Laserfiche WebLink
Citizen Input <br /> <br />Ken Niles, 15415 St. Francis Boulevard NW, Ramsey, stated that all of the road run-off comes <br />onto his land and yet he is assessed almost a $1,000 for storm drainage. He stated that it is unfair <br />that he is being assessed for his business and his home when they are on the same piece of <br />property. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson replied that he did have a discussion with Mr. Niles and was under the <br />impression that he was going to come in and meet with staff to discuss his property. <br /> <br />Mr. Niles replied that l:~e got the impression that if he complained about the cost he would be <br />assessed for the entire 23 acres <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson reviewed the modified method for determining the rate for his property, <br /> <br />Mr. Niles noted that all of his run-off stays on his land. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson noted that there is a credit application procedure that needs to be followed <br />and that he would be willing to work with Mr. Niles on that process. <br /> <br />Jeff Thompson, Representing Wayne Davis, Green Valley Greenhouse, stated that he is <br />questioning the statutory basis for the charge. In his opinion it appears that the charge is either a <br />tax or a special assessment which both would require a special process. Mr. Thompson <br />referenced State Statute 444.075. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that storm drainage utility is a 'charge, but if the charge is not <br />paid then it is certified by the County and added as an assessment to the property taxes as <br />provided for in Section 3 of State Statute 444.075. He explained that the City followed a similar <br />ordinance from the City of Brooklyn Park and also reviewed a statement from the Attorney <br />General stating the proper procedure for implementing such a charge. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson replied that the Attorney General opinion of March 1993, talked about there <br />being a fact base question as to how the charges could be assessed. He questioned if there is a <br />specific property that is not directly connected to the system how can the charge be fair. He <br />stated that it seems to be a broad flat rate that is being applied and that it appears to be a charge <br />that is being used for a specific project that may or may not benefit properties that are being <br />charged. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that the projects will not always benefit properties that are being <br />charged. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson inquired why the City is not assessing property owners that will be benefited by <br />the projects. <br /> <br />City Council/September 26, 2000 <br /> Page 20 of 36 <br /> <br /> <br />