My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000041_pg218
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000041
>
gr00090_000041_pg218
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 4:50:37 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 10:09:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
July 26, 1976 Page 7 <br />Ken Sjodin, representing the Rosenquists, stated that the <br />first approach is definitely out, the second would not be <br />fair to present owners because they'd be penalized for owning <br />land. He requested the third approach of deferment and also <br />suspending the interest. Mr. Sjodin added that the problem <br />for the owners was created by the City putting in the new <br />street. <br />Atty. Meyers said Council could approve the plat and owners <br />would stop paying taxes on Outlot B. Or, Council can work out <br />deferment agreement which can be filed with the property which, <br />again, may not get paid. Interest could be deferred, also. <br />Ken Sjodin stated that it is unfair to charge interest on <br />property that is unusable and was made unusable by the City. <br />Robert Glazer, 2625 Hillview Rd., asked the courts decision on <br />improvements where the owner is not benefitted. Atty. Meyers <br />replied that this is a valid assessment, appeal time has lapsed. <br />Reapportioning the assessments to the buildable lots would <br />open the door to appeal, which should be avoided. <br />Atty. asked if Council wanted a guarantee with the owner, <br />if Council wanted to waive interest, make the deferment four <br />or five years. Could get a promissory note that the owners <br />will pay off the assessment in five years interest -free. <br />Admin. Achen asked if, after the five -year period, Council <br />could renegotiate that? Atty. indicated yes. Admin. <br />pointed out that property owners on a fixed income would <br />want to know what would happen in five years if nothing could <br />be worked out with adjacent land owners; they'd have to depend <br />on the good will of the Council at that time to renegotiate. <br />Atty. Meyers suggested a personal obligation; consideration <br />being approval of the plat. Mr. Sjodin stated times have changed <br />and it is rare to find land for back taxes; he didn't think <br />Council would have to worry about that. Atty. Meyers stated <br />that if Council agrees with that, then simply go ahead and <br />approve the plat. <br />As far as waiving interest, Mr. Sjodin indicated that if it <br />takes four years to work out an agreement with adjacent property <br />owners, interest would wipe out any profit the owners would <br />make at that time. Originally, this land was the Rosenquist's <br />and valuable land; now it is a detriment to them. <br />Councilman Pickar stated that Mr. Sjodin has a valid point <br />inasmuch as the City created this situation. Councilman Pickar <br />stated being in favor of working out a solution of deferring <br />interest for a period until such time that agreement can be <br />made between the land owners or sale of the property involved. <br />The City has an obligation to work out something for them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.