Council declines to reassess full demolition charges after public hearing; reduced-amount proposal fails for lack of second

The Lakeville City Council on Nov. 17 considered whether to reassess canceled special assessments tied to the 2016 demolition of a hazardous building, but council members ultimately did not impose the full reassessment and a proposed reduced reassessment failed for lack of a second.

Finance Director Miss Stahl told the council the property had a 2016 fire that led the city to contract with Lloyd's Construction for abatement and demolition. The city previously sought court approval to recover removal costs; initial records cited a base removal cost of about $44,300 plus accrued interest. Dakota County’s forfeiture sale process later transferred the parcel and the county remitted sale proceeds in 2025; staff said portions of forfeiture proceeds are allocated by statute with the remaining balance available for municipal reassessment under the statute cited in the record (identified in the public hearing as Minnesota statute 429.071 subdivision 4).

Property purchasers Vaughn and Pat Chan told the council they bought the parcel at a Dakota County tax-forfeiture auction in February 2025 and said there was no disclosure of any outstanding special assessments at the time of sale. Vaughn Chan argued that Minnesota statutes governing forfeiture sales and minimum bids require inclusion of delinquent taxes and special assessments in sale materials and that the proposed reassessment of roughly $49,254.49 would exceed the value they paid ($31,075) and effectively consume most of the land’s value. Chan asked the council to deny reassessment and not retroactively enforce the demolition charge.

Legal counsel and staff responded that the city had followed the reassessment procedures it relied on, that county sale notices include a disclaimer directing buyers to check with municipalities about canceled assessments, and that property owners have a statutory right to challenge an assessment in district court within the statutory time window. Counsel advised that the appropriate judicial remedy is available if owners pursue it.

Council Member Walter moved to approve a resolution to reassess canceled special assessments for removal of the hazardous building (the full amount). The motion was seconded and put to a roll-call vote: Bermel Aye, Walter Aye, Lee No, Volk No, Hellier No. The motion failed, 2–3. A subsequent motion to impose a reduced assessment of $37,369.95 (which reflected removing accrued interest and applying county sale proceeds) was made but did not receive a second and therefore did not proceed.

The council recorded no further action that evening on the reassessment; legal counsel noted property owners retain statutory rights to appeal. Council members signaled interest in discussing county notice practices with county officials to avoid similar buyer confusion in the future.

Action details: the council voted 2–3 against reassessing the full amount and did not adopt the reduced-amount proposal because it lacked a second. Owners and the city may pursue remedies in district court where permitted by statute.