Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Ard~n Hills Couucil Meeting <br /> <br />June 28, 1982 <br /> <br />McNlesh reported receipt of a letter from the developer re- <br />questing City to order the improvemeut. <br /> <br />After discussion, Hick3 moved, seconded by McAllister, that <br />Council award the contract for Arden Oaks (Improvement No. <br />SS-W-P-ST-81-3) to Nodlsnd Associate'3, Inc. of Alexandria, <br />Minnesota, in the amcu~t of $344,929.50, subject to: <br /> <br />1. Execution of ~he Developmen~ Agreement <br />2. Execution of vinal Plat. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />Preliminary Discussion - Special Assessments: <br /> <br />1. Improvement No. P-80-l, County Road E <br /> <br />Council was referred to transparency indicating <br />the improvement expenditures totalling $516,166 <br />which is proposed to be financed 1/2 by special <br />assessments and 1/2 by City, as agreed to by the <br />business community (State Aid Funds to be deducted <br />from City's share.) <br /> <br />Christoffersen explained the assessments will be <br />calculated on front footage (including 1st 200' 01 <br />lot depth) an{ on acreage (400' depth beyond 1st <br />200') . <br /> <br />In discussion, the number of years over whicb assess- <br />ments would be spread was qtlsried. It """ noted <br />this will be determined by Council at tte assessment <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Council concurred with t~e proposed method of fin- <br />ancing the County Road E Improvement S9 outlined. <br /> <br />Mr. Colestock (Hunter Sales) said he does not agree <br />that the property owners on County Road E benefit <br />by 1/2 of the Improvement costs; Shoreview residents <br />also benefit, as do the residents of Arden Hills. <br /> <br />2. Lexlngton/694 Drainage Improvement No. ~T-81-2 <br /> <br />Council was referred to list of expenditures for <br />Arden Hills' s~are of tbe Lexington/694 Drainage <br />Improvement, totalling $716,468, plus capitalized <br />interest @ 9.01Z, and to four financibg alternativ~B. <br /> <br />In discussion, it wss noted that the "credit to <br />properties "hieh were previously assessed", could <br />be applied to any of the alternatives. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colestock aske,j the source of Clty/County funds. <br />County share r0lateu to drainsge attributable to <br />County roads; ~o general property taxes for City's <br />share.. <br /> <br />After discussicn, McAllister moved, seconded by Hi~ks, <br />that COUGcil proce<d vith AlteruRtive J2: <br /> <br />Assess @ $2,750!acre, cradit $37,510 to <br />p~cperti~s previously assessed and add <br />capitalized interest for 1 year @ 9.01%. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />3. Jmprovemant No. P-8l-l, Grex-Fox Road <br /> <br />Cou~cil was referred to three financing alternatives <br />for payment of the Grey Fox Raad expenditures, total- <br />ling $266,169, ?lus capitali~ed interest @ 9.01%. <br /> <br />-3- <br />