CC 08-23-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I think Mr. Lund raised a question earlier, in connection with the other improvement, as to his frontage. That should be one item that you consider as you go along with this hearing. ~ffiYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written ques- ... tions or objections? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, we have the objections that I read pre- viously presented by James Steilen, representing Hunter Sales, A & D Development, R. L. Gould, Roberts Construction, Christine Colestock, Starco Inc., doing business as Scott Roberts Development Company. Is it necessary that I read these . . MR. POPOVICH: As long as they're referred to. MRS. McNIESH: They're the same objections that were read in the prior hearing. Then I have a letter from George Reiling objecting to the assessments as he did in the prior hearing; a letter from A & D Development Company, objecting to the assessment, saying that as to the road there was no benefit conferred inasmuch as there was suitable access available to the property one block north on Red Fox Road. He contends that if there is a benefit, it should be less than the assessments. I have a letter from Donald Roberts, President of Roberts Construction Company, objecting as he objected in the prior hearing. A letter from Tri-State Land Company, citing the same objections as they did in the storm drainage project. A letter from R. L. Gould, similar to the letter referred to before, and one from Eugene Colestock, objecting to the assessment because there is no benefit to the property. The last letter I have is one signed by Donald Roberts, wherein he states that Parcel No. 25-02700-340-78 is assessed for a total front footage of 300.4 feet. They are fee owners of just less than 118 feet, with the remainder owned by the state of Minnesota. I believe the actual figure is 116.75 feet, which he feels should be the basis for the assessment rather than 300.4. Be has a diagram attached. I believe that covers it. ~ffiYOR WOODBURN: ation of objections, yourself. We will open the meeting then for consider- discussion and points. Please identify . MR. JAMES STEILEN, Popham, Baik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: I'm here, as the Clerk Administrator said, on behalf of R. L. Gould, Hunter Sales, the Colestock family, Roberts Construction and A & D Development. I notice that once again, whoever projected the costs here was substantially over on the actual costs. I only wish that he had worked for Albert Quie and perhaps Ronald Reagan because they could use his services. Again, we object to this assessment because we don't believe that we have received a special benefit from this project. You will notice that each of those property owners had access and was using the existing road and found it very adequate. They didn't benefit and they did not petition the City to have that road improved in any way. To a person, they don't believe that 3