Laserfiche WebLink
benefitted properties after an improvement project has <br /> been ordered. At the hearing " . . . the council shall <br /> hear and pass upon all objections to the proposed <br /> assessment. . . " . In addition "The Council may amend the <br /> proposed assessment as to any parcel. . . " . Should a <br /> benefitted property owner object to the amount of the <br /> assessment or the formula, or both, the property owner <br /> files a written objection with the City Clerk either <br /> prior to, or at the public hearing. As mentioned above <br /> the Council must address the objection at the public <br /> hearing. After adoption of the assessments, a <br /> benefitted property owner, who filed a written <br /> objection, may appeal the assessment, within thirty <br /> days of adoption of the assessment, to district court. <br /> One of the difference between the Chapter 8 of the <br /> Charter and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 is that the <br /> Charter requires a sixty day waiting period after a <br /> public hearing on whether the improvement should be. <br /> ordered and Chapter 429 does not. Another difference <br /> is that the Charter allows petitions of benefitted <br /> property owners to be submitted to the Council which <br /> subsequently prohibit the Council from undertaking the <br /> improvement whereas Chapter 429 allows the Council, the <br /> elected representatives of the citizens, to determine <br /> whether an improvement should be undertaken. A further <br /> difference is that Chapter 429 appears to allow a <br /> modification of a proposed assessment to be made <br /> whereas Chapter 8 provides that the project shall not <br /> be undertaken when a petition is received, pursuant to <br /> Chapter 8, objecting to the amount of the assessment, <br /> the formula, or both. <br /> At the time that the original charter was being drafted <br /> bond counsel and financial advisors were asked to <br /> comment upon the proposed charter. Attached for your <br /> review are comments received from Faegre & Benson, bond <br /> attorneys, and Ehlers & Associates, a financial <br /> consulting firm, in 1979. <br /> Since the adoption of the Charter I can recall only one <br /> public improvement that was financed with special <br /> assessments. That was the streets, water mains, and <br /> sewer mains at the Silver Lake Woods development. The <br /> • improvements were petitioned for by the developer, who <br /> was the sole owner of the benefitted properties at the <br /> time. <br /> The Council adopted a policy that the City would only <br /> accept petitions for improvements if they were signed <br />