CC 07-08-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I ~. I I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 8. 1996 2 MOTION: Malone moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the June 10, 1996, Regular Council Meeting minutes as corrected and the June 24, 1996, Regular Council Meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll MOTION: Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited the audience to address the Council on any issue not already on the agenda. Gene Schmidt, 1628 Chatham Avenue, distributed information regarding a layout of his property, a letter from the City Administrator, and assessments levied for each property benefitting by the improvement. He first addressed the layout of the land and noted the amount of extensive improvements which were made with respect to drainage and curb work. However, his property received none of these improvements yet is proposed to be assessed higher than any other property in the development for this particular improvement. He stated when he first purchased this lot, he did not have to pay an "up charge" since he had to deal with traffic on the corner lot. Yet, the assessments are calculated on the assumption that the improvements will increase the value of his property which is opposite of what he was told when he purchased this corner lot. Mr. Schmidt stated his opinion that the proposed assessment is not fair. He requested the Council to comment on whether it can make a determination to reduce the assessment or if he will have to follow the appeal process tomorrow. Mr, Schmidt noted that when Chatham Avenue improvements were made in 1991, McCracken Lane was not improved due to a budget shortfall and it was not scheduled the following year either. Mayor Probst stated it is within the Council's purview to make findings but the Council did previously act to deny this appeal based on the rationale that Mr. Schmidt's property is being treated similar to other properties and there was no differentiating issues. Mr. Schmidt stated he accepted this until he observed what had developed (no drainage improvements to his property).