1989-10-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes October 3, 1989 Page 2 He explained that if the affected property owners had already filed written objections with the City Clerk, their right to appeal the special assessment would be preserved. Property owners who have not filed written objections, must file such written objections with the Mayor at this hearing. He then explained a written objection that a written objection should include the owner's name, a description of the property, a statement that the owner obj ected to the assessment, and the owner's signature. He further explained that, in addition to filing the Notice of Objection, a property owner who wished to preserve the right to appeal, must serve notice of the appeal on the Mayor or Clerk within 30 days after adoption of the assessment and file the Notice of Appeal with the District Court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. Benke asked if LeFevere would recommend that the hearing be continued or the appeal extended. LeFevere stated that he did not feel that this would be necessary since the people present at the hearing could feel free to serve a written objection on the Mayor in order to preserve their rights. Serving such an objection on the Mayor does not bind the owner to continuing with an appeal if he or she does not wish to do so. Brandt asked if a clarification of the error should be sent to residents who were not in attendance. LeFevere stated that he did not feel a clarification was needed because the error in the published Notice would excuse a landowner from the statutory obligation to file a written objection. In other words, the City would not be able to sustain a defense to a special assessment appeal because the landowner had not filed a written objection, and he would not advise the City to attempt to do so. He further stated that it was his opinion that the assessments would be valid despite the error in the Notice because the defect was not jurisdictional and the owner would still have the right to appeal notwi thstandi ng the fact that the owner deci ded not to fi 1 e a written objection in reliance on the published Notice. Larson asked if the City is obligated to contact the residents and advise them of the error. LeFevere stated he did not feel that the City has such an ob 1 i gati on because 1 andowners woul d be able to perfect an appeal by following the procedures which are accurately described in the published Notice by serving a Notice of Appeal on the Mayor or Clerk within 30 days after adoption of the assessment and filing of such Notice with the Distri~t Court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. Public Hearing Notice for Proposed Assessment: for Improvement Project: 85-1, 88-18, 88-23 and 88-26