that time the City will obtain an estimate of <br />increased market values but that if the increases could not be shown, <br />the assessments could not be levied. He stated that the time frame for <br />