The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 99-194-CC �� ,�� , ��.�.��. -�' ��,��° ��.�,� �� 194 ��;�` �.��! �'�'� ��- .�� '�� .i-�� :��`�'.:.�� ,��'�" �`�� 2�� „�` .�.`� ��4�� .,� ��..�� "��.�, ��.�� _:�-�� .��-�� €�� .�� r��s��.��s ��:��, �� T��, ��e �� s�� "�� .� `�� .� °��:A�� .�sess�..�� ,� ��.s �� b� c�� '�.�� j ��s�..��.��. � ��s�.�� ,��.�, �� .�, �� .�� s��s�� 3�.�� .��.�� :�� .�g �� 2�� , ��, �"�-��, :�� -�,�� €��, �°��.�: ��°��.��.:�v �� .��, �� s �� .�� :�� .��s�� -�.a� ��f �� s�� .�� g �� . ��y�, � �� '' �� '��.�� :��.r�� .� �� '��.s�r�?� ��s� '�� g��s �� _ �� .ss�s��,�� ,�� € ��. �� s�'�� .. ��'�� ?�� .�� _��e,��9 ��.� ��' �;��.s�a��'� �� . � ��a �,�� "�'��': �-�.��' ��. ... _ �g ��'� � � �� 1 t ��P� ��. �� 3�� -�� -,�� `�r ° .��, f �� November 13 , 1999 � � � �� TO: GRANT COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS FROM: DARRYL PHEASANT � GR.ANT COUNTY TREASURER RE: 2000 ASSESSMENTS FOR GATEWAY LIGHTING DISTRICT I have received from Jerry Tate of the Grant County PUD the estimated costs for 2000 th�t need to be paid and assessed on the properties within the bounda.ries of the Gateway Lighting District 93-2 in 2000 . The original resolution stated that no new assessment will be prepared unless there is an increase or decrease in the annual anticipated lighting costs submitted by the Grant County PUD. Last years assessment rate was set at ($34 . 00) per parcel for 1999 . The anticipated carryover going into 2001 is not adequate for payments in February and March. Since there is an expected 6o rate increase by the PUD for 2000, increase of 6o in 2001 and 5o for 2002 and 2003 we will need to increase the assessment to ($40 . 00) in 2000 which inc�udes the county' s administration fee. The administration fee will be still be $1. 00 per parcel for 2000 . The last time the annual rate was changed was for 1999 . Please start the hearinq process to increase the assessment rate to $40. 00 per parcel for 2000. This is most likely not enough to be sufficient for costs in 2001, but hopefully the vote on fees (especially small increases) will be fixed by the legislature or that this section will be deemed unconstitutional . It is also problematic that the PUD is an unknown factor since all but $96 . 00 of the revenues goes to them. Will their future increases be subject to vote requirements or will the courts deem them exempt from 695 . If they have to go to a vote, then would I need to have also the lighting district assessment on �he ballot to counteract a potential positive vote for the PUD ballot measure? The assessment rate is needed to increase more significantly than the past since the collection rate for t�payers in this area had a big drop from 1998 that leaves us a very low expected $114 . 00 carryover into the year 2000 . With payments of $270 . 00 for February and March, it looks like the PUD will not be getting its full payment or the fund will need to go on registered warrants_ If this ma7or shortage does happen, I will contact the PUD to see what actions they will take if we do not fully pay their bill. I have incorporated additional monies for registered warrant interest for that possibility. I do not know why the people in th�s area are so much different than the rest of the county. I had called some people in the Hillcrest area to find out their feelings of the assessment being increased even more so that they would not have to pay for election costs in 2000 for an additional increase for 2001. One person preferred that we just turn off the lights now and did not want to pay for having street lights. Others were agreeable to having the assessment rate increase even more to avoid the election costs.