Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 12, 1993 <br />Schletty pointed out that the property has been sold as <br />one lot, however, the possibility exists in the future <br />that a property owner would want to divide the <br />property. <br />The City Administrator reported that the assessment for <br />the second lot amounts to $1,448.94. <br />Schletty stated that the City is arbitrarily assuming <br />that a property owner will split their property and is <br />double assessing properties on that assumption. <br />Schletty reported that some property owners have no <br />intention of splitting their land, and felt the costs <br />associated with the property division should be paid by <br />the property owner requesting the division. <br />Morelan asked what makes this situation unique. <br />Schletty replied that this is a very difficult piece of <br />property to split since there is a deep gorge and marsh <br />land at the rear of the property. Also, the people <br />purchasing the property have no intention of splitting <br />it. <br />Morelan felt the question was whether or not the <br />property was dividable. <br />Scalze felt the uniqueness of this situation is that <br />the property sale is in the process, and the property <br />owner was not aware that the City has determined the <br />lot to be dividable. If the property owner had known <br />this, the sale price of the property might have <br />reflected it. Scalze reported that in another similar <br />situation a few years ago, the City put a restriction <br />on the property deed stating that the land was no <br />dividable in return to not assessing the second lot. <br />Schletty did not believe this would be feasible given <br />the fact that there is a purchase agreement on the <br />property. <br />The City Administrator pointed out the option of <br />addressing the water main assessment for the second lot <br />as a connection charge. The Administrator recommended <br />that this option be offered to any other property owner <br />with a second lot as well. The Administrator agreed <br />that the lot would be difficult to subdivide due to <br />topography, however, there is the potential for a <br />second lot. <br />Greg LaRock, 3009 Edgerton, pointed out that the <br />assessment roll indicated a$75 connection fee for his <br />property. LaRock reported that he has not connected to <br />water. <br />Page 17 <br />