My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
80-044
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
80-044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:21 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 3:44:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />MR. SUNDBURG: I felt that Lot 2 had already been assessed <br />when the sewer and water came across Haroline - that whole portion <br />was assessed as 4234 North Hamline which is that. original <br />house and, of course, it does have existing water and sewer <br />and it did have a driveway going in, but because of the <br />development, the Council wanted all access to the Circle and <br />so we had to block this access to the house (inaudible) we <br />couldn't have any other openings on to Haroline according <br />to the wishes of the Council and so this is .the'reason ot the <br />access having to go to the Circle, and as far as the lots - <br />my son is purchasing Lot 3 and I'm building a home on Lot 4 <br />so that's sold to myself and Lot I has been'sold to Ran Malik <br />so the only existing lot that hasn't been sold and the reason <br />it isn't sold is I have never. tried to sell it, is lot 5 <br />so there's no problem that way as far as not being able to sell <br />the property. I'm not worried about that. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I have a question, Mr. Sundburg. <br />You mentioned Lot 1 has been sold. <br /> <br />.MR. SUNDBURG: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: So if you divide the assessment on <br />Lot 1, that would be placing more of an assessment on Lot 1. <br />It would be more than if divided by five. And he has already <br />purchased this lot. What was the understanding? <br /> <br />MR. SUNDBURG: The understanding was that he would pay <br />all assessments. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: So, in effect, if it were divided by <br />four he would be paying more of an assessment than if it <br />were divided by five. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The problem is - those people who have been <br />sold , like Lot 1,' there was no way we could give him notice <br />tonight. They're not here, but by golly you will have to <br />give him notice on the apportionment and you might run into a <br />problem <br /> <br />MRS. MC NIESH: We sent a Notice to an old address in <br />Minneapolis on Lot 1 and the notice came back. Later, from <br />the Department of Property Taxation we got an address in <br />Fremont, California, so we sent out a second notice to his <br />address in Freritont and that one did not come back soI believe <br />he got a notice that there was going to be an assessment hearing <br />tonight - not a dollar amount. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN HANSON: I don't know what the formality should <br />be but I think we should assess Lot 2 for the street, and I <br />sympathize with the owner or anybody who is living there now, <br />(inaudible) the cost of the stub, figuring he will never use <br />it. That's the position I would take. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.