Laserfiche WebLink
September 13, 1976 Page 3 <br />act to recover his attorney fees and appropriate relief - notice was not <br />properly given. If the assessment is adopted he would like to be notified <br />so he can have time to register and file appeals, which has to be done <br />within 20 days of the assessment adoption. <br />The consulting engineer reviewed the property and prepared an assessment <br />roll which has been on file in the City Hall since the day of the notice. <br />Engineer Hubbard explained that the ordinance says a lot shall have an <br />85 foot frontage with 11,000 square feet. The Dumas' lot has a 130 foot <br />frontage. They considered an 85 foot lot as one unit, so the Dumas' lot <br />is 1.58 units. They arrived at a typical lot in the 1973 -4 Improvement <br />Project and assessed the Dumas property for 1.58 units. <br />Administrator Achen further explained that a rate was established for the <br />various. improvements and the assessment was then figured on the basis of a <br />rate per unit. <br />Atty. Meyers explained where the road was brought down and through the <br />Mohr property. Mr. Mohr was assessed because he faced the road and would <br />be benefitted. Mr. Dumas appealed on the theory he did not abut the road. <br />The City obtained an easement on the 27 foot strip from the Mohrs. The <br />court said that the City routed the road to pick up the Dumas property on <br />the assessment. Atty. Meyers then reviewed a resolution he had prepared <br />in which the 27 foot strip of property, Exhibit A, would be declared as <br />surplus and conveyed to Dumas. The property would not be conveyed until <br />it is accepted by Dumas. If Dumas accepted the additional property they <br />would then have enough property to split their property into two lots. <br />Atty. Meyers stated he feels the court would sustain the assessment with <br />or without the conveyance of the property. If the court does not sustain <br />the assessment the City will have to collect the $8,000 through taxation <br />or reassess all of the parcels through the whole project to recover the <br />$8,000. In the future, either the Dumas or their successors to the property <br />may decide that they want to acquire this additional property and divide <br />the lot. Then the City could probably work out something on a negotiated <br />basis. The Dumas say that they like the property as it is and not having <br />anybody behind them, so they don't want to split the lot. <br />Mayor Pickar asked if the conveyed property would also be assessed? Atty. <br />Meyers stated it would probably be added on, but we did not compute the <br />additional property in the assessment. Mr. Dumas does not have to take <br />the property. <br />Councilmember Hodges stated he would go along with the Attorney on the <br />proposal to try and convey this land to the Dumas' and see if we can <br />work it out that way. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner stated we should make an effort to convey the <br />property to the Dumas'. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated she feels the same as the other Councilmembers. <br />MSP ( Pickar- Hodges) for the adoption of Resolution 754. <br />MSP (Hodges- Rowley) to adopt Resolution 755, a resolution which adopts the <br />assessment roll as proposed. <br />4 ayes <br />4 ayes <br />