10-02-84 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10-2-84 PAGE 2 changed; however, the question seems not one of need but whether the Durand's were afforded an opportunity to participate in the program and chose not to. He further stated that he felt the action taken by the Council to close new applications in April, 1984 was appropriate and should remain closed. The consensus of the Council is to abide by their decision made in April, 1984 to close the applications for participation in this program, thereby denying Mr. Durands request to be included in this 201 Program. The Council explained to Mr. Durand that the Hagberg's were allowed into the program because of a proedure problem on the part of the staff. B. Mr. Don Hauser, representing Gary Hauser regarding the double assessment for Gary Hauser's duplex at 911.0 Jamaca Court. Mr. and Mrs. Hauser were present representing their son who is living in Panama. They disagree with the method of assessment and asked for an explanation as to why a single owner would be assessed twice as much as anybody else in the area as there is the same amount of street frontage. Eder stated there are various ways to assess projects. One is by front footage and one is per unit charge. The Engineer explained that most projects in the past have been assessed on a per unit basis; ie: living unit. The Council attempted to explain to Mr. and Mrs. Hauser how they justified assessing duplexes as two units, even though the house itself may be owned by just one person. The Hauser's asked if there was any recourse they could take as they do not feel this assessment procedure is fair. Eder responded that their only recourse now, since the public hearings have been held and unless someone on the Council moved to change the decision the Council has made, would be to consult an attorney for advice on what can be done. Fraser stated that when the Council considered how this project would be assessed, the attempt was fairness. Without knowing who owned what, they discussed the concept of two units and it seemed fair to the Council to assess per unit. Whatever method is used hits some people harder than others, however, it still seems to be a fair way to do it. The consensus of the Council was to abide by their decision to assess this project on a per unit basis, thereby denying Mr. and Mrs. Hauser's request for reconsideration of their son's double assessment. 5. Engineer's Report A. Pebble Park Tennis Court Improvement - Final Payment The Engineer stated that he and Parks Commissioner, Nancy Hanson met