Laserfiche WebLink
exceed value, the City will have to pay the difference to the property owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley - Stated that State constitution defines what benefit is. When the <br />City levies an assessment, the City has to confirm that the amount of dollars <br />levied do not exceed what the property can be sold for after the improvements <br />are in. The City has done that in this case with respect to the sewer and <br />water; platting and streets are up to the property owner. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley - Stated that in summary, those that spoke expressed opposition and <br />asked for a show of hands of those that would consider the project if the <br />cost was reduced considerably and assessments postponed. <br /> <br />(One person responded). <br /> <br />Mr. Bernie Vevea - Inquired as to why those property owners wanting the project <br />aren't present and who is Mr. Rartley working for? <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that from this point forward, according to the Charter, <br />there is a 60 day waiting period. During that period, those persons for or <br />against a project may generate a petition. Those petitions that are received <br />will be tabulated. If those opposing the improvement prevail with the majority <br />of those petitioning, the project will be cancelled and cannot be resumed for <br />12 months. If no petitions are received during the 60 day waiting period, <br />Council can, at their discretion, choose to continue or stop the project. If <br />they continue the project, plans and specs will be ordered, bids received and <br />the improvements ordered. If Council chooses to stop the project, the waiting <br />period for resuming it is 12 months. Mr. Hartley stated that he is considering <br />a follow-up meeting to provide specific information as to what kinds of <br />subsidies the City can provide in the area of assessments. Mr. Hartley noted <br />that the adjournment of this public hearing will start the 60 day clock. <br /> <br />Mr. Eggem - Stated that the property owners are opposing the project for a <br />reason. Inquired what good it does for the City to bring in utilities that <br />will bankrupt those persons owning sizeable parcels of property. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley - Stated that he may sound like an advocate of the project but that <br />is not necessarily the case. Mr. Hartley stated that he is trying to make sure <br />the property owners are aware of all the information and options available. <br />If the property owners oppose the project, after knowing all the information, <br />then the City has done a good job in providing that information and perhaps the <br />property owners will have made the right decision based on that information. <br /> <br />Mr. Eggem - Stated that he appreciates the time involved in communicating that <br />information. <br /> <br />ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />The public hearing adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ,-~ <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted~ ~~, ~.~~ <br />Sylvia Frolik David Hartley <br />Secretary City Administrator <br /> October 20, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />