By MaryHelen Swanson

It was an agonizing decision, it was obvious as council membersí eyes kept darting at each other in an effort to get someone else to make the motion.

In the end, and after a long discussion, the original assessment roll for the Hemingway Avenue project was adopted Monday night, Dec. 13.
At the Nov. 22 council meeting the North Branch City Council could not come to a decision on the assessment, with many residents along Hemingway objecting to stiff assessments.
Many came in the $18,000 range.

At that meeting a 3-2 vote sent the assessment issue back to city staff to see if there were other sources of funding to help lower the cost to individual property owners.

Returning to the chambers Monday night, staff said there was no place to take additional money.
City Engineer Julie Dresel said the people would have the option of appealing their assessments only if the council adopted the assessment roll.
And that option was only open to those who objected in writing up to and including Monday nightís meeting.

This process would take them to district court where a judge would decide if the property owner should pay the assessment or it would go back to the city for a lower amount.
The court, City Attorney Tom Miller said, will not set the assessment amount.

Dresel said the city did not receive any proof from property owners that the proposed assessments were higher than the benefit to the property.

Some council members questions why no excess funds could be found to offset the assessments.
Dresel noted that the city was already using more trunk funds to offset the cost that normal.
She said the city used other funding sources to the greatest extent it could and not have affect on future projects.

Councilwoman Kathy Blomquist said in the future the city should be more proactive when approving developments in how they will affect the cityís infrastructure.
In the future, she continued, sheíd like to see how proposed developments affect surround properties.

It should be part of the discussion up front, she said. She pointed to the fire issues that arose with the Casselberry projects after development.

The council struggled with the idea of reducing assessments, understanding that they would have to be fair to all property owners, including the developers.

Dresel noted that the city-contracted appraiser already reduced the assessments for those who didnít meet the benefit guidelines.
Mayor Gloria Karsky was particularly concerned for the 5- and 10-acre property owners.

Again, Dresel noted that there had been no information presented from any of them to show a reason for reducing their assessment.
You have to have a good reason to reduce the assessment -for all, she reiterated.

Karsky wanted to know how costly it would be for the residents to go to court.
Miller said their best option would be to band together and share the cost.

Councilman Rod Lofquist, participating in his final council meeting, said after seeing the appraisals from the city he was confident there is benefit to all properties. He said he hadnít heard anything that would change his mind to adopt the original assessment roll.

Councilwoman Amy Oehlers, one who voted Nov. 22 to have city staff look into other funding sources, said she did not get the response she wanted.

Karsky then said if the council adopted an assessment roll less than proposed, it would have to ask staff for a recommendation as to where the money would come.

Dresel said staff would then ask the council for a recommendation on that same issue.
I donít see another fund available, Dresel said.

Karsky asked if it was possible to delay other projects to use that funding.

As the discussion continued, City Administrator Joe Lynch finally took over.

He said the city had technical expert that says the properties will benefit. Once again he reminded everyone that there has been no submitted proof to the contrary.

He said if the city uses ìpendingî sources, it would put things out of balance.
The technical appraisal is proof for every parcel, he said.

Lofquist said even if there was a ìpot of goldî how would the council determine how to reduce the assessments.

He said he felt badly, that it was unfair, ìbut thatís the process.î
Thatís why there is the appeal process, he said.

Karsky felt badly, too, but reiterated that the city canít legally reduce individual properties without reducing the developers assessments too.
If you singled out some properties and not others, Miller said, the developers would have the potential to argue for a reduction also. He said he didnít know if they would or wouldnít.

There were about nine parcels Mayor Karsky wanted to help out.
No one wanted to make the motion to adopt the proposed assessment roll.

Blomquist said she thought staff could recommend some project that could have been delayed.
Picking and choosing a project to delay? Dresel said most have not even been studied yet.

Lynch strongly reminded the council that they have to think of future projects. He said if they pick a number to reduce the assessments - it would be an arbitrary number - then future property owners would remember this action and want a reduction also.

ìTo be arbitrary at this point makes you arbitrary into the future,î he cautioned.
Dresel said there would be no magic answer from staff.

It was noted by city finance director Dave Stutelberg that if the council waited one more meeting to make a decision, it would be too late to put the assessments on the 2005 taxes.

The city would have to come up with the funds until 2006, he said.
Dresel also noted that the developersí assessments wouldnít be received either, it the roll was not adopted.

Finally, feeling that there was no choice but to adopt the assessment roll as proposed, Mayor Karsky made the motion to adopt it and Blomquist supported it with a second.

It passed, 3-2 with Blomquist and Oehlers opposed.

The mayor told the property owners on hand how sorry she was.

Darrell Fisk then spoke from the audience saying he knew what a difficult thing it was for the council, but he realized they had to pass it.

However, resident Jacob Mayne asked if the city had money for the residents to cover court costs. He figured it would cost each about $5,000.

As Mayne left the council chambers he said heíd have to cancel Christmas.

Top of Page

©ECM Post Review

6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com