My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/28/2002 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2002
>
10/28/2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2015 1:56:54 PM
Creation date
2/6/2015 8:46:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/28/2002
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.
/
39
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
• <br />• <br />COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2002 <br />No one else appeared to address this item. <br />Councilmember Dahl moved to close the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. Councilmember Carlson <br />seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-154, Authorizing the Preparation of Plans <br />and Specifications, Elm Street Reconstruction of Street and Storm Sewer Project. Councilmember <br />Dahl seconded the motion. <br />Councilmember Carlson asked if the street reconstruction and stormwater improvements cost is <br />$1,336,000 and the amount to be assessed is $84,200 or $3,000 per lot. She stated she has no <br />problem with that but is concerned about the amount of $19,000 since there are many modest homes <br />on that street. She read language from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the level of <br />assessment that can be levied. She stated it is the duty of the City to assure they do not exceed the <br />value of the property and she believes the reports from the League support that. <br />Councilmember Carlson read additional language from the ague relating to the City's duty at the <br />special assessment hearing and asked if the City has assured that the proposed assessment does not <br />exceed the added value to the property. <br />Community Development Director Grochala explained that has not been done at this point in time <br />and more detail is needed before incurnn that cost. He stated that there is some right-of-way that <br />will need to be acquired and an appraiserill need to be hired to determine the benefit to the property <br />owners. He stated that the question=;wathat the residents may not support the level of <br />assessment but if the appraisal indicans the benefit is only $10,000 then staff would probably <br />recommend not proceeding th that part of the improvement since the City does not have a fund to <br />absorb that type of cost. <br />Councilmember Carlson suggested the City look at a way to fund the difference between what the <br />property increases in value and the project costs. She noted the Council approved a change in the <br />policy at the last meeting where an individual would have been assessed $95,000 but half was <br />forgiven since it was not charged for surface water management. <br />Community Development Director Grochala clarified that it was not forgiven, but only deferred and <br />will have to be paid in the future. <br />Councilmember Carlson stated staff has talked about buying right-of-way but if there is a mortgage <br />on the home the money paid for the right-of-way may go to the mortgage company rather than the <br />individual. <br />City Attorney Sullivan stated his opinion that would vary depending on who has property rights. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.