82-046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . For those reasons we ask that the City hot adopt the assess- ment rolls. In particular, it has not benefitted the properties south of the freeway (inaudible) north of the freeway. We think it inappropriate that the assessment be adopted because what will happen is - we feel we are on very strong legal grounds, we will file the appeal, and if we are correct, the City will end up paying their attorney's fees and our attorney's fees. Because of new developments under the law, it's not simply a matter of losing the assessments - you end up having to pay much more these days under United States Code Section 1983. We think that that is not a step that the City ought to take if, in fact, we are right. We are willing to talk to City staff and do want to talk to City staff, but at this point it appears to be a very strong case. So we ask that you not adopt the proposals, that you consider spreading these costs across the City generally. Thank you. MAYOR WOODBURN: I have a question but maybe I'll save it for later. Mr. Popovich, do you want to make any comments now or do you want to explain anything later? MR. POPOVICH: Whatever the Mayor and Council prefer. It would seem to me, though, that we ought to get all of the oral objections. MAYOR WOODBURN: The gist of the written information has been expressed. MR. GEORGE REILING, 661 Heinel Drive, Roseville, Minnesota: I object to the assessments because we see no benefits derived from our properties. We never were in trouble - the state was. What's really happened, and I think the Village knows about it - I'm sure Mr. Don Roberts knows - that when the highway was first constructed, Mr. Daubney was able to get the state to put a larger main down Grey Fox Road. Mr. Daubney is an attorney and he wouldn't know what size that main should be. It later developed that the main wasn't large enough. That's one reason I think the state should pay for this project. The other is that again, we're not in any trouble. Yes, 694 underpasses did flood - but it didn't hurt our properties. So if it doesn't flood anymore, we have no advantages (inaudible). Plus, again, when Grey Fox Road was built, we paid for storm sewer. We shouldn't be asked to pay again. I think also that the County should pay - and I don't know what share they're paying, but whatever it is I'm sure it's not enough - the County is taking the drainage area away from Lexington Avenue and replacing it with pipe - that's fine, I'm glad the County is building the street - but we shouldn't have to pay for that street that the County is building. We had a street there. If they had to pay for it I don't think anybody would want the new street. That street is also used by many other people than we ourselves - people north of us and south of us and in Arden Hills and in Shoreview. I strongly object to any assessments. In our par- ticular case we feel there are no benefits to properties that we represent. Thank you. 6