Loading...
1980 02 25 I I I PUBLIC HEARING NORTH SERVICE AREA ASSESSMENT HEARING - PROJECT 71-1 FEBRUARY 25, 1980, AT 8:00 p.m. MINN ETON KA WEST JUN IOR HI GH Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and SWenson. The following interested persons were present: Joyce Bennett, 975 Pl eas an t Vi ew Road Frances O'Brien, 450 Indian Hill Road Mr. and Mrs. George Way, 3831-Red Cedar Point Drive Mr. and Mrs. Wesley Searles, 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive Laura Lundquist, 6460 Yosemite Ave. Harry DeSantis, 6440 Yosemite Ave; H. W. Leach, 3840 Red Cedar Poi~tDrive Roy Leach 3900 Red Cedar Point Drive Mr. and Mrs. Lawson, 6830 ~1innewashta Parkway James Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road' Wm. Pat Cunningham, 865 Pleasant View Road George Baer, 6300 Chaska Road Wayne Frans da 1, 6200 Murray Hill Road Joe Troendle, 1015 Pleasant View Road Mr. and Mrs. George Steller, 6311 Steller Circle Arvi d Oas, 3230 Dartmouth Drive" . Al Perkins, 6200 Cypress Drive BarliYara Headl'a; 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Kathy Hal asek, 7250 MinnewashtaParkway Clay W. Anderson, 1610 West 63rd'St. Herbert Clasen, 6351 Yosemite Ave. Louis and Gladys Zakariasen,3861 Red Cedar Point Drive Lee Anderson, 6651 MinnewashtaParkway " Don Livingston, 2621 Orchard Lane Russ Olson, #5 Hazeltine Estates, Chaska Ralph Livingston, 263T Orcha'rd Lane Kenneth Smith, 3837 Red Cedar Point Drive ~k. and' Mrs. Leonard Hein, 3930 Lesle'e CurVe Edward Allerman, 3821 Red Cedar Point Drive Mr. and Mrs. A. W. Partridge, 6280 Hummingbird Road Les Anderson, 6200 Beard Pl.·, Edina Alvin Gelschus, 3841 Church Road Bi 11 Friberg, 3851 Church Road Basil and Hel~n Bastian, 3719 South Cedar Bernard Leach, 3830 Red Cedar Point Drive 01 i ve Neumann, 2841 San dp i per Trail Arnold Weimerskirch, 2831 Sandpiper Trail Di ck Brown, 2630 Orchard Lane' Tim Fischer, 7371 Minnewashta Parkway Mr. and Mrs. John Schumacher, 2841 North Manor Russell Larson Jim 0 rr Dale Campbell Russell Larson, City Attorney, gave a history of the project. The purpose of this hearing is to explain the proposed'basis f0r presently levying the past deferred assessments or costs for the project. Those present were reminded that senior citizen deferrment forms are available to persons who ;are.:èljgible. Jim Orr, City Engineer, generally explained the method of assessment. The original cost of the improvement was $4,100,000. Assessed in 1973 was $2,408,042.00. Since 1973 there was approximately $498,000 that has been paid in deferred charges. Pub 1 i c H ear i n g Fe b r u a ry 2 5, 1 9 80 -2- The meeting was opened for comments and questions from the floor. Dick Brown - Mr. Larson talked about the hearing September 18, 1973, and I think at that time you said there was quite a bit of discussion about future I assessments? Russell Larson - Thatls correct. Dick Brown - I have a copy of that assessment hearing, itls three pages long and I assume it's correct unless there is more I don't know about. One question asked at that hearing was this; What portion of the total project is being held back? A Mr. Phil Chenoweth answered the question at that time an~ he said $2,797,584 will be assessed now. I don't think anybody has an argument with that comment but he went on to say the remainder will be paid through lateral charges when homes are . built. I think a lot of people in our area believed the representative from the City in telling us what really he thought was the truth at the time. The way you are tal king there was a lot of comment about future assessment. Not when homes were built. Can you clear that up for me? Russell Larson - Phil Chenoweth was at that time the fiscal consultant for the City. He is no longer with us. The City Councii did not want to force development up in this area. They based their deferrment philosophy on the concept worked out by the fiscal consultant that if we had 13 units come on line per year that that would be enough to servi ce our debt on the bonds. Unfortunately ri ght after that we came in to a housing recession. We forecast in the future that we will not be able to meet that debt service unless we get some of these deferred assessments levied at this time. Dick Brown - I do knòw,' in talking to a lot of people in the area, that they based a lot of their future improvements, future building and a lot of future I decisions based on this kind of testimony which was given at that time and as I recall we were given no reason to believe, and I can It find anything specifically in the records where the Council said that we will at some time in the future re-assess or defer these assessments and come up and give you nine years to pay on something that originally you were given fifteen years to pay. We were lead to believe at the time, at least I was, that when homes were built they would be assessed. Joe Troendle - I was going to comment on the same thing this gentleman just commented on. I attended all those meetings at that time and that's exactly the impression I came away with. Arnold vJeimerskirch - I have in my hand a notice of a public hearing dated January 12, 1972, and I would like to quote a short statement here. "Vacant lots would not be charged this residential equivalent connection assessment until buil ding permits are appl ied for. II That's my recollection too. It wason record at that time that the deferred assessments would not be levied until the property is developed. I think that IS a matter of record. Mayor Hobbs - The philosophy prevailing in 1972 was not to force any development ahead of its time in the North Service Area. I think to that extent, the Council that was sitting at that time wrestled long and hard with how to assess a $4 mill ion project. They decided togoon the come and assess the on 1 ine units that were there as we have discussed I previously and wait for development. I can't argue with any of the comments heard tonight but I think what we all have to bear in mind and the Council, I think, realizes full well that no one likes to payout, what we have to bear in mind to"the extent if~' those words were true, then everyone in the North Service Area decided not to develop, which could be the case, that $1.3 or $1.4 million would not I I I Public Hearing February 25, 1980 -3- go away and at some point in time the City was going to have to grapple with that problem. I can guarantee you that this Council since I have been on it, has looked at the North Servi ce Bond Issue every year. I think the Council back in 1979 when we looked at some very serious studies on where this bond issue was going could have well have liked it and it would have been by far the easy way out to bury it for another year or two. In 1979 we took the issue; we looked at it and said that development that hoped waul d take place on a yearly bas is in enough quantity to retire this bond issue has not taken place, therefore, weare going to have to go back in the area and place these assessments ,in some cases force development. If we had been getting those units we wouldn It be here. I think itls also important to realize on any type of improvement project like this the Council works very liard to make sure that the costs are spread as equably as possible and some point in the future these assessments would have been levied. I don't think it was ever the intention of the City Council to insure a free ride. Russ Stoddart - They didnlt make it clear at the time and right now you are tel'ring us to sell your property or go broke. It's kind of a ridiculous thing. Even if you wanted to sell 'who says you have got a buyer? You come up with a person like myself, I have got a $22,000 assessment on me and I am supposed to sit hack and pay it. Thatls kind of ridiculous. Ken Waldrip - My research tells me that when the method of payment on these assessments was originally instituted part>of the rea'son was th'at it would have loaded up a lot of landowners in the area to the extent that he couldnlt have pai d that. At that time we woul d have had 15 years to pay the assessment. Now they are loading us with 7% interest per year compounded on these assessments and to actually pay this off in seven years. If the assessments are pl aced upon me, it IS $55,000 that I have to come up with in seven years that I s $850 a month. . I don I t have that ki'nd of money to pay . I would like to ask somebody if that is correct that part of the reason was that people would not have been able to pay at the time'was the reason they deferred the assessment? Mayor Hobbs - I doni t think anyone up here can speak for the Council that was sitting at that time. I think they were more concerned about forcing development. I think they were also concerned and this is why I feel very badly about a misunderstanding and it appears there has been one, to give those people in the North S~rvice Area that hadlarge'tractsof land some time without picking up immediate assessment costs, to sit back and try to decide what they were going to do in the future with that property. I don It think the Council in 1972 ever envisioned large tracts remaining large tracts I think they didn I twantto dictate at that 'time what was going to happen to the properties. Ken Wal dri p - I wonder what kind of rel i ef theCounci 1 waul d propose for 1 andowners 1 i ke me and you know full well that I am trying to develop me property, in the interim before that property is sold so that a guy doesnl t go broke paying these assessments until he gets the property developed. I would also 1 ike to know has the Council looked at alternatives to placing the assessments on the property owners on a seven year payoff. I understand the City Council did refinance this bond issue a yearorso ago, is it possible to refinance this thing with another bond issue? Don Ashworth - Yes, the City did refinance this issue approximately two years ago. At that time the maturities were extended. The federal legislation has significantly changed in regards to refinance issues. That question would have to be posed back to the city's financial consultants and I think it could be explored. I honestly believe the answer would be no. Publ ic Hearing February 25, 1980 -4- Russell Larson The assessment period proposed here is over nine years not seven years. George Steller My impression is that this assessment is for property that is on I a line at the present time, is that right? Jim Orr - That is correct. George Stell er - I have been notified that I am being assessed but my property is not on a line. Jim Orr - You should fill out a form stating your concern and those will be looked at in detail. \~esley Searles - I would like to know why we are just discussingcthison'linedeferred area when in essence it seems to me we should be discussing this off 1 ine deferred area at the same time. The off 1 ine deferred area, as I take it, are areas that are not on a main road. \~hat is going to happen to the people that are on this on line area when in the future you are going to develop'these off line areas? That is going to affect out property either by road, easement or some such' thing. _ I would like to know why you discuss one and not the other. Jim Orr -In tne typicalsens esorne of 'these off 1 iliea re'äs,wou ld be'sÜbstanti âl distances from a sewer or water 1 ine or from a road. It wi 11 requi re additional facilities be constructed at such time as the area is developed. In that case the area would be assessed. Nobody is proposed to get a free ride out of this thing. In the future when additional lines would be constructed to enable development of the off line area then they would be assessed at that time. The financial analysis at this point indicates that the on line deferred areas would be sufficient to service the debt. That's the basic reason. Stephen McCormick - What are the alternatives? Supposing that somebody successfully I challenged the method you are proposing to call in these ' deferred assessments in court, what you then have to do? Mayor Hobbs - The Council never likes to charge people money but we are confident we are operating within the Statutes. In the unlikely event that something like that happens I think it would be incumbent upon the Counci 1 to take this all the way to the Supreme Court primari ly because it would go on the general levy of the city and those citizens of Chanhassen that live outside the North Service Area who have paid their assessments and are paying them they would be picking up the cost of yours. Stephen McCormick - Has anybody worked out what the per capi ta cost on the general obligation would be? Mayor Hobbs - No, I am sure they haven It. Counci 1 man Pearson al somenti oned to me that in the event that something like this was overturned we could go through are-assessment of the entire project~' Marsha Massee - I guess what makes me very frustrated and angry about this is in 1972 when these yellow, blue and pink spots were so carefully planned out wouldn't it have been prudent to have sent us involved a letter explaining what your plans and counterplans were at that time so that we werenlt all put in this impossible ~ind right now? Russell Larson - I think there is some merit to what you say. Unfortunately the materials that were sent out in 1972 and 1973were not explicit I enough. Marsha Massee - It sounds 1 ike this has been discussed every year since or for the last several years, why havenlt we been informed that there has been informed that there has' been a problem up until a point where we are all beina re-assessed? Russell Larson - If you subscribed to the Carver County Herald you would have picked up that information. I I I Pub 1 i c Hearing, February 25, 1980 -5- Ken Smi th - Back in 1973 I purchased my property and two years 1 ater I built on it. Two weeks~'ago I heard for the first time that I have more than the assessment I thought I had on it. I may have been stupid for not saying there is something wrong here, I am obviously going to be assessed, I must have an assessment greater than one unit but when you call City Hall yoùgot"and my lawyer got on two different occasions ,what the assessment was, if there was anything pending, there wasnl t. I don I t deny that it should be there. I am just saying that I Howned the property for seven years and two weeks ago was my first inclination that I now have' another $6,300 to pay and right now my house is for sale and I have just had to increase the price of my house to cover this. HiS a little embarrassing. My question to you is, where caul d have my 1 awyers at the time of purchase found this information out? Maybe they had to ask a different question. Russell Larson - They could have found out if they called the engineers or possibly called my office. How much land do you have? Ken Smith - 1.05 acres. RUss~llLarson - When did you have the title check made? Ken Smith - Late in 1973 and I had another search made in 1975 when I built my house and it never came up. I find this unbelievable. My lawyer probably called Carver County to see if there was anything levied or pending and he may have called City Hall. ' Russell Larson - Carver County woul d not be aware of anything that goes on at Ci ty Hall. Ken Smith - I did come to City Hall on three different occasions to get my sewer reduction schedule and I wanted to find out about the sewer on my property and here is where I did not ask the right questionH obviously because I was given my current assessment schedule and I have assumed they woul d haveenli ghtened me that there is another one that hasnl t been' assessed yet. It waul d have been as simpl e as that to have told me. It is quite a surprise after seven years, especially in my case with my house on the market and 'i'f l'hadbeen in the position of having sold it I would have been $6,300 down the tube. Fortunately I am not closing. I believe that the City of Chanhassen could have been more del i berate in informing peopl"e. Tim Fischer - We bought out' place in-1978; OUr lawyer has a letter from the City Treasurer. It ways there are no specials pending against the place other than the amount we agreed to ~ssumewhichwas the balance of the original assessment. I get the feel ing from listening to you that it IS kind of dancing around the issue. You say the money has to be assessed,well I have been told that I maf'Je a mistake and lam going to have to eat it. Somebody has made a mi s take at this.' Toni gh t you say to the 01 derfo 1 ks here, you can get a senior citizen deferrment, I don It think thatl squite honest either because those folks ought to know when they die or whatever if they want to leave that landtotheirki~s, what,lsgoing to happen. Their kids are going to have topay~ By that time who knows 5,000 percent. Thatls not very honest to them. There isn't a whole lot of honesty in this thing. We got a copy of one of these letters from our neighbors because we moved into the p1 ace- and as I said our lawyer checked, got a letter from the City Treasurer and like this other gentleman! heard just a couple of weeks too. On top of that I called in to the City a couple times in the 1 ast year trying to find out, when I first found out that my assessment was a little more than some lots down the road, I called to try to fi nd out why it was more and I never got a s trai ghtanswer then. Mayor Hobbs - I think the Council shares your concerns. Itls our problem, it's your problem. I do think it's important to note this, first of all I feel and I feel very strongly that the City has tried to be very open and very honest with everyone. The Council in 1972 and 1973, in looking at the method that they proposed to assess an extremely large area, debated with the idea of going down every piece of property 100 feet across, 150 feet Public Hearing, February 25, 1980 -6- back and putting an assessment on it and I think they thought one problem that would come about by doing that is a lot of people would tend to feel they were tied in to not only developing their property I but developing it in that manner and they felt by going the way they " did it was going to give the individual property owners a lot more flexibility in how they wanted to develop their property. Projects that have been put in since 1972 the property in those areas has all been assessed. I think what we have done there is take the problem on the front end, not on thebackend~ l~ayne Fransdal - I need a definition on a deferred assessment. Is that an assessment that was made? Russell Larson - It's an assessment that was never made. Wayne Fransdal - The property that we are talking about has never been assessed, therefore, if would never show anywhere. Russell Larson - That's right. John Schumacher - I bought my house and in two title searches both had a sewer assessment agains t them. There was no menti on made at the county courthouse in ChaskaL about deferred assessments'. The CHy of Chanhassen may be operating in it's own. They don It have any obligation to people to make it a matter of record that there are deferred assessments. He were given an option to vote on a bond issue for a City Hall, no ment ion made of the fact 'ell at we are delinquent or a possibility of us being delinquent in the sewer and water assessment so everybody votes for' it. With everything go up, with increased costs, etc.; when does it stop? 'There is a I law in the Constitution about defacto law, in other words you can~t make a law after the fact and that's what I think is being done here. Russell Larson - This procedure undertaken here is undertaken pursuant to an act passed by the State Legislature many years ago 'authorizing the City to assess these' costs ~ as they are being done or proposed to be done. John Schumacher - If I wanted to sell my property today, what would I tell the people that would buy it? There is going to be a deferred assessment in ten years because we don't know what the hell we are doing in Chanhassen? Mayor Hobbs - In looking at the overall project the project was $4 million plus, $2.7 was assessed. I don't think it's a case of going back andre-....assessing the properties that have been assessed. Some uf those thatwerèn't they were always pl anned to be assessed on 1 ine. When we put in a public improvement project like this one there are benefits, you may not choose and some of,'fhê'" othérpeopl e out here may not choose to avail themselves of it, thèreare benefits that improve the property. If the sewer and the water run by your property and Mr. Waldri psproperty he can develop it. He can subdivide it. He can sell it and obtain building permits for it.' löthe extent that it doesn I t run by you cannot do that. We have to remember that the assessments are being levied and as we go through the appeals where people are telling us that they have got four units and they don I t feel there are buil di ng I sites for two, we are going to look at those each and everyone. The fact that you have got the services that were put in eight years ago, not withstanding the 45% you still have those services. Tim Fischer - The gentleman here just asked a question about this assessment not showing up and as I understood the answer, the answer was that it I I I Public Hearing, February 25, 1980 -7- shoul dn I t have showed up. Is that correct? Don Ashworth - The Ci tydjd enang~tl1e< fornf't1t'is past;year/VJea'reusing our own form. We are noti fied any Hnreþroperty changes. They reques t from the City what special assessments are against the property. In this particular case those assessments were not levied, the City did not show them. Today we are showing them. , We have devised our own form to show exactly where a project stands. There' is no right or wrong answer. I think many of you waul d have rather seen the form that is being used today by the City being used back in 1972!19ZJ~-': It would have made it easier for you. It would have made it clea'r that even though the City did not levy this assessment, the work had been completed and potenti ally there may be a hearing such we are having tonightwhere that assessment could be placed aga i ns t th e property. Tim Fischer - That's all well and good but it never was done' and here we stand tonight some of us coming ;in" as-recently asa year ago and not being told about it. It IS 1 ike comringupagains t a wall. You are not facing what we are having to face. You are now saying there wasn I t any way we caul d have gotten this information. Is that correct? Don Ashworth - No. I am saying that as far as any assessments 'levied, they were not levied. Any type of a form that they would use in requesting the information would not show that as adefe'rred assessment. You feel as though that is wrong. < Tim Fischer - In our case we entered into a contract ':in-@bd faith based on every bit of information we could get including a letter from the Treasurer of the City of Chanhassen stating that our outstanding assessments were $4,500. Now we are tal d we have got the balance of that pl us $22,000. How on earth do you reconcile that plus entering into a contract in good faith based on this information and today being told but that wasn I t the correct information and you are going to have to eat it. Don Ashworth - There can be an opposite situation and that is where you are notified as a seller and you have been notified that-a project is being considered or that the assessment may occur. As a seller you get into an argument as to who is potentially going to pay that assessment. That assessment may not have occured. The original point that the Mayor made was that back in 1972/1973 if development would haveoccuTed those assessments would have not be required to be put on line at this point in time. You caul d have been informed ,that there was an assessment pending against your property. You coul d have had those amounts withheld from the sal e of the property and then that assessment not occuring. You would be up arguing just the opposite position and that is as the seller you have been reduced the total monies available to you in your sale when that assessment never in fact occured. Tim Fischer - What you are te'll ingmeis the seller should have told me that I was going to have to pay $22,000. Don Ashworth - The original seller was notified of these public hearings. Russell Larson - The engineer's worksheets were available at the original hearings for your inspection. Wayne Fransdal - Under a pending assessment, what is the obligation of the City in their records and isin fact this deferred assessment a pending assessment? Russell Larson - This deferred assessment is now a pending assessment. Mayor Hobbs - ,Just to.exþound J6p<à-moment on what the City Manager discussed a few' , minutesback, if it was that simple 1 am sure the Council at that time waul d have done it but when theY'el ectedto try to see what normal development would do toward reducing the debt obligation in the North Servi ce Area. At the same time they looked at that they looked at potenti al assessment uni ts, it they had done what we are ta;¡~jng about what seems so logicalih 1980 at that time, everyone of you plus a lot Pub 1 i c Heari ng, February 25, 1980 -8- of people who aren't here because they have sold property, would have had every bi t of your property incumbered by potenti al future assessments. It mi ght be that that t s the way it shoul d have been do¡;¡e but to the extent that Joe Blow had ten acres and decided' to sell I it and at that time, say in 1974, nobody really knew. They just knew that these'rvice was there and the property could bail itself out. I question very much what that would have done toward individual property. I suppose we caul d get down to the fine points of what buyers and sellers tell each other but I know myself if I owned property and the City said we are goi ng to incumber your property wi th a $22,000 assessment that may be assessed at some point in the future I sure would be pounding on the table saying maybe you better give me a date. Richard Comer - A moment ago a friend asked that we consider the third instance, the off line and we were given the answer, don't worry about that every thing is ok. Now at some future date I will be pounding on the table like you just said, how come we didnlt figure on it. Laura Lundquist - Wè do not haVesaleab~e propertybetaus'e ofá drainãgeproblem. We went over and got a deferrment form and I think it is atrocious~ It strips every bit of pride that any of us people have. It is a r~diculous thing. I would lose the property before I would give anybody the satisfaction of knowing my business. I certainly am not going to fi 11 that out. If we have to pay another assessment for the property that we have on the south side of our property, we have no trunk 1 ines and are tol d that they caul dn I t bring sewer in there without putting a new trunk in. We could probably get water but it would have to come when you develop the Lake Lucy Road area. Then again, we would be paying two assessments because you are not going to put the water acrossth-àt property for the money that we would have to pay on this assessment. I can1t see why we should be charged the extra assessment there where we h~ve no pipes in there and it only just barely comes just close enough to usfordus to hook up. I have written a letter to the Council. We have filled this out. Jim Orr - We would be glad to come out. Laura Lundquist - I just really want to know that I am going to be contacted. I do not like anything done unless I am in there and can have my say and Iam quite sure that appl ies to everybody that IS in this room. Joe Troendle - Before these proposed assessments go on, has anyone looked at them. Jim Orr - Generally, yes. Joe Troendle - I feel that someone that poses as an engineer and suggests assessments on certain property, he should know when he looks at it, whether the property is buildable or not. I also feel that when I have a piece of property that within 35 feet of the property 1 ine there is water standing all summer, we'll say it1s the northwest corner of the property, going straight south from there, that IS away from the road, within 35 feet there is water standing all summer and then it tapers off, the swamp runs off'southeasterly in ~ semicircle, I can It believe that anybody looked at that before he suggested that that be a pi ece of property that's bu il dab 1 e without about ten to twelve feet of fill in there. Mayor Hobbs - These are the th ings we wi 11 look at' on the appeal S'. Barney Leach - Has the Council considered that all the villages around us have been filling up like crazy with homes while Chanhassen is just been kind of stagnant. Did they ever consider that maybe their building permits I I I I I Public Hearing, February 25, 1980 -9- are to darn high to get anybody to come in here and build. You say you are interested in building up these lots. I know a lot of people who have come in and said I am not going to spend that $4,000 to $5,000 before I put a spade in the ground after I have bought the lot. I work for the power company and I see all these homes going in in Minnetonkaand Eden Prairie and all the cities around us but boy nobody is going tobuil d around here. I know a 1 at of peopl e who have backed off of lots because of the building permit. If weare going to fill them up we better do something about that too. Jim Orr - We do engineering work for a lot of different communities and one of them happens to be the City of Minnetonka. The assessment rate there this year is around $10,000 for sewer, water and streets. Kenneth Durr - About four or five years ago I purchased a piece of property in this district. At that time the owner knew nothing of deferred assessments. The attorney that represented me inqui red and found no deferred assessments. I made ahèin.quixw7ð:nd was tal d of no deferred assessments. About a year ~aterI inqÙiredof some other properties. This time I asked for written reports. Which I did on five different properties. This is dated September 24,1975, and all of them close with the same remark. "There are no pending assessments at this time. However, if this land is ever develope~ additional assessments will be levied. 11 Kathy Holasek - I think you owe us an apology. I don It know where you would like to start Mayor. You said tonight that presumptuously that we have sat on our "tushes" since 1973 to 1980 and we have not made any decisions. We havenlt made them because we didnlt have the information to make them with. It's like a doctor not telling you you have cancer and then tell ing,'cyou on your death bed, well, you certainly shaul d have made out your will. We have not had any information at all. You are doing the same damn thing tonight. You are showing us the same lie straight across. A lot of us 1 ive where we own "A" and "B" and keep saying continually, not at this time. In 1973 no one even had the courtesy to say. not at this time. We are going to get hit for the rest of this. I would like to know when. Because we have dealt with no information, we have nothing to deal with that was intelligent. We have sat making improvements on our property, doi ngone thing after and waiting. Paying off what we thought was our sewer assessment. Now all of a sudden I am in tune to you for $28,000. I am a single parent with four children. I couldnlt possibly sell my property and take that off the top. If you are going to stick this with us and it may be very fai r, then I think you have to"prayerfully"cðns ider the situation that you have to find a way to make it more palatable for all of us here. Ken Waldrip - I would demand that you, as my elected representatives, to look at every alternative method you can in hamdling this program and not just maMe this ane;aring. I am going to demand that. Barbara Headla - In this area there is a couple of agricultural tracts which is ten acres or more. Is it true that you cannot build on less than 2~ acres if your land is agricultural? We have a ten acre piece. Mayor Hobbs - If you have sewer and water you can. Russell Larson - The off line would be subject to the 2~ acre ordinance but that which is on the sewer line probably you would be better off coming in and having that platted. Mayor Hobbs - What he is saying is that if you have got sewer and water you can sell Public Hearing, February 25,1980 a 15,000 square foot lot. -10- Everybody is looking for a different solution to try to decrease thei r assessment."' Did I hear something about the fact that your bond I rating has decreased and that this thereby affects the borrowing power of the City for other endeavors? Is ita workable solution 'thetîif the bond rating is helped to be improved by the North Service Area then other portions of the City can help-wfHéh would benefit by the good bond rating al so cannot hel p defer 'some of the defaul t money. Then the whole City would benefit. I am not sure I get your gist but I think if I do I could turn it around the other way and say that ff,theNorth ServicèArea wasnlt in trouble that bond rating woul~nlt have dropþèd. Wayne Fransdal - I don It think the Council had a choice at that time because of the save the lakes campaign. James Meyer - Mayor Hobbs - Mayor Hobbs reminded those in attendance that all written comments and grievance forms should be in to City Hall by March 10. The Council will begin their review of individual parcels on March 24. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Hearing closed at 10:20 p.m~ Don Ashworth City Manager I I