10/28/1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1996 Lisa Gevinka, Sandhill Drive, explained that at the time of closing on the refinancing of her property, she was informed that her lot was situated in a flood zone and that an additional fee of $1,700 for flood insurance would be required. Since that time, Mrs. Gevinka has worked closely with Ms. Wyland to resolve this issue. Mrs. Gevinka addressed Council on this occasion to express dissatisfaction with the increase in the assessment estimate without sufficient notice or explanation. Ms. Wyland added that the project approval came in last November with the assessment portion coming due this Fall, and that it was decided to notify property owners of the increased assessment amount at the time of the public hearing. Mayor Landers suggested that the quote was in the form of an estimate. However, Mrs. Gevinka's interpretation was that the amount was not an estimate but a firm cap of $94. Ms. Wyland stated that two additional application fees were incurred, which were not anticipated; and that she believed TKDA did not anticipate these additional expenses. Council Member Kuether asked whether TKDA could be expected to honor the original quote. Mr. Ahrens explained that unbeknownst to TKDA, the scope of work changed when FEMA required treatment of the Letter of Map Revision as a new application, resulting in additional expense. Council Member Bergeson asked for clarification regarding the City's notification to the property owners. Ms. Wyland indicated that notification of the $94 assessment was forwarded to property owners in October of 1994. Council Member Bergeson suggested that the City may share responsibility for the increased assessment amount. Mrs. Gevinka agreed that in any case the amount was reasonable compared to the cost of flood insurance. Council Members Neal and Lyden expressed their feeling that the additional costs should not be the responsibility of the property owners and should be borne by TKDA. Council Member Bergeson pointed out that there are two parts to this issue: engineering costs and FEMA charges. He stated that the FEMA charges are beyond the City's control, while it should be able to exercise a certain amount of control over such as the engineering costs. LeAnn Larson, 6677 Sandhill Drive, stated that although the difference between the original assessment figure and the adjusted one is not a large amount (approximately $45), the principle is significant. Bruce Gevinka stated that the Letter of Map Revision should have been the responsibility of the developer at the time his home was being planned. He also expressed pleasure that the Revision is now being accomplished, as it will save aggravation later in the event his property is sold or refinanced. Mr. Gevinka asked if the additional expenses were directed toward the 36 parcels subject to this assessment, or to a larger area. Mr. Ahrens responded that the work was for the 36 lots in the original study.