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