Laserfiche WebLink
•TOs ' <br />FBOM: <br />DATE: <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator <br />July 3, 1991 <br />7 ;q'' <br />SUBJBCTx Request for Reimbursement - 3572 Livingston <br /><9 <br />Attachment: A.Request for Reimbursement - 3752 Livingston -' <br />Gerhardson Memo Dated 6/20/91 <br />B, Cuff Letter Dated 5/29/91 <br />ISSUE - Determine if Council desires to refund any monies to the <br />o%mers of 3572 Livingston. <br />INTRODUCTION - Council is probabl -' familiar with the history of <br />combinati:n of this property. <br />As noted in Attachment A, the $580.00 unit charge is part of an <br />overall charge of $870 which was assessed over 15 years. The <br />balance $290 was a front footage charge which was simply a <br />function of the lot width and would have been there had the lots <br />been combined prior to the assessment. <br />DISCUSSION - Attachment B present the rationale for the refund as <br />to the properties unusability. The situation can be viewed <br />alternatively as one of the following: <br />a.) What it would cost if combined prior or at time of <br />assessment. <br />b.) That the property sale price reflected the <br />outstanding assessments. <br />c.) That the property was acquired by the owner to <br />forestall a separtate new owner building on the <br />property. <br />Any rebate would be appropriately offset by the monies owed to <br />the City in the amount of $450.00 for their share of the <br />engineering study on the storm water drainage. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1.Refund entire request. <br />2.Refund principal and x: .erest on the unit charge of $580 for a <br />total of $903 including I at share of interest and penalities. <br />3.Refund another amount. <br />4.Choose not to refund. <br />5.Offset refund by the owners share of the energineering costs.