1987-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/1 I 1 Council Meeting Minutes September 8, 1987 Public Hearings In general, Proper briefly reviewed how assessments work (spread over a twelve year period unless paid within thirty-day interest free period [ending October 8, 1987J, and will appear on 1988 tax statement). Proper further explained the interest is very high in the first year because it includes 16 months (four months of 1987 and twelve months of 1988); change in state law says legal notice must reflect assessment amount for each property, with which the city did comply; and explained those over 65 years of age with an assessment exceeding one percent of their annual adjusted gross income would be eligible for an assessment deferment. With regard to assessments for Project 86-1 (Downtown Residential Street and Alley Rehabilitation), Proper reviewed assessment rates as shown in the 1987 Assessment Report, explained a few situations that varied from the norm, reported the same contractor will be correcting some sod problems when the weather cools, and that two driveways are still being repaired. In response to Benke's question, Proper explained the cost was higher than estimated for the stub service because the city esti- mated the number of residents having the project contractor do both short and long service would be equal; however, those with short service had their's done by a private contractor, and those with the long service had it done by the project contractor. Danny Dahms, 675 Fourth Avenue N.W., asked about a piece of old sidewalk on Seventh Street which is an eyesore and a hazard that had not been replaced. Proper indicated the city did not intend to redo a lot of sidewalks but did ask the residents for input on the condition of their sidewalks; however, the city received no response from the residents on Seventh Street when questioned about their sidewalk. In response to Gunderman's question, Roger Dalzen, 687 Fourth Avenue N.W., stated the photos of the sidewalk were taken about a year ago, and noted they look even worse today. Proper indicated the piece of sidewalk in question could be removed and replaced with grass, but he would not recommend replacing the sidewalk itself because there is a sidewalk across the street and because it is not part of the city's skeletal side- walk system. Proper further stated the city could order the prop- erty owner to have the sidewalk repaired if it is deemed unsafe; and noted the city could tear the sidewalk out and have sod installed as part of the sod restoration portion of the project. In response to Williams' question, Proper explained that city sidewalks, which are designated by the city council, are usually near and adjacent to schools and parks and are plowed, inspected, and repaired by the city; other sidewalks are considered to be private. Page 2 Public Hearings General Informa- tion 7:39-7:43pm Project 86-1 Resolution 87-93 Resolution 87-94 7:44-9:15pm ~