My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 01101995
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1995
>
CC MINUTES 01101995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:03:45 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:03:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
19
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1995
SP Name
CC MINUTES 01101995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> January 10, 1995 <br /> Page 8 <br /> 1 Ranallo stated that those assessments were done by Hennepin County and he did not know if <br /> 2 those residents would be assessed due to State and County Aid. <br /> 3 Wagner expressed his concern in changing policy midstream. He asked city attorney if it is legal <br /> 4 to do so. <br /> 5 Soth stated that it was legal to permanently change the policy but he would not recommend a <br /> 6 dramatic change. He did not recommend using a valuation method. The current policy is based <br /> 7 solely on front footage and is appropriate. He stated that for specific cases, such as cul-de-sac <br /> 8 and corner lots, if the council thought there was a better way to handle these, a change could be <br /> 9 made to that specific part of the policy. He stated a change could also be made to individual <br /> 10 assessments, if it was found that the policy produced an individual assessment that seemed <br /> 11 unfair. He then explained the appeal process. The individual would need to submit a written <br /> 12 objection to the assessment and then within 30 days, as stated in the notice, need to serve the <br /> 13 mayor's clerk and file notice with the district court. At the court proceeding, the individual will <br /> 14 have to be prepared to present evidence of the inappropriateness of the assessment. He explained <br /> 15 that if planning to appeal,the objection must be filed tonight. <br /> 6 Dr. Ferguson stated that he had investigated the appeal process and it does not pay off. <br /> 17 Fleming stated that she did not think that Mr. Froehlich.had imagined when he bought the lot, <br /> 18 with such small front footage,that he would be paying such a high assessment. She compared <br /> 19 his situation to a resident with a corner lot. She questioned if there was some other conclusion <br /> 20 the council could come to. <br /> 21 Anderson stated that if Mr. Froehlich's lot was a straight lot,he would have 130 feet of front <br /> 22 footage. <br /> 23 Fleming stated that this was not a straight street and she could understand Mr. Froehlich's <br /> 24 argument. <br /> 25 Mr. Anderson stated there is more street to be maintained in a cul-de-sac. <br /> 26 Mr. Froehlich again stated that the entire neighborhood benefits from the cul-de-sac, not just the <br /> 27 people living on it. <br /> 28 Marks noted that the project area was unusual and had many meandering streets. He could see <br /> 29 the difficulty in applying the policy and having it come out right. <br /> 40 Ranallo stated that there are cul-de-sacs and corner lots all over the city. <br /> 31 Marks stated that this particular area seemed more difficult than most. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.