83-047 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

< internally because of the $29,000 - a smaller amount - and obviously we would recommend the 10% carrying charge on that as we've done with the others, with the right of prepayment. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, could you give us the totals for each piece? , MR. POPOVICH: There are two pieces - Reiling has $16,821; . Jeffrey Nielsen has $13,149. MRS. McNIESH: There are no written communications. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the hearing to public comment then. MR. JOHN E. DAUBNEY, Attorney for George Reiling, St. Paul, Minnesota: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I'm an attorney and represent Mr. George Reiling, the owner of one of the parcels involved. I have a preliminary sketch for a plat on Mr. Reiling's property, which I would like to post over here. This is a little easier to understand than Christoffersen's map. This is the property Mr. Reiling owns - it's west of Lexington, south of the freeway and north of Red Fox Road. The subject property that wanted and needed the sewer is over here. It couldn't be fed with a gravity main so they had to have a force main and lift up to a point where a gravity main could take over. At the time this first came before the Council in March this year, Mr. Reiling said at that time he was proposing a development that would not need any sanitary sewer service from Red Fox Road west of the point where the sanitary main already exists - up at this point - this runs south below Red Fox Road. There were two alternatives proposed - referred to as one and two. The one that Mr. Christoffersen favored and the Council adopted carried the force main only part of the way and then permitted gravity to take over, and it's the gravity portion - approximately 700 feet - that Mr. Reiling is being assessed. Mr. Reiling proposes to develop the property so that the parcel here - identified as lot 7 - could be serviced off this proposed street sitting in a horseshoe area north of Red Fox Road. It would not receive any sanitary sewer from Red Fox Road. There is additional property to the south - Mr. Christoffersen, in his judgment, said I'm not going to assess any of this property to the south, but I am going to assess the property to the north, even though Mr. Reiling said he didn't want or need this particular sewer improvement. . The test is - as Mr. Popovich has told you - whether or not there's a benefit to the property. I think the term the courts usually use is whether or not there's an economic benefit. In other words, is Mr. Reiling's property worth an increase in value at least equal to the amount of the assess- ment? If that isn't so, then your assessment is invalid and -2-