My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/10/2000 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000
>
07/10/2000 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2015 2:26:51 PM
Creation date
2/3/2015 1:33:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
07/10/2000
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 10, 2000 <br />Council Member Carlson advised that if that is the agreement, that part can be stricken from the <br />condition of approval. <br />The City Engineer stated that when the City assesses, the property is assessed. He asked if Council <br />Member Carlson is asking that the assessments be prepaid. <br />Council Member Carlson advised prepayment of the assessments was not her intent. Her concern is <br />that the $202,000 still owed not be assessed back to the taxpayers. <br />Mayor Bergeson advised he is opposed to condition #2. He stated the City wants taxes and <br />assessments paid, but not necessarily as a part of conditions of approval. He stated the City has <br />adequate mechanisms to collect taxes and assessments. The ownership of the parcels is not a part of <br />the minor subdivision request. <br />Council Member Dahl inquired about the difference in assessments to the school district and Rehbein. <br />Staff advised the assessment amount of $235,000 was a mistake. The school district overpaid what <br />was due. The City reimbursed the school district what they overpaid. <br />The City Planner referred to the 1996 minutes. He stated Parc <br />that is being subdivided. <br />Council Member Carlson advised that is why she <br />noted that all five (5) parcels are interrelated. <br />Mr. Vargo stated the ownership of the <br />the issue. <br />piece of property <br />`identified" in the condition. She <br />t an issue. The minor subdivision of the parcel is <br />Council Member Reinert a• ':- s orts the staff condition of approval (condition #1). He <br />stated that when this st brought before Council, it was a request to formalize the <br />agreement. Condition �,, i �s to formalizing the agreement is a good idea. He stated the Council <br />had to look at a lot of i : ' on. This item is very confusing. The issue needs to be cleared up. He <br />stated it is a good idea f •° the tax situation to be cleaned up also. <br />Mr. Vargo asked if condition #2 is a legitimate condition that can be attached to approval for a minor <br />subdivision. <br />The City Attorney stated it can be added for approval because of the way the subdivision was <br />presented. <br />Mayor Bergeson stated it is hard to implement part of condition #2. <br />Council Member Carlson stated the hard part of implementation relates to assessments. The final part <br />of the condition is in conflict with the original contract. <br />Mr. Vargo noted Rehbein is not benefiting from the road. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.