HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000046_pg040February 21, 1978 Page 5
Mr. Short replied that every person who owned a house had water running
off it, which contributed to the problem for everyone else.
Phil Johnson, 7474 Groveland Road questioned how the $437.02 assessment
figure was arrived at, if interest was paid at 8 percent a year for 20
years.
Mr. Swanson replied that the $437.02 was the amount of assessment, and
that if it were paid in full when first assessed, there would be no
additional cost, but if the property owner chose to spread it out over
the 20 years, the interest would be added in.
Duane McCarthy, 8060 Long Lake Road stated that he was interested in the
square footage assessment and asked how much of a tax increase could be
expected.
Mr. Swanson replied that the year 2000 is the final payment year for the
project and that the tax rate was based on what is presently used, and
that no changes were taken into consideration in assessment formulas,
and thus, if the State did change the formula, the rate would change
accordingly.
Mr. McCarthy questioned how much importance was placed on Well 25, which
Mr. Sunde had used during the slide presentation.
Mr. Sunde replied that he had chosen Well 25 just as a visual example
to present, but that the study had included all wells.
Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road questioned why the project was brought
up at a public hearing rather than a referendum.
Administrator Achen replied that as written in Chapter 429 of Minnesota
Statutes, a City Council decision is required and a public vote or
referendum is not necessary. He added that a referendum has no
legal bearing or weight and could only advise the Council of the public
feeling, which is what the public hearing was intended for.
Mr. Glazer asked what the criteria was for assessing benefit to property
since many would be paying for the project but few would be directly
benefitted by it.
Mayor Pickar replied that not everyone would be getting assessed for the
project, as anyone who had been assessed during 1973 -4 would not be
assessed again.
Mr. Glazer read the definition from the State Attorney General for deter -
ming benefit to property and stated that he did not believe all the homes
would increase in property value.
Mr. Swanson stated that the burden of proof is to show that the property
in question increased in value and stated that the figures he had pre-
sented earlier were not legal or valid until an assessment hearing is
held. He added that at that time the City will obtain an estimate of
increased market values but that if the increases could not be shown,
the assessments could not be levied. He stated that the time frame for