6.3. SR 03-17-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'-' :ity £11 -River TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL LORI JOHNSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR ~'f FEBRUARY 22, 1989 4 spECIAL ASSESSMENT CORRECTION FOR LOIS CARTON At the December 5, 1988, City Council meeting Lois Carton requested a special assessment for the sewer interceptor on one of her parcels be cancelled. The parcel is unbuildable property and she feels the assessment was unfair. As was discussed at that meeting, Ms. Carton did not follow the proper appeal procedure. Before presenting the issue to the Council last December, staff requested an opinion from our Attorney as how to handle this matter. The Council requested a more in-depth investigation after reviewing the situation. The City Attorney has advised us of three possible circumstances under which the assessment could be cancelled. Only one of these, a reassessment of the parcel, applies to this situation. In order for the City to cancel the assessment, the City Council must find that the assessment is excessive because the property is a pond which is unbuildable and will most likely remain unbuildable in the foreseeable future and reassess the parcel. The reassessment of this parcel, which would result in the cancellation of the assessment, does not mean that the City needs to reassess this entire project as was first thought. However, the reassessment of this property would allow similarly situated property owners to present their case for reassessment of their properties. There are two other methods in Which to handle this assessment. One is to defer the assessment until the land is deemed buildable and benefit is derived. Ms. Carton is against deferral as she feels she should not have been assessed in the first place. The final option the City has is to pay for the assessment from any other source that the Council may deem appropriate. The principal unpaid, including the 1989 portion, is $1,569.98. As our Attorney has stated, there is no clear statutory procedure for handling this matter and has advised staff that the Council may reassess Ms. Carton's property if the assessment is found to be excessive and pay the reduction out of other funds. As was discussed earlier, the Council is under no obliqation to reassess this p~ope~. However, the Council may reassess the property, by adopting the attached resolution. The resolution states that there are unique circumstances relating to this situation that would not normally apply to other assessed properties. 720 Dodge Avenue N.W., Elk River, Minnesota 55330 (612) 441-7420