Laserfiche WebLink
increment financing is available, he recommends that Council strongly consider <br />Option B. From the property owner's point of view, Option A woud be the best <br />choice if they wish to hook up to the services within the first ten years; <br />Option B is to their advantage if they do not wish to connect to the services <br />for longer than ten years. From the City's point of view, Option B would <br />provide the framework for a systematic and equitable extension of utilities. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox noted that the City is within that 60 day time frame for <br />affected property owners to petition against the proposed project; suggest that <br />a special meeting be conducted with those property owners to make them aware of <br />the two options being proposed so that Council can benefit from their input and <br />they will also then be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not <br />to petition. <br /> <br />Mr. Art Raudio inquired as to how Option B would work in development of <br />residential plats; can both special assessments and Chapter 444 be used; <br />bypassing large tracts of land that do not desire the utilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that a city can use both special assessments and Chapter <br />444, but not on the same project. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that just as with special assessments, the developer enters <br />into an agreement to pay the connection charges but with Chapter 444 the city <br />is no longer in first place on the mortgage unless it is written into the <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Council recessed at 9:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann called the meeting back to order at 9:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich inquired as to the consequences if nobody connects to the service. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that there is sufficient tax increment revenue projected to <br />pay the bills with cash left over. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sorteberg inquired if property owners would be assessed if they <br />do not want the services. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that with Option A they would be; with Option B, property <br />owners do not receive a connection charge until they hook up to the service. <br />Mr. Hartley referred to an earlier question regarding bypassing areas that do <br />not want the services. Those areas do not have to hook up but the availability <br />of the services increases their property values and therefore taxes; with the <br />increased taxes, it would be to their advantage to develop. When connection <br />to the services is made, the cost will reflect the price of developing <br />utilities at that time and not at today's prices. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca inquired if there is a way to not increase property values <br />to those property owners having the service available to them but not <br />connecting to it. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that there are assessing formulas established by higher <br /> Sp Council/il-18-86 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />