06-07-1982 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes June 7, 1982 Page 3 7. Peterson Addition Reassessment - Public Hearing The City Administrator indicated that the total cost for the Peterson Addition im- provements was $200,831.55, of which $136,765.17 is assessable to the benefited area, and further indicated that at the May 3, 1982, City Council meeting, the City Council determined that the benefited area for the Peterson Addition improve- ments should be the properties specifically in the area referred to as the Peterson Addition. The City Administrator further indicated that the City Council determined that the benefited properties in the. Peterson Addition should be assessed on a unit basis with all individual property owners assessed equally. The City Administra- tor indicated that there are 28 parcels of benefiting property in the Peterson Ad- dition which would amount to a total assessment of $4,884.47 per parcel. The City Administrator further indicated that the refunds or credits will be figured on an individual basis and that in making the refunds or credits for overpayment of assess- ments, Judge Dablo is his District Court order, specified that the City must pay interest for the overpayments. The City Administrator indicated that in Judge Dablo's order, a rate of interest was not specified and further indicated that the City At- torney has indicated that the legal rate of interest when no other rate of interest is specified, is six percent. Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. Mr. Wally Ohland questioned how the costs were arrived at and specifically, which parcels were included in the 28 parcels specified. The City Administrator explained that Mr. Ohland is assessed for one unit and further indicated that the parcel Mr. Ohland's home is actually located on is not specified as one of the benefiting properties. Mr. Cliff Lundberg, representing Christian and Peterson, questioned the method of assessment on a per unit basis, .as some of the parcels were five-acre parcels and some were two and one-half acre parcels. Mr. Lundberg indicated that a five-acre parcel could be split to 2 two and one-half acre parcel and therefore, would be paying less for an assessment. General discussion was carried on regarding the method of assessment on a per unit basis versus an acreage basis. Councilman Engstrom indicated that he felt the as- sessment should be based ona unit basis because of the equal use of the street improvement by each parcel. The City Administrator indicated that if the assessment were done on an acreage basis, that would presume that all lots could be split into two and one-half acre parcels.and and as the plat is laid out, some of the parcels could not be split. Mr. Lundberg also questioned the rate of interest and suggested to the City Council that the legal rate of interest on judgements is eleven percent and further indicated that the project Was assessed at eight percent and suggested that the City Council consider something more than the suggested six percent. The City Administrator indicated that the State Statute indicates that the local rate of indebtedness is six percent and if the percent of interest for judgements does apply, the City Council would have to pay that specified amount of interest. Councilman Toth indicated that it was his feeling that each lot benefited equally for the street improvement and therefore, felt the assessment should be done on an equal basis. Mr. Bill Beauchaine questioned the total amount of the project as compared to the estimated costs for the project. The City Administrator indicated that the project