CC 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . What it really boils down to - is the property benefitted to the dollar figure that is proposed to be assessed? That's where reasonable people can differ. They'll have their appraiser, I suppose, if they appeal, and the City will have its appraiser plus its own engineer. The practical problem as to a reference to Section 1983 of the U. S. Code, there hasn't been an assessment appeal in Minnesota yet that's been sustained on that basis. Maybe Jim and his associates have got some new theory of law that I haven't run into at all before, but that particular allegation doesn't bother me at all. As I said, this is where reasonable attorneys will differ on a particular approach. The Council should be mindful of the fact that these projects were included as part of the bond issue that was sold. We've covenanted with the bond holders and people who purchased the bonds that we would have a valid assessment proceeding. Obviously you can't issue bonds unless a minimum of 20% is assessed. Here the figures were a little higher than 20%, but there is a portion on general taxes as well. I haven't heard anything from any of the protestants as to what they think is reasonable. Some of them just said there is no benefit at all. That's a wide differ- ence. There's no area of getting together there and only the courts can determine that. The popham firm, on the other band, has indicated some desire to meet with the City staff and the Council and I presume that's in the nature of trying to determine what percentage should be charged, so at least there is a tacit admission that there is some benefit. If that is not the case and I read you wrong, then you've got to tell us if there's no benefit at all - not even 20% benefit - and then we can go from there and it's just going to have to be fought in a court of law. On the other hand, if he feels there is some benefit and the difference is something between the 85% that we've assessed and something over 20%, we should know that too. But there hasn't been any indication from them as to what they consider to be some benefit. Maybe, in wanting to sit down, some offer of compromise might be made and I know they don't represent all of the objectors but if there's a pattern to be set up, then it's probably a pattern that would apply to all of those similarly situated. Other than those general comments, you may wish to hear from the engineer as to how he arrived at the figures and where he feels the benefits might be. This is really not an adversary position - the purpose of the assessment hearing is to hear their comments and then take them under advisement. The give and take, or cross examination, or proof - that doesn't belong at the assessment hearing at all. The Council could, if it wishes, adopt the assessment roll tonight as is or we could move to continue it and then set it for a date sure. The purpose of that would be to do whatever further checking you may want to do. The Council could do that. All I suggest is that if you decide to take that approach and lay the Datter over to a date certain, that we do it so that there's sufficient time that once the assessment roll is adopted, that 30 days will elapse for anybody that wishes to prepay their assessDents, because we must have that 30 days elapse before October 10 or we can't certify to the 9