Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox added that Brenda Bauerkemper, member of Charter Commission and <br />Ramsey Coalition and responsible for the recent mailout and the half-truths <br />in it doesn't even realize how our taxes are distributed among the City, <br />County and school district and she is proposing to change our form of <br />government. The facts should be brought out, but it should not be done as <br />a result of other people making known their response to what has been <br />prepared. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Van Wagner and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to <br />request the County Attorney to investigate the legallities of Charter <br />Commission actions regarding the proposed charter election. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Sorteberg and <br />Van Wagner. Voting No: None. Abstain: Councilmember Schlueter. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if Councilmember Schlueter cared to explain her reason <br />for abstaining on this vote. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter declined to explain. <br /> <br />Case #1: Valera LaBounty - 15280 Armstrong Blvd. N.W. - PIN R20-25-41-0018: <br /> <br />Valera LaBounty'inquired as to the reason for a $11,400 increase in the <br />market value. <br /> <br />Mr. wirz checked the records and the property did have the wrong classification <br />on it. *r. Wirz stated that the error will be corrected and there should be <br />little Or not difference in the market value. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Case #2: Donald Jenks - 16017 Ramsey Blvd. NW- PIN Rl5-32-25-42-0026: <br /> <br />Mr. Jenks stated that a portion of his land was obnained by the County by way <br />of condemnation for County road improvements and Mr. Jenks was told by the <br />County Assessor that devaluation of Mr. Jenk's property would occur <br />automatically; in checking his records he finds that no devaluation has <br />taken place since the road improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Wirz stated that according to his records nothing more than a blanket <br />increase has been applied to Mr. Jenks' property. <br /> <br />Mr. Jenks replied that at some point there should have been a reduction in <br />his property value. <br /> <br />Mr. Wirz stated that devaluation would occur if the number of buildable lots <br />were affected by the condemnation but Mr. Jenks' property is only 3/4 acre <br />and he still has one buildable lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Thurston stated that the County Highway Department should have seen to <br />it that the devaluation was processed. <br /> <br />Mr. Jenks stated that the courts awarded him $9900 for the condemnation and <br />75% of that ($8250) had to be paid before construction on the road could <br />begin. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sorteberg pointed out that if Mr. Jenks' property was not <br />devalued by the condemnation, why did the County pay him money. <br /> <br />BoR/May 21, 1984 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />