Laserfiche WebLink
In <br />MEMO T0: MAYOR AND CITY COUNC L <br />FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR <br />DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: STANLEY FISHER ADDITION <br />ASSESSMENTS <br />At the time the property known as Stanley Fisher ,Addition <br />was subdivided a narrow strip fronting on Ardan Avenue <br />between Groveland and Knollwood was included in the plat. <br />In the past this had been a parcel of property under the <br />control of NSP and asses.;ments on it for streets, water and <br />sewer installed in 1973 had been deferred due to the fact_ <br />that it was owned by c utility company. At the time that <br />assessments were reapportioned on the land that was platted <br />as Stanley Fisher Addition, the deferred assessments on this <br />parcel were overlooked and not included in the reapportion- <br />ment levied on each of the indi <br />the plat. vidual parcels resulting from <br />I recently received a call from Ramsey County Assessments <br />Office requesting information as to the status of these <br />assessments due to the fact that they had not been <br />reapportioned and therefore, not collectible in view of the <br />platting of the property. In discussing the matter with <br />Finance Director Btager I have determined that the bond. <br />the public improvements on this parcel were defeased and :or <br />that adequate funds are available to retire those bonds on <br />their due date pursuant to the requirements of our <br />defeasance action. I also discussed ,-.e matter with City <br />Attorney Karney and he agreed that should the Council <br />determine that they wish to collect the assessments on this <br />parcel, approximately $6,000, at this time, it would be <br />necessary to reapportion those assessments on the individual <br />parcels currently owned by individual property owners rather <br />than the developer as was the case for the initial <br />reapportionment. <br />In view of the fact that the oversight is clearly the fault <br />If the City, the land has been subdiviued and is currently <br />owned by individual prope ty owners, and that the debt <br />service for the bonds issued for the public improvements is <br />being met by the funds set aside during defeasance, staff <br />recommends that COuncil adopt a resolution repealing these <br />assessments. Your direction in this matter would be <br />appreciated. <br />DFP/MJS <br />40 <br />