Laserfiche WebLink
-41-4—St.'T'—5'33*4 OLVMPIm RESORT POl SEP SlT'OE. ii*:' <br />September 24, 1996 <br />Mr, Bon Moorse <br />City Administrator <br />City of Orono <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br />Dear Mr. Moorse: <br />We have been transferred out of stale and my <br />employer has entered into a contract with a relocation <br />company to sell our home. The listing contract is between <br />Burnet Realty (Rhonda Wilson) and the relocation company. <br />The relocation company will not accept any offer containing <br />a contingency. We have an offer on our home including the <br />adjoining lot, which we do not presently own. Since our <br />home does not have a garage, or space to build one, Rhonda <br />Wilson has urged us to attempt to purchase the lot to assure <br />the sale of our home. We arc asking you to consider our <br />request for forgiveness of the penally and Interest due on <br />the adjoining lot and reassess It In the princ^|j amount of <br />$3,350, vyith the option of payment over a 5 year period, <br />assumable by subsequent owners. The following explanation is <br />submitted for your consideration. <br />In 1980, city sewer was placed In Minnetonka Bluffs. The <br />City split the assessment for Lot 1 equally between Lots 1 <br />and 24 as they were both owned by the same party. They did <br />not require the 2 lots to be combined, however. <br />When we purchased lot 1 (500 Hanlon Ave) in 1985, our <br />purchase agreement provided that we assume all special <br />assessments. We paid them off over time and had no <br />knowledge that what we were paying was only 1/2 of the <br />assessment. The seller did not disclose that he owned lot <br />24 and that it had an assessment relative to lot 1. Had we <br />known, we would,perhaps, have negotiated the purchase differently, <br />requiring the seller to pay the assessments. Lot 1 was <br />assessed $3,350 and lot 24 was assessed $3,350, even though <br />it v/as not a buildable lot. The seller never made a payment <br />and lot 24 subsequently went Into tax forfeiture. <br />In 1985, we approached the City Council with a request to