Minutes - Council - 12/08/2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

agree that the property benefited from the road improvement and the $25,000 assessment is their responsibility. He stated that they understand that the assessment is due at closing, as outlined in statute. He stated that the only document that specifies interest was included in a resolution that was completed prior to the use of the internet. He stated that the family and staff looked for correspondence related to the interest that would be charged and neither side could find such correspondence. He stated that the resolution specified that the assessment would be paid within the ten-year period, with equal installments and interest charged over that ten-year period. He did not see how that resolution applied to this deferment. He stated that there is a lack of documentation supporting this interest and they disagree that it would be appropriate for the City to follow this so-called process. He did not believe it an appropriate process to continue to charge interest for this number of years without correspondence. He stated that if the family would have been aware that interest was accruing at that percent, they would have paid it off. He referenced the rate at which the City just bonded for debt, at almost seven percent lower than the interest rate his family has been charged for the past 30 years. He stated that a financial institution could not get away with charging interest at that rate and duration without it being well documented. He stated that the family is offering a fair offer to pay the assessment with ten years of interest, which would be consistent with the resolution and bond term. He asked the Council not to accept the recommendation of staff and instead accept the offer from the family. He suggested that after this situation, it would be helpful for the City to review its records and reach out to any residents that have deferred assessments in order to prevent a situation of this type in the future. Councilmember Musgrove stated that as she reviewed the case, she noticed the certificate of deferred assessment and did not see any mention of interest. She stated that the document referenced the deferment and amount but did not show interest. She asked for input from staff. City Administrator Ulrich stated that document is dated 2007 by the City Clerk, and the property owner had requested at that time whether there were deferments on the property, which was certified noting that the request stands on its own to identify the green acres classification and deferred assessments but would not include interest as that type of document does not include that level of detail. Finance Director Lund stated that in 2007 the County requested an updated certificate for all green acres properties and deferments, which is why that data was provided. She stated that the County only requests the principal amount and not interest. She stated that the resolution from 1989 does include the interest rate and noted that Mr. Hamilton attended that meeting as he was listed as an attendee in the minutes. Mr. Krekelberg asked if the minutes from that meeting mentioned a discussion related to the interest rate. Finance Director Lund replied that the resolution included the project name, number, and interest rate. She confirmed that the resolution was adopted at that meeting. Councilmember Kuzma asked why someone from the family would not call and ask for details about the deferred assessment. He recognized that a deferred assessment would come with interest. City Council / December 8, 2020 Page 11 of 17