7. SR 07-25-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . A question was asked by one of the residents if it would be possible to put sewer and water into the development but leave the roads in the rural state that they are with roadside ditches and no storm sewer, the thought being that lots would not be further subdivided and that the rural drainage would still be appropriate with an appropriate reduction in the cost of the assessment. The lack of storm sewer would reduce the assessment by $8.00 per foot and reconstructing the rural street rather than the urban street with curb and gutter could also possibly reduce their cost. I indicated that from an engineering standpoint this would be a possibility but that from a legal standpoint I wasn't sure how the City could accomplish the restriction of further subdividing the land. My thought would be that it may require rezoning with a new zoning district of one acre urban lots. A little later in the meeting, one of the current residents did indicate that he would not like to give up his opportunity to further subdivide his lot. He lives on a corner piece of property and said that he was not thinking about subdividing now but that sometime in the future may want to do that. · I then asked for a consensus of those in attendance whether or not there was a desire to further subdivide their lots. The vast majority of those in attendance said they had no such desire. I also asked if there was desire for leaving the rural approach and again the vast majority indicated they would like that. I assume that this is representative of a reduction in the assessments rather than necessarily the rural nature of the development. . I then asked for some specific thoughts on assessment reductions, what they thought would be a tolerable level for assessments. In response to this, Steve Stewart indicated that he thought a waiving of trunk assessments and the elimination of storm sewer would be a good approach. At $8.00 per front foot for storm sewer and $3,800 per acre, this would result in approximately $4,700 per lot reduction. · In response to this comment, one of the other residents indicated the same type of approach based on their existing on-site sewer and well system still having much useful life in them and they ought to be compensated for them somehow. He felt a prorated reimbursement of the value left in them plus possibly a reimbursement for the cost of abandoning the septic system. He did not directly tie this into the elimination of a trunk assessment rate, but it was implied that this would be an offsetting feature. . There were some questions on the assessment process and appeal process. I indicated that Chapter 429 of State Statute allowed for an appeal process and basically indicated that assessments need to be offset by an increase in the value of the property. I also indicated that generally the appeal process needs to be initiated by the homeowner, that simply by going through the process of levying the assessments, the City Council was taking the position that the assessments are valid and will increase the value of the property. Roger Holmgren made some comments about the Westwood Area Subdivision and their assessments. He indicated that the few sales that have taken place since that project have indicated that there was an increase in value equal to or greater than the assessment amount. 230/223-1203.jul -3