CC 03-30-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . are not sure, that the project numbers are P-81-2 or ST-81-2 and P-81-1. However, it is our intention to object to all assess- ments. The objections of R. L. C~uld and Company at this stage of investigation, and based on the minimal facts presently available to us, include but are not limited to the following: (1) the assessments exceed the special benefits and market value added to the property; (2) the City has not followed the proce- dural requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.01,. et seq.; (3) the problems and improvements for which the assessment is proposed are of general benefit to the community and must be funded by general revenues; (4) the assessment formula used by the City is arbitrary and unreasonable; (5) the special assessments constitute a taking of property without compensation in violation .of the State and United States constitutions and 42 U.S.C. See; 1983. We reserve the right to make other objections as investigation may warrant, including the objection that the assessment is not uniform upon the same class of property. We request that the Council continue the hearing to a date at least two weeks from the date of this hearing so that our legal counsel may meet with City staff and may have the time to examine the total assessment and present our position in a more detailed manner to the City Council." Signed "Roger B. Brostrom, Executive vice president, R. L. Gould & Company". MAYOR CRICHTON: Thank you. We have a good start from that. I'd like to open up the floor to arty other questions or comments from any land owners or any interested parties. I'd like to ask that you, before speaking, give your name and address for the record. The floor is open. Any comments? MR. COLESTOCK, representing Hunter Sales property: I apologize for not having had a letter in stating our position on the property, but I have been out of town and I find that I . MAYOR CRICHTON: No need for that. This is the time for questions. MR. COLESTOCK: However, I think that the Gould letter, which I was not aware of, set the thing out exceedingly well. It brings up points which came to my mind as the engineer had outlined the proposed road, widening, and additional road. One of the things, of course, in particular that I would query is the fact that the roads that exist in the industrial park today are quite adequate for the industrial park. And, while I can understand the desire on the part of the City of Arden Hills, to want the road to go through, to continue to the highway as an advantageous way of emptying traffic and handling traffic, that, I might point out, is not the problem of the industrial park. It certainly is one in which. a lot of traffic is going to be added to the traffic load that exists there now that serves the park in no way whatsoever. I also think that, in view of the fact that the proposed extension of the road serves the City itself, we should certainly look upon the spread of the costs of this project over the entire Village. I see that as a very justifiable approach to the situation as far as 6