Laserfiche WebLink
111 <br /> irll <br /> March 23,1983 Gni' <br /> ansaid t hearing is o give property o opportunity to present '�� <br /> y evidence they may have relative to prop ed a e sments which are <br /> t vied against them. They ashould tconfineotheir gremarks to <br /> specific assessment and why they should not be confirmedinthe amounts '. <br /> proposed• <br /> Strong,of the Engineering Department,said the City C opted / <br /> Celia <br /> of Intent creat an LID and held a public hearinglfa <br /> Improvements. Subsequently,a solution of intent <br /> sewer <br /> project a adding underground w adopted by f.1 <br /> aedwsc a Today <br /> i'... <br /> Cityto nthe opublic he runcll and a public hearang was held on hthis cL The otoe al L 11 <br /> cost of$1,670,1431reflectsea£reduced tproject coat as a result <br /> su t o£an <br /> $800,000 EDA and$800,000 U AG grant and$36,146 from the Boeing Cempanw <br /> The L D is t n <br /> o ad,75th at. 80th St„and 16th Ave.W. 1;? <br /> with street,sewer,water and underground wiring improvements. <br /> The final assessment <br /> n rollrepresents those properties benefitted by the <br /> 0 Improvementandthec cost assessed to each property was spread for <br /> each separate improvement based osarea,except for underground wising, I-dl <br /> which was based o front feet. These methods of assessment reflect a fair <br /> and just assessment <br /> e t because these methods and separating the costs <br /> ording to each type of improvement,more closely reflect the benefit <br /> to the property,and theuse <br /> fa property than straight front foot, ) <br /> straight area r straighttermini. <br /> zone �..:1 <br /> She then a l <br /> red the following exhibits: t� <br /> 11 75th S impsovementproject site,including improvements being. ryryryry5 <br /> 21 <br /> installed. <br /> eat,which includes the entireD boundary y�pI <br /> 11Son a 2,the cost of 75th St.and Hardeson <br /> e different than other <br /> roads,athe <br /> dy �, <br /> d these property own ed <br /> a assessed differently 55 y 0 <br /> 91 Zone 3,which was the balance of t epropertyin the k{y'el'p•', 't <br /> 51 Thataiarea of the LID that w ewer <br /> rs zoned or <br /> 61 Water assessment area costa in the L 3'1 <br /> 71 The work spread (thea ead is in the Engineering k 1 <br /> Department under custody o£Celia Strong) <br /> BI The final assessment roll 11 <br /> 91 The final assessment plat map <br /> q <br /> In nng a question from the Council,s the V ralene 19 y <br /> Estates w sea r Improvements ands on Road and t signal 1,, � <br /> aa75thh S Theywere not assessed for improvements in Ione 3e water, :I'6',;: <br /> r underground lighting.Counciee <br /> Me Inc esSeVin assessmentsrstreet nted erthat under this the prelsminaryarea rollmwasodueswould to the some (I'1 <br /> increase i propertvlues,ov <br /> the City Clerk then read Into the record <br /> objections to the assessment <br /> sr <br /> roll a by the homeowners of Veralene Estates,signedby <br /> FuwinC.Fisher,Attorney. <br /> warren Mercer, d spokesman£ the homeowners,said the final <br /> tattorney <br /> a ay651,741 increase in the f when compared <br /> te8the preliminary. a felt the:improvements down t the of <br /> the homes and does not meet the special benefit teat of Increased 31332113 <br /> 4 <br /> Tf <br /> l' <br /> i <br />