1988-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes January 26, 1988 I Brandt as~ed what dollar amounts and what reimbursements that would be made right away would be considered appropriate for in- terest. LeFevere stated nothing was paid in the period of time contempla- ted by the regulations; the first payment that would stop interest running was the payment into court. Brandt questioned how that rate of interest would compare with the statutory rate of interest for prejudgment. LeFevere used the rate at the time of the condemnation proceedings which was determined to be simple interest in a range from eight percent (8%) in 1987 to fifteen percent (15%) in 1981. In one of Gunn's report, he suggests time from which some of the interest periods would begin to run on some of the claims and, to the best of LeFevere's knowledge, there has never been any claim made of what the appropriate rate would be, rather only a claim for inter- est. I Larson recalled a letter dated September 16, 1986, from Bannigan that New Brighton was directed by the court to pay $2] ,000 ($15,000 for relocation, $5,000 for damage, arId $1,000 for inter- est) and asked if LeFevere recalled how that determination was made. LeFevere stated the $15,000 paid into court was an advance payment of the relocation benefit which, at that point, was still in dis- pute; and indicated that $15,000 was deducted from the first pay- ment Locke made (we gave ourself credit for already having paid the $15,000). Will~ams asked when payment was made for the house itself (the $60-some thousand dollars of appraised value). LeFevere stated payment was never made because their were offsets (mortgage, other sources of payment such as the county had paid [$20,000J, etc); the payment wasn't made until late 1987; and what the court ordered had been paid which included interest from the date of taking in 1980. Benke, assuming the council takes action with regard to Sinda's decision, asked at what point in time can council bring the pro- cess steps to a conclusion; and asked what assurances the city has that, if we find a way to resolve this matter, we won't be back and forth. I LeFevere stated once the city council reaches a decision under its rules of procedure which only provides that the city council has to consider an appeal of the decision of the City Manager, the city council would not be obligated to take it up again. LeFevere stated the applicant can appeal the city council's decision to District Court, but the city council would not be obligated to take this matter up for consideration again unless it decides to Page 18