My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2022.09.19 CC Minutes
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2022 CC Minutes
>
2022.09.19 CC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2023 12:52:19 PM
Creation date
4/18/2023 12:44:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
9/19/2022
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2022 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />associated with the Acres of Bald Eagle, which included surface and drainage improvements of <br />121st Street. The development costs were not considered as part of this assessment and would be <br />paid by the developer under a separate agreement. The existing properties along 121st Street <br />North and Falcon Avenue North would benefit from the extension of sanitary sewer services and <br />water services to their individual lots. At the August 15, 2022, regular Council meeting, the <br />Council adopted a resolution declaring costs to be assessed and scheduled the assessment hearing <br />on the proposed assessments for September 19, 2022. The Notice of Assessment Hearing had <br />been published in the official newspaper and mailed to the owners of each parcel described in the <br />assessment roll at least two weeks prior to the hearing. Mark provided information on the costs <br />saying the assessment rate would be $9,443 per unit. This amount was presented at the public <br />hearing on July 17, 2021, when the project was approved. He noted that this amount was higher <br />than the number given as a very rough estimate at the first neighborhood meeting to talk about a <br />potential project. He reviewed the requirements on assessments as outlined in State Statute. He <br />explained the assessments would be spread out over ten years at 4.25% interest. The entire <br />amount could also be paid without interest by October 19, 2022. He also provided information <br />on the deferral available to senior citizens saying interest would accrue on the balance. <br /> <br />Mayor Weidt opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Council had received a written statement from Judy Schoeller, 4995 121st St. N. that stated <br />concerns regarding the $2,000 increase. She also had a question on how interest was handled. <br /> <br />Johanna Markeson, 4898 121st Street, said she had received the letter and questioned why the <br />assess amount of $7,500 and was now $9,500, a 30% increase. Mark explained that at the initial <br />meeting, there were no detailed plans, and residents were told it was very a rough estimate. At <br />the public hearing and during approval of the feasibility study, the number $9,500 was presented. <br />Johanna asked about when and where to pay it without interest, and why such a short time to do <br />so. Mark explained that it could be paid to the City of Hugo prior to October 19, 2022, and the <br />timeline was governed within the state statute. The numbers needed to be to the County so they <br />could certify them and do their part in getting it on the property taxes. <br /> <br />Petryk asked about a partial payment. Finance Director Anna Wobse replied they could pay off <br />the full amount prior to being assessed, or they could pay off the entire remaining amount <br />anytime after assessments start. <br /> <br />Beth Lawrence, 4852 121st St., said she would like copy of letter that stated what the price was. <br />She said no one had received it, and 30 days ws not enough time to pay. Erichson explained <br />notices had been sent out on the public hearing. Beth said she should have received an official <br />notice stating the amount. It was explained by the Mayor the reason to have a public hearing <br />was to inform them of the project and amounts before moving forward. It was also explained to <br />her that the 30 days was only if she wanted to pay off the full amount instead of being assessed <br />over ten years. Beth said the City does what they want to do and they (residents) did not have a <br />choice. <br /> <br />Erichson explained the City was not driving the project. The decision was driven by the property <br />owners. The project could have been done without extending utilities to the properties. If <br />utilities were extended without the project without having the developers helping to pay, it would
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.