Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-047A/047B . . . . ~m ,t",;{-.t/7A-- 1- -!Y Extract ~~ Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota August 23, 1982 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, August 23, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Johnson, McAllister and Mulcahy; and the following was absent: Councilman Hicks. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Admin- istrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk Administrator; Donald G. Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Consulting Engineers; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will now proceed with the hearing on Grey Fox Road, Improvement No. P-8l-l, the same format as we had before. I will open the public hearing at this time and ask the Clerk Administrator, Mrs. McNiesh, if she has published the necessary notices. }ffiS. CHARLOTTE McNIESH: The notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on August 10 and notices were sent to the property owners on August 6. MAYOR WOODBURN: I will ask Mr. Christoffersen to describe the improvement. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Essentially the Grey Fox Road improve- ment consists of a purely street improvement, with the exception that there were catch basins constructed in Grey Fox Road, If the Council recalls, at the time the storm sewer improvement was approved, the Grey Fox Road improvement was not and we did not know whether there would be any improvement on Grey Fox Road so soon, so subsequently catch basins were installed and connected to the storm sewer constructed on the previous improvement. Grey Fox Road was improved to a 36 foot wide street with nine-ton load capacity (inaudible). It has concrete curb and . gutter and essentially the westerly portion of Grey Fox Road was 32 feet wide in width, it had concrete curb and gutter but needed some repair, and also needed on one side - it was removed to allow the widening needed to meet M.S.A. standards. Grey Fox Road was a part of the City's M.S.A. improvement program and in the five year improvement program. The westerly portion - curb and gutter on the south side where it needed to be replaced - new curb and gutter along the north side - this reach right in here, approximately five feet of this street was constructed (inaudible) and a completely new section was constructed in the middle, from this point to Dunlap Street - there was no existing street in that area - that con- sisted of paving, curb and gutter and grading. From this point on it was constructed to a 36 foot width, concrete curb and gutter. The Grey Fox existing prior to construction was a 32 foot wide street with no concrete curb and gutter. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, when the original feasibility hearing was held, it was estimated that the costs would be $543,900.00 and on an alternative basis, $482,900.00. The actual costs, as it now works out, are $285,790.00. At the time of the feasibility hearing, we projected a 100% assessment and that would have worked out to $110.00 a front foot. At that time we left it open because we wanted to give the worst possible picture and how much might go on general taxes and things like that. For the hearing tonight, we're recommending that 75% be assessed. That will raise $217,240.12 and the balance will be picked up by City funds - the balance between the $217,240.12 and the $285,790.00. That then makes an assessment rate of $50.00 a front foot instead of $110.00 a front foot that we had originally estimated. There were some properties - a couple of them - that 'were assessed in 1970 and were assessed at the rate of $8.42 a foot. Those properties will receive credit for that and they will then be assessed on this project at $41.58 a front foot, where the others that weren't assessed before will be assessed at $50.00 a front foot. . The recommendation is that this be spread over a ten year period of time, with the interest carrying charge at 10.01%, which is roughly 2% less than what other cities are charging, but in view of the interest rate we got on our bond issue earlier, we're recommending that particular rate. ' Obviously, if the assessment roll is adopted, you have 30 days to prepay without any interest penalty. If not, it will be assessed and start collecting with taxes next year. So 1/10 of the total dollar amount will be collected the first year, to- gether with interest at 10.01%, with a declining amount each year until in the tenth year it's only 1/10, plus 10.01% on that 1/10 principal. They have the right to prepay during that ten year period as well as during the 30 day period immediately after the assessment roll is adopted. 2 I think Mr. Lund raised a question earlier, in connection with the other improvement, as to his frontage. That should be one item that you consider as you go along with this hearing. . ~~YOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written ques- tions or objections? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, we have the objections that I read pre- viously presented by James Steilen, representing Hunter Sales, A & D Development, R. L. Gould, Roberts Construction, Christine Colestock, Starco Inc., doing business as Scott Roberts Development Company. Is it necessary that I read these . . MR. POPOVICH: As long as they're referred to. MRS. McNIESH: They're the same objections that were read in the prior hearing. Then I have a letter from George Reiling objecting to the assessments as he did in the prior hearing; a letter from A & D Development Company, objecting to the assessment, saying that as to the road there was no benefit conferred inasmuch as there was suitable access available to the property one block north on Red Fox Road. He contends that if there is a benefit, it should be less than the assessments. I have a letter from Donald Roberts, President of Roberts Construction Company, objecting as he objected in the prior hearing. A letter from Tri-State Land Company, citing the same objections as they did in the storm drainage project. A letter from R. L. Gould, similar to the letter referred to before, and one from Eugene Colestock, objecting to the assessment because there is no benefit to the property. The last letter I have is one signed by Donald Roberts, wherein he states that Parcel No. 25-02700-340~78 is assessed for a total front footage of 300.4 feet. They are fee owners of just less than 118 feet, with the remainder owned by the state of Minnesota. I believe the actual figure is 116.75 feet, which he feels should be the basis for the assessment rather than 300.4. He has a diagram attached. I believe that covers it. ~~YOR WOODBURN: ation of objections, yourself. We will open the meeting then for consider- discussion and points. Please identify . MR. JAMES STEILEN, Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: I'm here, as the Clerk Administrator said, on behalf of R. L. Gould, Hunter Sales, the Colestock family, Roberts Construction and A & D Development. I notice that once again, whoever projected the costs here was substantially over on the actual costs. I only wish that he had worked for Albert Quie and perhaps Ronald Reagan because they could use his services. Again, we object to this assessment because we don't believe that we have received a special benefit from this project. You will notice that each of those property owners had access and was using the existing road and found it very adequate. They didn't benefit and they did not petition the City to have that road improved in any way. To a person, they don't believe that 3 . the connection was of any value to them. In fact, they think it was a detriment in the industrial area.' It has dramatically increased the traffic in the industrial park and although at this point I don't have any official counts, talking with the owners tonight they indicate that it quite visibly is through traffic. In other words, the great majority of the cars and traffic on Grey Fox Road now is through traffic - it's not industrial park traffic. What that indicates is that the community as a whole, and perhaps even greater than the Arden Hills community, is benefiting greatly from a connected and improved Grey Fox Road. The land- owners believe that they have suffered from that and certainly haven't benefited. Again, if we measure special benefit - as I think we must - by increase in market values, the market value of their property has not increased because of the connection of that road. They still use the same access they always used, they had no complaints, it was adequate, they don't feel their market values have in- creased and don't believe there's been a special benefit to their property and as they look out their windows every day, they see the community using that road. For those reasons they have concluded - and I conclude - that that road improvement is of a general benefit to the community and not a special benefit to the particular landowners within the industrial park. For that reason we would ask you to not adopt the assessment roll and again to spread this cost across the community to reflect the fact that it is a general improvement. MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further? Anyone else? MR. CLIFFORD LUND, 2241 North Milton, Representing Roberts Properties: The property that we have a question on is this one right here - this little tail that sticks out here - is owned by the State of Minnesota so we should not be assessed for that because we do not abut the street on that portion. We at ,Roberts Construction - when they built the industrial park they put in the roads - Grey Fox Road and Dunlap Street - and when the City took them over, we had to put a two inch overlay on the street to bring them up to (inaudible) standard. Granted, there is no curb and gutter along Grey Fox Road, nor along Dunlap Street - no concrete curb and gutter - there is blacktop curb and gutter. We do not feel that we benefit except to the extent of the curb and gutter. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? Anyone else? I believe we got your expressions from most of your letters. MR. TIMOTHY TYSON, Representing A & D Development Company, Which Leases Property to Tyson Warehouse Company at 1300 Grey Fox Road: Basically the same disagreement - whether or not it benefits our property or not - and that our access is all out Snelling Avenue or Highway 51 to the north and simply by going one block north on Red Fox, we have more than adequate (inaudible). In addition, it's always a problem for us when we do see that the majority of the traffic which has been created on Grey Fox with the ne~ road is automobiles and we are not in the retail business 4 . by any means and we have noticed that there have been no instances where the truck traffic serving our facility has benefited in any way by the addition of extending Grey Fox to Lexington Avenue. Most all of our traffic originates from the freeway systems and we currently have no traffic coming north on Lexington Avenue into our facility via Grey Fox Road. MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further? Any comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Would it be appropriate to note for the record that Grey Fox Road may be having a particular problem now these days because of the closing of Lexington Avenue at this time. We couldn't get a good traffic count now, I'm sure, if that's the case, and in view of that through traffic referred to, would not be normal. MAYOR WOODBURN: (inaudible). (Inaudible) increase in local traffic. MR. TIMOTHY TYSON: Speaking for myself, once I know that that shortcut is there, westbound on 694, I would bypass the stop- lights rather regularly, even when the road is completed, to gain access to westbound 694 or north 35-W without going through the stoplights on 694 and Lexington Avenue. Even when Lexington Avenue is complete, there is a shortcut onto the freeway system without going through the intersection - westbound on 694 (inaudible). We're in the trucking business so we're always looking for shortcuts. MAYOR WOODBURN: That would be coming up Lexington (in- audible). MR. CLIFFORD LUND: Start by coming from the south. . MR. TYSON: Coming north on Lexington or from south of our facilities. MR. LUND: (Inaudible) bypass two stop signs. MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) although generally I'd be on that other highway to begin with rather than starting on Lexington. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Cliff, what is the (inaudible)? . MR. LUND: When they put the storm sewer in on Grey Fox Road, that's the way the easement went - not easement, but they had fee title - to Grey Fox Road and that little (inaudible) that goes back up there. So it belongs to the state. It's an open ditch right now, all green and full of trees and whatever. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, are you familiar with that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, and Mr. Lund's correct. That was originally obtained for ditch and culvert drainage. Appar- ently the drainage does occupy part of it. As far as placing 5 . an assessment on the property, the north property line was used and not the south property line - we just followed the property line (inaudible). We used the dimension along the north property line, which was 300.4 feet. We treated the easement as public property. MR. LUND: It's not an easement though. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It is public property because it belongs to the State of Minnesota. We treated it as public property. Normally, in this particular case (inaudible) right-of-way and the existing street is throughout the rest of the portion. In our view, the frontage can be made use of. If it is not occupied by storm sewer, a portion of that property could revert back to the property owner also. MR. LUND: Our frontage is actually Dunlap Street for that particular property. We have no need for that road whatsoever. MR. EUGENE COLESTOCK, President of Hunter Sales, 3737 North Lexington Avenue: I would like to add once more - I've heard all the objections that were raised on the previous issue as far as sewer is concerned and they apply as far as the road is concerned. It's my concensus, in the industrial park, that the road has served no purpose for anyone in the industrial park. We were happy, we were content, we were pleased, we had all of the access we needed (inaudible) areas that we wanted to be in in the indus- trial park. I would like to reiterate that the same objections apply all the way. MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further from the Council? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I would like to ask the attorney or Mr. Colestock - are you saying you have no benefit at all? MR. COLESTOCK: That is correct. . MAYOR WOODBURN: We have the same options that we had in the previous project. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I guess what I'm hearing from the audience is they don't feel they should be assessed anything for for this improvement. We can't go along with that because we have to assess a minimum amount because of the bond business. In view of no alternative (inaudible) numbers we have been looking at for a year. Mayor Woodburn closed the hearing. Following a discussion of the amount to be assessed against Mr. Clifford Lund's property, Councilman Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 Resolution No. 82-47~ RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. P-8l-1 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The proposed assessments for Improvement No. P-81-l f" should be and are hereby amended as follows: 5'~), Clifford Lund 2241 North Milton Roseville, MN 55113 Description of Property Parcel Code No. 25-02700-340-78 Change Made Original Revised Name and Address $15,020.00 $5,837.50 2. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the foregoing amendment is just and equitable to said proposed assessment, and necessary to a fair assessment for payment of the cost of said improvement The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Mulcahy and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All Present; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman McAllister, after indicating that a lack of benefit had not been demonstrated and in view of the fact that no alternative figures were offered, then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: . Resolution No. ~~-47~ RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS AS AMENDED FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. P-8l-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. P-81-1, against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly cal- culated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valua- tion, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 7 . Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and pUb- lished, as required by law, that this COuncil would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an opportunity 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 objections so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment as amended 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 respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments as amended are hereby adopted and confirmed 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 10.01% 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 assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1983, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1982, collectible in 1983, 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 thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County AUditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time 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 Johnson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All 8 . . Present; and the following voted agains~ the same: None; where- upon 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 23rd day of August, 1982, 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. P-81-1. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this o?~ day of September, 1982. atdA/~fVhYLJ , City Clerk Administrator (SEAL)