CC 03-30-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Ther'e is no proposal now to assess you any number of dollars or in any certain way. You are incorrect in making the assumption that this will cost you this much. (Inaudible). . MR. WAYNE SERKLAND: I am aware of the fact that this is a project area and we're looking at a project. I am also aware of the fact that if the project occurs it's going to cost a substan- tial sum of money. with that worst case we differ tremendously. With the better cases, our differences may dwiridle. But the fact remains again, if this is coming out of a comprehensive plan, it only seems to indicate to me that this is a project that affects many more people in the City of Arden Hills than the people in this industrial park area. Had it affected only that portion of people, I'm sure you would have been here acting on a petition from those affected people in the industrial park area or in the immediate area that needed road access. The fact that no such petition has been presented to this Council and the fact that this is part of a planning project or part of a comprehensive plan study indicates to me that there are some significant City- wide reasons for constructing the road.' I'm not familiar with any of the projects. All I can say is that to the extent there are City-wide interests involved, it seems to me only fair that the City bear the cost of the project to the extent that this project is proposed to be 100% against a few property owners that happen to be unlucky enough to own property immediately adjacent to this link-up stretch in the City road system. I just want to say that Tri-State Land Company would have to lodge the strongest protest that it can. In fact, with that concept, we'd have no real choice, I don't think, but to try to fight the project it- self because of the extremely large nature of the assessments that would be levied against Tri-state Land Company. MAYOR CRICHTON: That's the key point to discuss tonight, the value of the project itself, regardless of how it might or might not be assessed. Are there anv further comments from the audience on this particular project?~ MR. ORRIN EIDSMOE, President of R. L. Gould & Company: The reasons that we did not, we were a little inquirious of the (inaudible) objection to each one of the proposals was that we had two letters, one of them was p-8l~1 and one of them was ST-81-2, anyway, the real estate one here had some different, we had three different ones here. I want to be sure that I make it plain that we object to all of them. MAYOR CRICHTON: We appreciate your interest and attendance. Are there any further questions or comments from the audience? Then with that I will close this particular public hearing for Improvement P-8l-l and ask the Council if they would like to proceed with any discussion or questions on the project. COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: I think we have done a lot of studying on this and it's been with us quite a while, so there are very few questions that we can answer that have come up new - one perhaps has - it was alluded, Mr. Popovich, that the procedural 8