CC 07-08-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 7-8-91 Page 5 HRING (Cont'd) Attorney Filla notej the objection received from Harold Petersen, 1575 McClung Drive, pursuant to Minnesota statutes Section 429.051, based on benefit derived. Filla eJlPlained the letter states; "In my opinion, my property will not increase in value due to the project" . Filla advised a written objection was also received fram Mr. & Mrs. O1arles Allen. Councilmember Malone stated that numerous hours were spent studying the assessment policy pri= to its adoption by Council. He notej the intent in the aE:s$sment policy was to set the assessment rate annually, based on estimated construction costs f= a typical residential street and use that rate as a basis for determining the assessment. He advised the assessment rate lIlaY vary annually, based on the Engineer's expertise and estimation of what construction costs lIlaY be f= each year. He asked Engineer Maurer if the rate is similar to other cities estimated costs. The Engineer stated the bids received this year have been progressively lower as the construction season progresses; eJlPlained it is unusual to receive nine bids on a project of this nature, noJ:lllally three or four are subnitted. He stated it is reflective of the construction envirornnent in 1991. Councilmember Malone stated that Council reviewed the law pertaining to an assessment f= inprovements, based on benefit derived by property owners, as part of the study conducted prior to adopting an assessment policy. He eJlPlained the formula for corner lot assessments, if the property was previously assessed for an iIrprovement within five years. Malone stated the application of the corner lot assessment formula appears appropriate for Royal Hills Drive. He advised residents that Council has discussed and concurs on the approach to construction of the road :in1provement and are follOltling the guidelines as established in the adopted assessment policy. Councilmember Mahowald agreed with Malone's C011B1leIlts. He noted that Council extensively reviewed the asE'''''''<m1eI1t policies of other conmnmities and asked the Engineer to compare the fifty percent assessment ratio with policies adopted by other cities. Engineer Maurer stated the fifty percent assessment is within the noJ:lllal range of assessments in metropolitan conmnmities. He irrlicated same neighboring conmnmities set a lower percentage, however, same conmnmities in the metropolitan area are higher than fifty percent. Attorney Filla eJlPlained the state assessment laws require that when persons file a written or an oral objection at an asses""""'''lt hearing, Council is required to make an individual detennination on each of those objections. He cited an example with the objection of Dorothy McClung that her property is not benefitted by the amount of the proposed assessment. Filla stated there are two points for clarification on the McClung property; 1. What is the actual assessment, as it appears the Council is considering an adjustment in the rate quoted on the =iginal assessment notice sent to Dorothy McClung. He noted the assessment roll quotes an amount of $4,675.00 f= Dorothy McClung'S property and she should be notified of the adjusted amount; 2. After notification of the adjusted amount, Council should make a detennination as to whether or not that property is benefitted by the amount of the proposed assessment, based on information provided to Council.