Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 12, 1993 <br />The Administrator reported that the entire area will be <br />cleaned. <br />Oliver Becker, 551 Allen Avenue, appeared before the <br />Council to object to the $15,337 that his property is <br />being assessed for the improvement. Becker reported <br />that the improvement was unwanted by him, unjustified, <br />and unreasonable. Becker read a statement for the <br />Council wherein his quoted Minnesota Supreme Court <br />decisions on assessments and the benefits received <br />issue. Mrs. Becker completed the reading of that <br />statement indicating that Allen Avenue was in good <br />shape and their property did not benefit by the amount <br />of the assessment proposed to be levied. Mrs. Becker <br />indicated that they have an appointment with an <br />appraiser who will look at the issue of whether or not <br />their property benefited by the improvement to the <br />extent indicated by the City. Becker pointed out that <br />assessments must be conferred in a uniform basis on the <br />same class of property, and felt this was not the case. <br />Becker pointed out the assessment for 566 Allen Avenue, <br />which has 183 feet of frontage, was only a little over <br />$3,000. The house to the east was only assessed a <br />little over $1,500. The house at 545 Allen Avenue is a <br />duplex and is proposed to be assessed a little over <br />$3,800, although Becker acknowledged that this was an <br />error which the City is correcting. Becker believed <br />that these figures show that the assessment is not <br />uniform over the same class of property. Mrs. Becker <br />also appealed the assessment of her property for two <br />lots, pointing out that in 1987 they applied for a <br />property division which was denied. Now the City is <br />proposing to assess the property at a rate double to <br />four times the rate of her neighbors assessments. <br />Becker stated that when it was to the City's benefit to <br />deny a lot split request, that was done, and when it is <br />to the City's benefit to assess the property for two <br />lots, that is beinq proposed. Becker felt that those <br />property owners who did not want the improvement are <br />being assessed more than the property owners who have <br />really benefitted by the improvement, that is the Costa <br />Estates property owners. Mrs. Becker indicated that she <br />did not object to paying her fair share, but did object <br />to the amount of the assessment proposed. <br />Scalze recalled the lot <br />Mrs. Becker in 1987 and <br />existing at the time, a <br />non-conforming lot. In <br />which then made the lot <br />by the Becker's legal u <br />split request made by Mr. and <br />pointed out that under the Code <br />lot split would have created a <br />1988 the City changed the Code <br />split that had been requested <br />ader the Code. <br />Mr. Becker pointed out that the property across the <br />street from his is being assessed substantially less <br />Page 11 <br />