CC 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . in any way, shape or manner because, as.I have pointed out before, there is no one in the industrial park in the retail business. We are all in the wholesale business or the manufacturing business. We do not have traffic, per se. Therefore, as I said in my letter to you, there is no way that any part of the property in the industrial park is benefitting materially or otherwise from the addition of additional storm water sewer capacity or the roadway. And I might say that the year before last, I tore up my own boulevard, spent $1800 in having new grass and sod put in, and this time the construction crew came along and tore it all up with the roadway and put their own in. That's the kind of thing that kind of irks you - because we have paid for utility of sewers before and roadways before and all the rest of it before. I'm sure that all these people here that are objecting are feeling exactly the same way. A double burden is being thrown on them that shouldn't be thrown on them. This project, as far as I can see - and I'd be glad to be shown different - inures totally to the benefit of the Village - no one else. It does nothing for the industrial park. Thank you. CAROL BASIL, Representing East Side Beverage Company, 1260 Grey Fox Road, Arden Hills: We have submitted our written objec- tions to the assessment proposed and I would like to go on record as verbally opposed. Our feeling is very much in line with what has been said by our neighbors in the industrial park. Thank you. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is there anyone else? Any other points? Mr. Popovich, is there anything you would like to add? MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, I don't want to get into a debate with my colleague over there - Jim, who is representing so many of the objectors - as a lawyer he ob- viously has to indicate in writing how he feels. I might just say this, and obviously members of the Council have heard me say it before - all of our assessments are predicated on the benefits to the property. We've given credits where there have been previous assessments and obviously the City has taken up its proportionate share of those that we consider to have general benefit to the Citv as well. In this case there is a sizeable portion of the cost that is. The total cost did come down con- siderably less than originally estimated at the time of the feasibility hearing. As to the finding that the procedure was incorrect - I've been handling these for so many years with the City - we haven't goofed yet on the procedure as far as published notice. I'd like to know what the detail is if they have a procedural com- plaint. We're not taking property without due process of law. That's not the legal test. The legal test is whether or not the property has been benefitted. The allegation as to arbitrariness and capriciousness is not one of the items in the appeal section of the Local Improvement Code. It's a general benefit rather than a specific benefit - based on the engineer's recommendations and others, there is some specific benefit. 8