CCP 10-25-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Arden Hills council 6 october 12, 1993 . Additional input was invited; hearing no response, the public hearing on the proposed Arden place improvement project was closed at 8:22 p.m. The public hearing regarding assessments and cost allocation for the proposed Arden place drainage project was opened at 8:23 p.m. Administrator Person verified that notice of this public hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on both September 29 and October 6, 1993. Several persons who had signed the guest register were invited to speak and they deferred their comments until after Bi 11 Thornton had spoken. Bill Thornton, 3510 Siems Court: My neighbors and I thought consideration of an assessable Arden place drainage project was disposed of last fall. A proposal was made <;Iuite some time ago for a drainage improvement and that proposal was abandoned, only to be presented again as a new proposal. In actuality, this proposal is simply a restatement of the old proposal. My neighbors and I believe the City is attempting . to avoid its responsibility after not having properl y maintained the existing drainage pipe in the past. We object to contributing any funds toward the City's storm water management utility if those funds are not used for matters such as these. six of the eight properties proposed to be assessed would receive no benefi t from the proposed project and, therefore. cannot justifiably be assessed. The test for whether a property receives "benefit" is whether the property's valuation increases at least to the extent of the assessment. Real estate experts have advised that the six objecting properties would not realize increased valuation due to this project. There are laws which give property owners the right to discharge storm water run-off onto lower land. My neighbors and I realize it is unfortunate that the properties at 3505 Ridgewood and 1553 Arden Place are plagued with drainage problems, but we do not believe it is appropriate for us to share in the cost of correcting their problems. John Halvorsen, 3517 Ridgewood Road: I echo Thornton's comments. I also question the method of assessment used in Option 2. My property does not drain to the problem area to the extent determined by the City Engineer using Option 2. The City allowed a house to be built in a swamp; the City should bear the largest portion of the cost of corrective action, and the two benefi ting property owners should also . contribute to that cost.