Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 24, 1993 <br />ANNOUNCE- Mayor Hanson wished the residents of Little Canada a <br />~EN`PS Happy Thanksgiving, and cautioned them to drive safely <br />over the holiday weekend. City offices will be closed <br />on Thanksgiving Day as well as the Friday after. <br />The City Administrator announced that the budget <br />workshop scheduled for Monday, November 29th, has been <br />rescheduled for Tuesday, November 30th, at 7:00 P.M. at <br />City Hall. <br />ASSESSMENT- Hanson opened the assessment hearing for Improvement <br />HEARING No. 92-6, 34 East Little Canada Road, the improvement <br />34 E. LITPLEof the property by removal of hazardous structure. <br />CANADA ROAD <br />The City Administrator reported that the house at 34 <br />East Little Canada Road was demolished pursuant to <br />hazardous building statutes and a court proceeding <br />which ordered the demolition. The City is proposing to <br />assess the costs associated with the process, and if <br />assessed, those costs would then be recoverable if the <br />property sells. <br />Randall Tigue, attorney representing Gloria Favis, the <br />property owner, appeared before the Council. Mr. Tigue <br />submitted a written objection to the proposed <br />assessment via a letter dated November 24, 1993. Tigue <br />reviewed the basis for the objection as detailed in his <br />letter, which indicates that the Court did not approve <br />the amount of the assessment as required by MN Statute <br />463.22, that the proposed assessment is far in excess <br />of what is leqitimately recoverable under MN Statute <br />463.22, and that there was no showing that the <br />demolition expenses occurred as a result of competitive <br />bids. <br />Tigue indicated that much of the administrative costs <br />proposed to be assessed were a result of consultant <br />review of the property owner's permit applications. <br />Tigue felt this expense was not related to enforcement <br />of the demolition order and are not recoverable. <br />Tigue indicated that most of the attorney's fees <br />incurred resulted from defending against the property <br />owner's counterclaim challenging the validity of the <br />permit denial and the validity of the City's <br />ordinances. Tigue felt these costs were not <br />Page 2 <br />