Laserfiche WebLink
<br />",.' "f' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeti.rx:J, 7-8-91 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />HRING (Cont'd) Attomey Filla stated that the City is actually proposi.rx:J <br />to assess IlR.lch less than half the cost of the project, <br />therefore, same of the costs would be funded from General Fund monies. He advised <br />the actual project cost is approximately $270,000.00 and the total assessments <br />are approximately $120,000.00. <br /> <br />Engineer Maurer and Council1nember Malone compared adjusted rates on the <br />properties listed on the assessment roll: <br /> <br />Reili.rx:J (Vacant Larxi) - $20,020.00 <br />Miller - $3,300.00 <br />Young - $2,563.00 <br />Weaver - $2,794.00 <br />POdlasek - $5,159.00 <br />Winkels (Corner lDt) - $995.28 <br />Ostlund - $1,100.00 <br />Dorothy McCl1.mg - $3,740.00 <br />Petersen - $2,818.00 <br />John McClung - $5,212.00 <br />Allen - $2,859.00 <br />sts. Olga & Volclcmeyer <11urch - $11,800.00 <br />North Heights Lutheran <11urch - $60,808.00 <br /> <br />~: $122,347.00 <br /> <br />Council questioned if providing this infonnation to residents meets statuto:ry <br />requirements for notification of assessment. <br /> <br />Attomey Filla stated that notification of the heari.rx:J was published and sent to <br />individual property owners regarding the assessment heari.rx:J, and if Council <br />adjusts the assessment roll at the heari.rx:J, statuto:ry requirements are fulfilled. <br />He further explained that upon adoption of the adjusted assessment roll, another <br />notice is foJ:Warded to residents, which indicates the actual assessment amount <br />and that the resident has thirty days to pay the total assessment, without <br />interest on the balance. <br /> <br />Council1nember Malone questioned if the determination of benefit to property <br />should be reviewed for by individual property. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla stated that Council has generally indicated that the asSE'ssment <br />f= all parcels, as revised, reflects benefit received. He suggested the Reili.rx:J <br />objection, proposi.rx:J a 120 foot reduction in lineal footage, be handled <br />separately and that the property CMner be requested to provide Council with <br />information as to when the property is scheduled for development. <br /> <br />George Reili.rx:J stated he has no plans to develop the property at this time. <br /> <br />Council1nember Malone noted the reconstruction of Snelli.rx:J Avenue would provide an <br />iInproved roadway f= a connection with Mr". Reili.rx:J's future roadway development, <br />which appears to benefit this particular parcel. <br />