Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked what the carrying costs were to the City. Ms. Bloom responded it <br />could be betwecn 5-7 percent. <br /> <br />Mayor ApIikowski reopened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Doug Tiee, 3576 Ridgewood Court, noted hc and his neighbors only had access onto Ridgewood <br />Court and their street was not being rebuilt, but they were bcing charged a $10,000 assessment <br />which he did not understand. He indicated they had an overlay on Ridgewood Court ten years ago <br />and it was decided early in this project that no additional work was going to be done. He stated he <br />did not belicve they were gctting the same benefit as properties whosc streets were being <br />reconstructed. He asked for an explanation regarding this. Ms. Bloom stated this had been <br />discussed previously by Council. She acknowledged there was a mill and overlay previously <br />done. However, she stated the neighborhood would use the roads for access to their road. <br /> <br />Mr. Tiee stated he was not saying they were not getting any benefit, but they were not getting the <br />same benefit and he believed the assessment should be different. Mayor ApIikowski stated they <br />would take his concerns into consideration. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked if all properties on Ridgewood Court had the option of using <br />Ridgcwood or Siems Court. Mr. Tice respondcd it was possible, but he did not use thc streets <br />because they werc too stcep. <br /> <br />Doug Wild, 3568 Ridgewood Court, stated Ridgewood Court was their front door. He stated he <br />had a conccrn regarding the communications thcy had received. He indicated it was not <br />uncommon to not be able to get to or leave their property or not have any water. He believed this <br />\vas a illlli"'1agcable thing even though he knevV' it was difficult. He stated these types of instances <br />were unacceptable. He also expressed concern with the setllp of the mailboxes. He noted there <br />was an entire row of unmonitored mailboxes. He asked if this issue had been addressed and if the <br />City could provide secure mailboxes. He expressed concern regarding the cost estimate overage. <br />lIe asked Council to consider thc solution to the interest rate as an option which would lessen the <br />pam some. <br /> <br />Patricia Jacobson, 3530 Ridgewood Road, believed her residence was the only one like this and <br />the issue was that their property abuts Snelling on the east side, Ridgewood Road on the west side <br />and their addrcss was Ridgewood Road, but their driveway and front door were on Snelling. She <br />notcd two houses share the driveway at 3529 Snelling and that was where they would enter to get <br />to their property. She stated when the Snelling projcct proceeded they did not want to also be <br />assessed for Snclling bccause that was where their front door was located. She noted they have <br />had to make special arrangements with the Police Department and Fire Department so thcy know <br />where (0 gain access in case of an emergency. <br /> <br />Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated after researching, he realized the City did contributc <br />$1,000 to the retaining wall. He indicated he had sympathy for the people on Ridgewood Court. <br />He noted they could travel in a different direction and they were not totally restricted and he <br />believed they should receive some credit, but he indicated they would benefit by this project <br />