Resolution - #90-02-057 - 02/26/1990

Home

C(mncilmcmt~cr l)el,uca introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION #90-02-57 RI,;S()IAJ~!'~(~?q WAIVING CITY OF RAMSEY'S SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF ()NE TII()IJSANI) FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND TWENTY~.TIIIIEE CENTS ($1,433.23) FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS LOT 4, lll,()(:tk 5, RODEO IIILLS ESTATES (PIN: 02-32-25-23-0010) YVI!I,;REAS, the County of Anoka has offered twice for sale and have failed to sell on both ocxza:4it~z~s t;~x forfeit parcel 02-32-25-23-00101 and WtlEI{t,i/kS, the County of Anoka, County Land Commissioner has requested the City of Ramsey to ~'t:x!u~.;c thc amount of special assessments due on said property; and WIIEI4I,iAS, the County of Anoka, County Land Commissioner, has indicated the following ordtzr .,,f distribution in proceeds from the sale of tax forfeit property pursuant to M inncs~>ta St:~t~ic,~4 282.08 Apportionment of Proceeds: 1) 2) 4) 'l'h,~ average selling cost is 8% 'l'h<: sl,ecial assessment to the City of Ramsey in the amount of $1,500.00 20% to the Anoka County Parks; and 'l'h..: remaining amount distributed as 40% County, 20% city and 40% School N()W TIIEI,~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O1,' RAMSI,;V, ,'\NOKA COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: 1) iity Council hereby waives special assessments in the amount of One Thousand t'cd ~l'hirty-th tee dollars and Twenty-three cents ($1,433.23) for Lot 4, Block 5, Estates (PIN: 02-32-25-23-0010). ~) That ~l~c; ~ity Council hereby recommends a selling price of not less than Four Thousand doll:~ :~ (~gd~000.0()) for said lot (PIN: 02-32-25-23-0010) 3) (iity Council hereby considers the remaining special assessments due on said tr> br~ One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) and that said amount of ass~.ssments due should come from the net proceeds of any sale of said tax forfeited a~d that the subject property should, prior to transfer of deed, be encumbered with ct iv,z covcnance stating that any development would need to meet relevant City of Code, need soil borings and have a designed on-site septic system, and not vi thia the UPA utility easement. mt)lio~ t(,r the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and ul)t)~l v,)l~.: being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and lbo foil(~wi -tg ,..'ot{:d against thc same: