Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council September 24, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br /> <br />Mr. Sonterre would like the document left as Staff has suggested, because the Council can say to 1 <br />a resident who says that the information was not provided that it was, and point out what page it 2 <br />was on. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Stigney asked for clarification and information on the community fund balance. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Interim Administrator Ericson indicated that the community fund balance will be verified with 7 <br />the Finance Staff. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Mayor Marty indicated that the document should be amended to reflect that the amount would 10 <br />fluctuate based on home values established by Ramsey County. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated he would like to postpone the public hearing. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mayor Marty said he would like to leave the public hearing in place, and noted Council does not 15 <br />have to take action at that meeting. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Mayor Marty said that he would also like to have the document available at the library as well as 18 <br />the other locations listed. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Director Lee reviewed the proposed changes to the document with Council as was discussed. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Council Member Mueller would like to leave trail information in the document. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Council removed the walkways. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Council amended the document to reflect that the value of a home affects the amount you pay. 27 <br /> 28 <br />The document was changed from 18 years to 10 years for the program length. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated that he would like the information on the previously assessed 31 <br />properties clarified, because Council has not decided how to handle it. The date was removed 32 <br />and the words “canceled after project initialization” were added. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Attorney Riggs indicated that an assessment cannot just be cancelled. The process needs to 35 <br />involve a reassessment. Attorney Riggs recommended removal of the sentence regarding the 36 <br />previously assessed property information. Attorney Riggs indicated that the language is not legal 37 <br />as suggested and should be removed. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Attorney Riggs said that the language should be clarified quite a bit, and suggested adding “upon 40 <br />further review being conducted by the City.” 41 <br /> 42 <br />Mr. Sonterre indicated that the Task Force was informed that it would be possible to refund 43 <br />previous assessments but, of course, they would be in support of any change that needs to be 44 <br />made due to the legalities of the process. 45