1978-03-08 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 8, 1978 Poae 5 Cathy Licke, 223a Lambart stated that she had a friend who lived in Fridle,v who ownad a home comparabie to her's who was payino higher taxes. ~ Wally Skiba, Y841 Long Lake Road staCed that part of the land by tlie Watson property was owned by the State and thus could not be taxed for the pro~ect, Official Rose repited the area in question is unserviced, which is why there have not been re- qucsts for development. Engineer Hubbard added that the State Nlghway Department awns that particular piece of land and that they would be taxed if the pro~ect were approved. The City has already notifie~ both the County and State of pending assessments. Ufiicial Rose added that if the lanJ becomes service~, the State most 1lkely would sell it and it would be developed. Bill Uondy, 3049 Bronsan Drive asked if the City would be paying to service lands for large companies. Comnission Member Foss replled Mounds View has a great deai of land that could be comnercially developed and that comnercial development wouid certainly generate more in taxes than single family residences. Official Rose statnd that Hounds View currently has sane large pl&ts pending, such as Northcrest Park, which is 53 acres, and the 0'Nei1 develoqnent, end thaC other businesses have contac:ed the City and shown t~terest in developing, but Chat the pro3ect would have to be appr~oved first. He added that Moun~s View does have the capacity for larqe companies. Mr. Lang stated that ane of the mafor reasons the citizens he represents were opposed to the pro~r.ct is that 96.3 percenL of the residents of the City would receive no direct benefit from the systern, but that the first phase wo~ild help the 0'Neil devslopment. ~wb,\ Official Rose stated that anyone who cunCributes to the problem benefits fran ( the pro~ect. He added that the first phase of the pro~ect was strangly recqm- ~.-' mended hy Short, Elliott. and Hendricksan in order to give the City its third and most vital outiQt to kice Creck und, at ±hn sanie time, give the City a holding area, bqth of wfiich are needed hefore the City Gan pro3ect conduits and catch basins to presently unsert~ed areas. He also stated that one aiter- nativp the City would have woutd be to avo7d the pro3ect and require each developer to put in his own services, but that would not take care of the preseot water probiems 9n residentlal areas and would leave their improvement much more expensive. Neil I.eeding, 5046 Long View Drive stated that the storm in 1975 was suppused to have been a 10 year storm rather than a 50 year storm. Mr. Loeding presented a map of the City showing where the 23 wet basem~ents from 1975 were located and 3tl yards with water and 42 property owners with drainage pr•oblems and pointed out that the problem area did not cover the whole map. He stated that iie was apposed to the pro,~ect because of the cost and he added that he did not feel the pro~:sct would accomplish what the City was saying it wouid. !4r. loeding added that he felt comn~ercial and industrial property owners would benefit at the expense of the single family tax payers. Engineer Hubbard repeated that any property zoned comnercial or industrial, whether developed or undeveloped would be assessed double that of single famity homes and added that the City was conslderi;~g a p]an of taxing he~'•y industriai prcperty at three times the rate of single fami7y homes, and light industriai at twtce the rate, which would enabTe 55 percent of thr_ pro~ect to be financed by comnerclal property , and 45 percent by singte fami7y residents. He added that 85 percent of the tax- ~ payers in Moun~.' 'iew are single family residents. Mr. Lceding questioned the 25 percent figure for engineering costs which was referred to by the City. Engineer Nubbard replied that that inctuded drafLtng costs and the casts involved in getting the pro~ect out for bid, as well as ~ust the engineering costs.