1982-06-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1310, Minutes Page 4 June 21, 1982 understood that he would have to maintain the lots and pay taxes on them in the fu- ture. Mr-Lieberman said he would oppose a number of different lots being owned by someone who did nct rive close to them unless he had more information which explain- ed why someone would want to do this. He preferred that lots be offered to adjacent owners. He also said if the City had actually spent money or had out-of-pocket ex- pense on the lots, it should try to recoup it. Mr. Levy concurred with the idea of offering first refusal to the adjacent property owner; however, he did not feel the Council could pre-judge a non-adjacent purchas- er. He noted the Council had recourse if the lot was not maintained after purchase, since the City could perform whatever services were necessary and then bill the own- er. As policy, he recommended waiver of taxes only, with any other costs assessed against the property to be dealt with on an individual basis for both adjacent and non-adjacent purchasers. Mrs. Thompson agreed with that idea. Mrs. Metcalfe confirmed that the County had not informed the above purchaser of the five lots that several thousand dollars were owed University City in back taxes and other charges. Mr. Gliendor_f said the County has been asked to inform purchasers in the future that there may be University City taxes or liens on property they pur- chase from the County. He also said Mr. Love had bought the lots before the adja- cent owners had been notified they were for sale, although in the case of the one in the purchaser's block, it was found that the adjacent owner did not wish to purchase it. Mr. Adams also agreed with Mr. Levy's proposal; however, he felt that adjacent own- ers should have first chance to purchase vacant property next to them. In the case of Mr. Love, Mr. Adams thought tax abatement should be given only on the lot locat- ed in his own block and not on the other four, at least temporarily. He so moved, including waiver of everything due ($478.79) on the specified lot (adjacent to 6927 Corbitt). Mr. Levy clarified that the points he made dealt with an ongoing policy; however, the extenuating circumstance in this case was that the purchaser in question had already paid the County for the five properties. Mr. Schoomer seconded Mr. Adams' motion. Mr. Schoomer said he thought the Council would probably wish to reserve judgment in every case on matters of this type, since each case was different. Mr. Lieberman was concerned because those who called to find out what was owed on vacant property have been told about the large tax bills and liens, but have not been told that taxes and charges may be fully or partially waived to enable them to purchase this property. He said City Hall employees should provide complete information to callers on this subject, as should St. Louis County employees. There was discussion as to whether or not the purchaser should be charged a small amount, since there was some out-of-pocket expense to the City (mowing charges) in addition to the back taxes. Mr. Ollendorff said he felt in most cases it would be to the City's best interest to waive all charges, and that it should be an unusual circumstance when this was not done. All voted in favor of Mr. Adams' motion.