Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hermantown council approves final assessment roll for road improvements over resident objections
Summary
The City Council voted to adopt the final assessment roll for Road Improvement Districts 541 and 542 (Hermantown Road and nearby segments) despite multiple property owners objecting to a $9,400 assessment and questioning the appraisal method; staff said five parcels were administratively removed and will review partial‑payment options.
The Hermantown City Council adopted Resolution 2025‑161, approving the final assessment roll for Road Improvement Districts Nos. 541 and 542, which assigns a $9,400 special assessment to many residential parcels affected by recent roadway reconstruction. The vote passed 4–1 (Councilors Peterson, Kaiser, Gelli and Mayor Boucher voting aye; Councilor LeBlanc voting no).
Several residents who are assessed told the council they will appeal if the roll is not corrected. Jonathan Thornton objected to the methodology and pointed to an appraisal by F.I. Salter, arguing the income‑capitalization approach and band‑of‑investment technique were inappropriate for single‑family homes. Nathan Gilbertson called the selected appraiser, Sanford Hoff, a local developer who he said had conflicts of interest.
“Based upon my 35 years of experience selling local residential real estate, the benefits received from this project do not meet or exceed the assessment,” Thornton said during public comment. Tim White said the resolution contains factual inaccuracies about his parcels and asked the council to correct the record before the roll goes to the county tax rolls.
City staff acknowledged administrative errors and listed five parcel numbers to be removed from the roll; staff said those adjustments were caught earlier in the day. Mr. Mulder explained that the county collects assessment payments via the tax system if property owners do not pay by year‑end and that the city could pursue a follow‑up resolution to allow partial payments or amend payment options.
Councilmembers discussed precedent: one member noted the city has used this assessment process for several projects over the past five years and that earlier assessments were higher before a second appraisal reduced amounts for this roll. The council asked staff to look again at parcels residents said should be excluded and to consider a policy for partial payments prior to submission to the county.
Residents asked whether the city had an off‑ramp if a major development tied to the new utilities were to fail; councilors said those contingencies would be examined in the development agreement and the city’s financing documents.
The council also approved three hardship‑deferral resolutions for assessed properties (Resolutions 2025‑162, 163 and 164) and agreed to follow up on any necessary administrative corrections.
Next steps: city staff will review the contested parcels and prepare any needed amendments or a resolution to allow partial payments before the roll is finalized with the county.
