82-046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . r we are paying on principal and interest and that one percent is for administrative costs. So in this situation, people have the right to pay the matter up in full within a 30 day period after the assessment roll is adopted. If they don't, it will be certi- fied to the County Auditor's office and be spread over the 15 years - 1/15 of the principal each year and 10.01% on the out- standing balance and, of course, that declines over the 15 year period and the public does have the right to prepay at anytime during that 15 year period as well as during the immediate 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll. MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any written questions or objec- tions? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, I have a number of them. I have one signed by Bruce Malkerson and James R. Steilen who are representing Hunter Sales, A & D Development, R. L. Gould, Roberts Construction, Christine Colestock and Starco Incorporated, d/b/a Scott Roberts Development Company. They are objecting to the assessments. Some of the reasons listed - the assessments exceed the special benefits to the properties; the special assessments constitute a taking of property without compensation in violation of state and U. S. constitutions and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; the City has not followed the procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 429.01; the assessment formula used by the City is arbitrary and unreasonable, some land owners have previously been assessed for storm drainage improvements and should not be assessed for new improvements, the problem, if any, sought to be corrected is one of a general nature and should be funded by general revenues: certain areas have been excluded from assessment which should be included; and because of previously existing storm sewer and roads serving the properties were adequate, no special assessment can now be made for new roads and storm sewer. They continue on in the letter saying that they would like to meet with staff and/or the Council members to review the rolls, if the Council tables action on the proposed assessments. They wish to work with the City in obtaining a satisfactory solu- tion to the problems and objections. It goes on to say that if they're adopted as proposed, they will undoubtedly file an appeal. I think that sort of summarizes their main objections. I have another letter from East Side Beverage Company objecting to the assessments because the assessments exceed the benefits, the formula is arbitrary and unreasonable, the City didn't follow the procedure required by statute, the problem solved by the project is of a general nature and the funds to finance it should corne from general revenues, and previous assessments have been made against the property for sewer I have another letter from George Reiling. He objects to the assessments levied against four different parcels. The reason for the objection is that he fails to see any benefit to the properties involved. 3