Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-044 "~ ~ ,n.! . "r . -. Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council ' City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held August 18, 1980 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special.meeting of the City Council of, the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota was duly held in the City Hall in said city on Monday, the 18th day of August, 1980, at 7:30 o'clock p. m. The following members were present: Mayor Crepeau and Councilmen Hanson, Wingert and Woodburn; and the following was absent: Councilman Crichton. Also in at 1endance were: Charlot ie McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Donald Christoffersen of Short, Elliot and Hendrickson, Inc., ,City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. The City Clerk Administrator presented an affidavit showing publication of Notice of Hearing on the proposed assessment for Improvement No. SS~W-P-ST-79-l in the New Brighton Bulletin on July 31,1980, which affidavit was examined, found satisfactory, ~. and ordered placed on file. The Clerk Administrator also exhibited a Certificate of Mailing Notice of Hearing to all affected property owners. MAYOR CREPEAU: Mr. Christoffersen, wil'l you explain the improvement involved. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The improvement is to serve the plat of Arden Lake Knoll, and consists of sanitary sewer, watermain,sanitary sewer services, water services and street and drainage. The street . . 2 . consists' of bituminous surfacing and concrete' curb and gutter. MAYOR CREPEAU: Mr. Popovich, will you explain the financing. MR. POPOVICH: This improvement was petitioned for 100% by the property owner. Therefore, no feasibility hearings were required. The total cost of the improvement. is $47,408.00. In this improvement - as it turned out - there were five lots involved. However, the legal description at Ramsey County doesn't have described lots. We still have one parcel, so we're bound by the last recorded documents that are down there that are available through the Treasurer's office and through their computer, so it would appear we'd have to levy the $47,408 against this parcel of property and when the various deeds come through you will have apportionments. It subsequently turned out that on July 31 Mr. Sundburg requested that the $4',800 be spread over four lots and not five. He's apparently sold one of those lots - the other four haven't been sold. If you assess the total parcel it's $47,408.00. If you sprea~ it against the five lots, the sanitary sewer is $1,783, water $1900, and street and drainage $5797 for $9,481 per lot. If you just assess against four lots, the sanitary sewer would be $2200, water $2300 and the street and drainage $7200 for a total of $11,852, or'roughly $2400 more per four' lots as compared to spreading it over five. I'm a little perplexed on how to advise the Council to handle this because I look at things conservatively. If the other four lots haven't been sold and one has, and you just assess against four and the four go delinquent, you only have four lots to pick up your money from and that's $11,852 in assessments for those lots. Obviously if you do it over five, it's $9,481 per lot which is less and makes it easier to resell. Under the law you're supposed to assess the lots according to the benefits and I know in the pasti here and there you tried to follow the wishes of the property owner as the lots .were being sold. I think there were one or two instances where that may have been done in the past and you can do that here if you wish because apparently Mr. Sundburg has sold one lot and he doesn't want that person to get an assessment notice. I only point that out- you have the right to do that - but'technically five lots got benefited and five should be assessed, otherwise you have an unequal benefit. We're supposed to assess improve- ments on the benefit per lot, so you would have one with no benefit and four getting them all. If you ask me - from a legal point of view - you should assess according to the benefit. MRS. MC NIESH: I believe the lot that doesn't have the assessments is an existing house that before the subdivision did have sewer and water in it accessed on to Hamline Avenue. . . 3 MR. POPOVICH:' The question is, did.it get some benefit. What the engineer has done is divide (inaudible). On the other hand if you find it receives no benefit when the lots are sold you can spread it against the four, but you must be satisfied that all of the benefit is for the four remaining lots. . We have not sold any bonds on this either so obviously it would be spread over 20 years with the maximum of 8% interest charge. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: For the Council's benefit, this is Hamline Avenue (indicating drawing) this is the location of the house. MAYOR CREPEAU: That's 277 feet by 80 feet wide. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is lot No.2. It's hard to determine - we're not certain where the services came in this area. It was requested that the stubs be placed here for safety sake. We discussed the mat 'fer with the owner before placing the stubs so if the service is off Hamline (inaudible) this lot there is available service here on this street. COUNCILMAN HANSON: I'm wondering if there's (inaudible) that this lot No. 2 would benefit by the street. at least. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I would say under the new plat it will benefit by the street. The old driveway, I believe, came in in this location, is that correct? MR.E. REUBEN SUNDBURG, 4234 N. Hamline: Yes. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It was not on the city street. The driveway did ex! t on Hamline Avenue through Lot No.1. COUNCILMAN WINGERT: Where was the sanitary, sewer? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The sanitary sewer service - we were trying to determine exactly where. I can't recall - one or the other sanitary sewer or water came somewhere in the center of this lot. It was difficult to determine and I believe the other service came along the back property line somewhere. Rather than place an easement across that property in the future it was felt - we discussed the mat tar with the owners prior to the placement of the stubs and gave him the option of placing them or not and they took the option of placing them in, the event there would be something come up where they would net like to have any service" run through this property so they have been stubbed in on this corner. This issue, since it's not with the county, does not necessarily have to be resolved tonight. . . 4 MR. POPOVICH: We're just going to levy the $47,000 against the whole plat, but the reason I brought it up, as those records clear we would have to make those apportion- ment resolutions. My own feeling is - obviously the house is getting some water and sewer now from a previous improvement., but it. does get the benefit of a second stub in case anything happens there and the benefit of the street part and to say that it's not getting any benefit at all, you know you have to stretch it a little because there's bound to be some benefit and it may very well be that you may wish to say we will not assess for sewer and water (inaudible) give them the stub assessment and street assessment and spread the rest equally over the four. But if 'you feel there is no benefit at all,' then it's up to the O'ther four, but that's a fact question you have to resolve in your own minds. If. next week the one comes through where the house is, you have to make a decision if anything goes against. it. If nothing, it's zero to the house and there's no way to pick it up again. I just thought that we ought to discuss it tonight. The land owner is here and the engineer, not that you have to make a firm and fast decision tonight, but by the same token, some input tonight would make it easier a week or two or three from now. MR. DONALD LAMB: I'd like to ask tw.o questions - the property owners or the entire - all those parcels (inaudible) was the one that asked for' the improvement, is that correct, and that included that second parcel. Secondly, isn't it possible that if all of the value is assigned to four pieces of property that anyone of those could bring action when you have already waived it on two and say we didn't benefit that much as four as one-fourth of the total amount. MR. POPOVICH: SO far as an appeal later by anyone, obviously they have to appeal within the statutory period which would be within 30 days from tonight and within 30 days after you apportion it out later, so you have three or four more times that somebody could challenge it at a later point and, of course, that's one of the arguments they could make - is the benefit argument that they're being assessed too much for the benefits that are involved and it's very clear there's some benefit to that property. The trick used to be in the old days where you had a big plat and the land developer would say, assess these and not this. We have had a lot of history in the past wheres the ones that had no assessments sold and the ones that had the assessments went delinquent. As your advisor I have to tell you the worst, and obviously when you overload some lots on benefits and don't give some assessments to the other, if there were a default later on, you're looking for less to get it all from. I don't know if that's going to happen. Mr. Sundburg is here. . . . 5 MR. SUNDBURG: I felt that Lot 2 had already been assessed when the sewer and water came across Haroline - that whole portion was assessed as 4234 North Hamline which is that. original house and, of course, it does have existing water and sewer and it did have a driveway going in, but because of the development, the Council wanted all access to the Circle and so we had to block this access to the house (inaudible) we couldn't have any other openings on to Haroline according to the wishes of the Council and so this is .the'reason ot the access having to go to the Circle, and as far as the lots - my son is purchasing Lot 3 and I'm building a home on Lot 4 so that's sold to myself and Lot I has been'sold to Ran Malik so the only existing lot that hasn't been sold and the reason it isn't sold is I have never. tried to sell it, is lot 5 so there's no problem that way as far as not being able to sell the property. I'm not worried about that. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I have a question, Mr. Sundburg. You mentioned Lot 1 has been sold. .MR. SUNDBURG: Yes. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: So if you divide the assessment on Lot 1, that would be placing more of an assessment on Lot 1. It would be more than if divided by five. And he has already purchased this lot. What was the understanding? MR. SUNDBURG: The understanding was that he would pay all assessments. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: So, in effect, if it were divided by four he would be paying more of an assessment than if it were divided by five. MR. POPOVICH: The problem is - those people who have been sold , like Lot 1,' there was no way we could give him notice tonight. They're not here, but by golly you will have to give him notice on the apportionment and you might run into a problem MRS. MC NIESH: We sent a Notice to an old address in Minneapolis on Lot 1 and the notice came back. Later, from the Department of Property Taxation we got an address in Fremont, California, so we sent out a second notice to his address in Freritont and that one did not come back soI believe he got a notice that there was going to be an assessment hearing tonight - not a dollar amount. COUNCILMAN HANSON: I don't know what the formality should be but I think we should assess Lot 2 for the street, and I sympathize with the owner or anybody who is living there now, (inaudible) the cost of the stub, figuring he will never use it. That's the position I would take. ---. -. 6 COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: At this point .I think I'd have to look further because if the stub is of benefit because the owner asked for it and, therefore, it must be of some potential possible benefit or he wouldn't have asked for it. What both these things did is allow Lot 1 to exist without the street . there and (inaudible) MR. l?OPOVICH: May I inquire - when water and sewer went through on Hamline, the way Lot 2 where the house was originally got that previous assessment, didn't 1 and S get assessed because the water and sewer went by them in the previous improvement. So wouldn I t the same thing apply te. them. There was an assessment against 1 and S because they abutted. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: .I believe this property was a little different shape than today but most likely the whole propert.y was assessed on a front footage basis for sewer and water . along Hamline, plus acreage. The only portion "that may not have been assessed if the property extended into the swampy area, there may not have been an assessment in the swampy area on a front foot basis, but I'm reasonably sure there was an assessment for sewer and water along Hamline for Lots'S and 1. MR. POPOVICH: That being the case, and that's why I asked the question, Lot 2 is not the only one that was assessed before. I would recommend to the Council that you adopt the assessment for $47.,000 against the entir.e parcel and the engineer can come back and determine what 'the assess- ments were before, and when the apportionment comes in you can make (inaudible) Mr. Malik can receive a notice when the apportionment notices come out. I'd feel safer' doing-it that way than make the subdividing decision tonight. , COUNCILMAN WOODBURN: Confusing to me - a slightly con.,. fusing issue. I don't remember seeing this happen before where a house has been built where there's no lot. How did it happen this didn't get filed, and what was the basis for that~ I suppose it's legal. MRS. MC NIESH: It's filed, but not in the computer. MR. POPOVICH: Just a delay in the machinery. The law requires us to send notice to those last appearing of record 30 days before the hearing. MAYOR CREPEAU: We will continue on and finish this up, and ask the Clerk if there are any written objections or questions. MRS. MC NIESH: None, your, Honor. )!AYOR CREPEAU: Now we're supposed to open the meeting for comments. If there are no changes in the assessment roll, . . 7 . then the motion is made to adopt the resolution confirming the assessment roll. Councilman Wingert then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 80-44 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-79-1 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city .of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows:, 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Improvement No.SS-W-P-ST-79-1 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected' thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objec- tions, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an oppor- tunity has been'given to all interested persons. to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objec- tions so presented, and being fully advised in the p~emises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land'enumer- ated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set out .is hereby levied against each of the respec- tive lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and con~ firmed as the proper special assessments for each of 'said lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such, parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assess- ment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first of, said installments, together with interest on the entire assess- ment from the date hereof to December 31, 1981, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1980, collectible in 1981, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments,. to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year there- after until the entire assessment is paid. 8 ... 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel C)f land assessed hereby may at any tim e pay the whole or at least 50% of such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made within 30 days after the date of this resolution. 5. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a. certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Hanson, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All1 and the following voted against the same: None1 whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . . . . . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached 'and foregoing extract of minutes of a special meeting of the Council of said City held on the 18th day of August, 1980, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true, and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-79-1. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said city this 29 day of August, 1980. ~ tIlt~ C~ty ~nistrator - (SEAL)