My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Paperwork/hazardous bldg
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
C
>
Crystal Place
>
3443 Crystal Place - 17-117-23-43-0005
>
Hazardous Bldg file
>
Paperwork/hazardous bldg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:41:22 PM
Creation date
6/8/2016 11:04:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3443
Street Name
Crystal
Street Type
Place
Address
3443 Crystal Place
PIN
1711723430005
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. z � <br /> r' ., i <br /> �/;` <br /> April 13, 2009 <br /> Memo to: City Council <br /> From: Lyle Oman, Building Official ��� <br /> Re: Hazardous building action <br /> On March 18th, 2009 I received a call from Tom Hagadorn who owns a property at 3443 Crystal <br /> Place in Orono. He purchased the property in January of 2006 with the intent of remodeling it for <br /> resale. After he gutted the lower level he found out the foundation is severely deteriorated and <br /> in danger of collapse. He would now like to remove the house and garage and market the the <br /> vacant lot. However because of the economy he cannot afford the demolition. We discussed <br /> Hazardous building action and I informed him of MN Statute 463.151(attached). This statute <br /> allows municipalities to remove or raze hazardous buildings with the property owners consent. <br /> The cost would then be certified against the property taxes except that the city may provide that <br /> cost so assessed may be paid in not to exceed five equal annual installments with interest <br /> thereon, at eight percent per annum. <br /> After discussion with staff and Soren Mattick City attorney, I find no down side to this course of <br /> action. The following is several scenarios. <br /> 1. We remove the buildings and he pays of the cost plus interest for 5 years. <br /> 2. We remove the buildings and he sells the property. The outstanding assessment gets <br /> paid at closing. <br /> 3. We remove the buiidings, he does not sell the lot and it goes tax forfeit. The county <br /> would eventually sell the lot and we get paid at closing. <br /> This building was a commercial building in its past and is located up against the street property <br /> line and is an eye sore. I solicited three bids all in the $10,000 range. The bids include removal <br /> of the house and garage, disconnection of the sewer and water, grading the lot to partially fill the <br /> excavation, erosion control, top soil and seeding. <br /> i am seeking your input and approval for moving forward on this project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.