Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 08-29-1983 " Minutes of Regular Councl I Meeting Village of Arden HI lis Monday, August 29, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. V I I I age Ha II Ca II to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn cal led the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . Roll Call Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmen Dale Hicks, Diane MeAl lister, Thomas Mulcahy, Michael Christiansen (8:33 p.m.) Absent - None Present - Also Present - Engineer Donald Christoffersen, Bond Consultant Peter Popovich, Treasurer Donald Lamb, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNlesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes Hicks moved, seconded by MeAl lister, that the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of August 22, 1983 be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Business from the Floor None PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR: Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-83-3 (Hazelnut Park) Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing on Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-83-3 and Clerk Administrator McNlesh verified publication of Notice of Hearing In the New Brl~hton Bulletin on 8-11-83, and mal ling of Notices to affected property on 8-12-83. . (See attached Extract of Minutes of Meeting.) The hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. MeAl lister moved, seconded by Hicks, that the Council adopt Resolution No. 83-~, RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-83-3, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) (Assessment to be spread over 6 years @ 10% Interest.) . Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-81-5 (Roval HI I Is) Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing and Clerk Administrator McNiesh verified publication of the Notice of Hearing in the New Brl~hton Bui letln on 8-11-83, and mai ling of notices to affected property owners on 8-12-83. (See attached Extract of Minutes of Meeting.) The hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. # Hicks moved, seconded by MeAl lister, that Councl I adopt Resolution No. 83-~, RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-81-5, as presented; assessments to be spread over a 6 year period @ 10% Interest, sub- ject to a certified agreement to be fi led within 30 days, the Hansen property assessment to be spread over a la-year period @ 10% interest. Motion carried (Hicks, Mulcahy, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; MeAl lister voting in opposition) (3-1) Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-81-3 (Arden Oaks) Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing and Clerk Administrator McNlesh verified that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New BriQhton Bul letln'on 8-11-83 " Minutes of Regular Councl I Meeting August 29, 1983 Page Two and mai led to affected property owners on 8-12-83. (See Extract of Minutes of Meeting) The public hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. . ~ Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-~, AM~~~ING#~SSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-~P-ST-81-3 and adopt Resolution NO. 83-4iF, ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS AS AMENDED; assessments to be spread over a 6-year period at 10% Interest; subject to a certified agreement to be fl led within 30 days, assessments on properties outside of the Arden Oaks plat to be spread over a 10-year period at 10% Interest. Motion carried (Hicks, Woodburn, Mulcahy voting In favor of the motion; MeAl lister voting In opposition; Christiansen abstaining) (3-1-1) Improvement No. SS-83-2 (Sewer Extension to 1315 Red Fox Road) Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing and Clerk Administrator verified publication of the Notice of Hearing In the New Briqhton Bulletin on 8-11-83 and mailing of notices to the affected property owners on 8-12-83. (See Extract of Minutes of Meeting) The public hearing was closed at 9:57 p.m. 1).7 MeAl lister moved, seconded by Hicks. that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-~, RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-83-2, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Public Hearlnq on Proposed Improvement No. W-83-5 (Watermain South of STH 96, Abutting STH 10) Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing, and Clerk Administrator McNlesh verified publication of the Notice of Hearing in the New Brlqhton Bulletin on 8-18 and 8-25-83, and mai ling of notices to affected property owners on 8-12-83. (See Extract of Minutes of Meeting) The publ'ic hearing was closed by Mayor Woodburn, after determining that there were no further comments or questions. Christiansen moved, seconded by McAllister, that Councl I take the matter under advisement. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) REPORT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER DONALD CHRISTOFFERSEN Verlflcatlonof Required Size of Watermain, Improvement No. W-83-4 Christoffersen reported that a 12" watermain Is needed to provide the pressure needed by the fire department; ~ported that the fire department said they would like 3700 gpm; proposed 12" will provide 3000 gpm at the first two hydrants. Bid Award - Revisions to Lift Statlor.s Nos. 2 and 5 . Counci I was referred to Christoffersen's letter (8-25-83) and to attached list of five bids received. Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Counci I award the bid to D.H. Blattner & Sons, Avon, Minnesota In the amount of $100,650.00. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) MN DOT Cooperative Construction A~reement ~ 'First Phase for Upqradlnq Hamllne Ave. Counci I was referred to letter from MN DOT (8-16-83) relative to the first phase for upgrading Hamline Ave. from 1-694 to TH 96, requesting that the City prepare a preliminary layout for approval. Christoffersen said no action Is needed at tonight's meeting; said he needs more Information relative to the Project Memorandum which MN DOT requests in addition to a preliminary layout. -2- Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 29, 1983 Page Three Matter was deferred to the September 12th Council meeting. Status Report - New Brlqhton Interceptor . Christoffersen reported that a representative of the Metropolitan Councl I contacted him urging Arden HI lis to proceed with the feasibility study for the proposed connection to the New Brighton intereeptor. Christoffersen displayed a transparency showing the "tJI.C. District" that Is proposed to drain to the Interceptor; another transparency showed the proposed immediate assessment area, indicating some areas of assessment duplication. A thrrd transparency listed the estimated cost at $559,000 (1984 costs including engineering), and possible areas for assessment: 35 Acres @ $800/Ac 3.400 front feet @ $35/ft $ 28,000 119,000 Remaining District N.C. 86 Acres @ $800/Ac 1,430 units @ $240/unlt 100% Assessed . 68,800 343.200 $559,000 In discussion, Christoffersen noted that the N.C. District has not paid for an outlet, but portions were assessed for sanitary sewer In Improvements 12 and 13; some had area charges and some had front foot charges. Another alternative suggested was to spread the cost on general taxes; similar to the water tower, which wll I serve the whole City. Christoffersen explained that Metro Councl I wants an idea of how the City eX~ects to fund the project; suggested that Council order a feasibility study and hold a public hearing. "If Hicks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council adopt Resolution No. 83-~, RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE NEW BRIGHTON INTERCEPTOR PROJECT. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) (Christoffersen was requested to check on possibi Ilty of Federal funding) Resolution No. 83-40, Resolution Opposing an Increase in the Number of Managers for the Rice Creek Watershed District .PIC<.) Christiansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that Councl I adopt Resolution No. 83-~~ RESOLUTION OPPOSING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MANAGERS FOR THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Committee Volunteers Councl I was referred to memo from McNiesh listing names of Committee volunteers. . Counci I concurred to defer additional committee appointments untl I 1984 appoint- ments are made. REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB Investment 6/29/83 - $108,984.80 at First Federal @ 10.20% interest, to mature 2/29/84. Hicks moved, seConded by Christiansen, to ratify the Treasurer's investment. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) OTHER JilUS I NESS Application for Bulldlnq Permit for Geodesic Home In Chatham Development COlmc11 was referred to Zehm's memo (8-26-83). Council noted its previous Interpretation of the Special Use Permit for the Chatham Planned Unit Development and referred the Bui Iding Permit application to Building .Inspector Squires to handle administratively. -3- . . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 29, 1983 Page Four September 7th PlanninG Commission MeetinQ Hicks reported that he wi II not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on September 7th. Christiansen offered to substitute as liaison. REPORT OF VILLAGE CLERK AOMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE McNIESH . Completion of Probatlonarv Period - Darlene Scott Council was referred to McNlesh's memo (8-26-831 regarding recommendation of Darlene Scott. Hicks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council approve the continued employ- ment of Darlene Scott as a regular full-time employee, and approve a rate Increase to $5.25/hour effective September 19th. Motion carried unanimously. (5-01 Receptionist/Clerk Tvplst Position Councl I was referred to McNlesh's memo of 8-26-83 regarding Clerk Typist position, recommending the employment of Robin Miller. Christiansen moved, seconded by McAI lister, that Council approve the employment of Robin Miller as Clerk Typist at $4.00/hour, commencing September 19, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. (5-01 (Florence Honan to continue through September 23rdl Claims Council was referred to list of four claims totalling $362.27 and to Transfer Check In the amount of $50,000 from Rosevllle Bank to Norwest Bank. Christiansen moved that Council approve the Claims and Transfer Check. Motion carried unanimously. (5-01 Status Report - 1984 Proposed BudQet McNlesh reported that the 1984 Proposed Budget Is completed and Is being duplicated; copies will be In Friday's Council mall. McNlesh noted that the Proposed 1984 Budget wi II be considered by the Finance Committee on September 8th and September 22nd. HolGaard's Tent Sale . McNlesh reported that Holgaard has requested a banner,to be located on the balcony of the building, the week before their sale, Sept. 15-22. Hicks moved, seconded by McAI lister, that Councl I approve the banner, as requested. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Guardian LIfe Group Insurance McNlesh referred Council to letter from Guardian: noted that an Increase of 15% was Incorporated In the budget - Increase Is about 27% In 1983/84. McNlesh said she has asked for premium cost of 80/20 coverage: noted that a change In the deductible amount could also be a consideration. Ad iournment Hicks moved, seconded by MeAl lister, that the Councl I Meeting adjourn at 12:30 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. (5-01 ~atfrn~- Charlotte McNlesh Clerk Administrator f(P~V1..{?-?h4-n.f' ~~")...---- 'Robert L. Woodburn Mayor Notice of MeetlnQ The next Regular Council Me~tlng will be on Monday, September 12, -1983 at 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall. 7:4 c~?-I/t!:> iI Ii-- Extract of Minutes of Meeting of, City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 29, 1983 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular 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 29, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at 8:30 p.m.); and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: Our first public hearing on proposed assessments is for Hazelnut Park, Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-83-3. We'll start out by opening the public hearing at this time and ask the Clerk Administrator if we have the affidavits of publication. MRS. McNIESH: The notice was placed in the mail on August 12 and I have an Affidavit of publication, stating that the notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on Thursday, August 11. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll have our engineer briefly explain the improvement at this ti~e. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Improvement SS-W-P-ST-83-3, Hazelnut Park. The general location is along Cleveland Avenue, south of Stowe Avenue. The subdivision is called Hazelnut Park. It consists of sanitary sewer being constructed from Cleveland Avenue easterly to the existing sanitary sewer in the north- east corner of the plat. It includes the installation of a ~ six inch watermain along (inaudible), storm sewers along Cleveland Avenue, discharging into a low, marshy area, and also concrete curbs and gutters and bituminous street and grading. MAYOR WOODBURN: This was requested by a suitable majority of the property owners. I will now ask Mr. Popovich to explain the financing. . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total cost of this project is $139,870.00. As you know, it was handled pursuant to a petition by 100% of the affected property owners. It will be 100% assessed. For 19 lots, it will amount to $7,361.58 per lot. We propose - and the notice carries it - to be assessed over a six year period. The improvement has not been included in any bond issue as of yet. It's been handled internally by City financing, but the last bond issue we had, and the other improvements that are on tonight for assessments, we're recommending a 10% carrying charge on the assessments if they're not prepaid. The reason for that is that our bond issue came out at 9.01% and we usually charge 1% over that. We could go as high as 12% under the statute and we're recommending at least that 1% over, so our projected interest charge should be 10%. That is our recommendation. The property owners, of course, have a right to prepay within 30 days after adoption of the assessment roll or at any time during that six year period and save the resulting interest. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, do you have any written comments? MRS. McNIESH: None, your Honor. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the meeting then to comments from the audience on the Hazelnut Park improvement. Are there any? Since there are none, we will close the public hearing at this time and come back to the Council for adoption or nonadoption - the Council preference as to assessing this property for the improvement. Any comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: How many lots are there? MR. POPOVICH: 19 - $7,361.58 per lot. Councilman McAllister then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-43a RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-83-3 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: . -2- 1. The proposed assessment roll for Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-83-3 should be and is hereby amended as follows: Original Assessment Total Assessment Barry J. O'Meara 1874 Brenner Avenue St. Paul, MN 55113 $139,870.02 Hazelnut Park Addition Parcel Code 25 03300 100 56 . Amended Assessment Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 010 01 $7,361.58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 2, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 020 01 7,361.58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 3, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 030 01 7,361. 58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 4, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 040 01 7,361.58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 5, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 050 01 7,361.58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 6, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 060 01 7,361. 58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 7, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 070 01 7,361.58 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 8, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 080 01 7,361.58 . -3- . . ., Amended Assessment Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 9, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 090 01 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 10, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 100 01 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 11, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 110 01 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 12, Block 1 Parcel Code 25 32100 120 01 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 1, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 010 02 John M. & Elizabeth Knutson 4420 147th Lane N.W. Anoka, MN 55303 Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 2, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 020 02 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 3, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 030 02 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 4, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 040 02 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 5, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 050 02 Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 6, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 060 02 Total Assessment $7,361. 58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 7,361.58 -4- Amended Assessment Total Assessment Barry J. O'Meara Hazelnut Park Addition Lot 7, Block 2 Parcel Code 25 32100 070 02 $7,361.58 2. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the foregoing amendment to the assessment roll 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 HickS and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All (Councilman Christiansen not yet being present); and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said reso- lution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman McAllister then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-43b RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-83-3 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-83-3 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 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 . -5- of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefitted 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 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 10% 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 six (6) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, 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 reso- lution. 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 Hicks and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All (Councilman Christiansen not yet being present); and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . -6- . . '; STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting 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 regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 29th day of August, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there- from insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-83-3. day WITNESS MY HAND of i!#<f'La) and the seal of said City this ~JP~ , 1983. 0;<Y!.~t2l~ (SEAL) ... . . '74 Gf.5-4~ Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 29, 19B3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular 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 29, 19B3, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at B:30 p.m.); and the following were absen t: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will now move to the Royal Hills improvement, SS-W-P-ST-Bl-5, and ask the Clerk Administrator if we have the appropriate notifications. MRS. McNIESH: I have the Affidavit of Publication of the notice of public hearing in the New Brighton Bulletin on Thursday, August 11, and the certification that the notices were mailed to the property owners on August 12. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll ask the engineer to explain the improvement. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is an improvement serving the Royal Hills plat, including two private lots. It includes the installation of watermain from Floral Drive to Floral Park, along Royal Lane, and also along Norma Avenue, north and south. The watermain is shown in blue and the sanitary sewer is shown in red. Sanitary sewer begins just on the west side of Floral Park, runs along Royal Lane, and also along Norma Avenue. It also includes storm sewer - shown in green - between the street and the abutting lots. It includes concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base and bituminous paving from Floral Drive, along Royal Lane, and also on Norma Avenue. The two potential private lots are in this area right here, some- what adjacent to Floral Park on the south side of Royal Lane. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, would you explain the financing possibilities. . MR. POPOVICH: The total cost is $205,414.00. At the feasibility hearing, it was estimated at $247,100.00. It is proposed to be 100% assessed. The sanitary sewer trunk would be $1,065.63 per unit; the sanitary sewer service, $275.78 per unit; the water trunk, $1,736.34 per unit; water service, $264.09 per unit. The street and drainage portion would be $8,329.99 for the Royal Hills lots and $5,990.40 for Mr. Hansen's lots. The difference there was done by agreement because the developer is paying for the portion of the street through Floral Park. It's proposed to be assessed over a six year period. This was included in the 1982 bond issue and the interest rate, as I said before, was 9.01%, so our recommenda- tion would be that this also be assessed at 10% for the carrying charge if it isn't prepaid during the 30 day period or prior to the normal installments. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written communications? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, your Honor, I have one letter from Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Hansen, 1465 Floral Drive. we, Robert G. and Evelyn V. Hansen, object to the proposed assessment against our property for the following reasons, and will appreciate your consideration of relief. (1) We have lived in our home at this address for over 23 years and records will reveal that at no time have we applied for permits to plat or develop or sell any part of our property. (2) We do not now desire to so develop our property, feeling that in its native wild state it's perfect. (3) The addition of street, water, sewer, curb and gutter runs completely counter to our wishes because we don't need them now and, more important, we won't use them. (4) We are currently paying appropriate assessments and charges for similar items for Floral Drive in front of our property and do feel that to be charged for the back portion is redundant. (5) Our utiliza- tion of our land is for personal dwelling and use. It is not providing us with income or profit, therefore we don't feel that we should incur tremendous extra costs to continue living our normal lives. (6) The proposed assessment would seriously affect our personal financial position because, among other reasons, my retirement age is less than four years away. Should the assessments be levied, we might be forced to sellout and move, which is certainly not appealing to us in view of the fact that we have greatly enjoyed being a part of the community of Arden Hills for so many years. . -2- . . . . (7) In summary, we believe that we will not be benefitting because of the revisions to the north end of our property and we are asking to be relieved of the assessment responsibility. Signed by the Hansens. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any other written statements? MRS. McNIESH: That's all. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the meeting then to the audience for any comments they might have. Please identify yourself and your address. Any comments from the audience? There being no comments from the audience, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the Council. Any comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Popovich, it was a little hard to hear when you ran down each of the costs, but as I heard you and calculated - does this come to about $11,700 for the Royal Hills lots and about $8,600 for the two lots - the Hansen property? MR. POPOVICH: That's right. You would add up all those individual costs. COUNCILMAN HICKS: So you're looking at two lots - double that for the Hansen property - $17,200. MRS. McNIESH: The assessment against the Hansen property is precisely $18,664.48. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I could understand how the Hansens feel and I really agree with their point - that's not why they bought the property, wanting to sell - however, is there any way we can legally say fine, we'll forgive you this assessment provided you never subdivide. Is there any legal way - I mean, they might sell this property tomorrow and the new owners might say hey, I want to sell off these lots. I don't understand the legality of it. Is there any way we can prevent this from happening? MR. POPOVICH: It's a difficult question you ask. The normal rule of law is - it isn't the present use of the property that applies. It's what is the benefit to the property, whatever might happen in the future. The situation is - you have no control over what someone might do later. Even if you could agree to it by agreement with the Hansens that nothing would ever happen and it would always remain that way, then, of course, you have to pick up that $18,000 some other way - either through cash or an assessment against everybody else in the City under general taxes. That's the problem. Sometimes you can defer it because of age or some extraordinary reason, but that just means that eventually they would have to pay the principal, plus all the accumulated interest. We haven't had any deferments before in the City -3- here. That's the practical problem. They could die tomorrow and the property would be sold and then other people would want to use that property. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I guess that's my problem. they need a quick buck, they could decide to sell that, is a benefit to those two lots. If and it MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, would you like to comment on the length of time. It's a little shorter than some - not for developer's lots, but for the private ones. . MR. POPOVICH: You could set a period of time - the statute says if you desire to have any particular parcel within the assessment roll be over a different period of time than others, you could do so if you stated the reasons why and there were good standards for it. For example, a developer comes in and wants property subdivided and the utilities and everything in and we'll enter into a development agreement for a period of time - three, five or six years. Because of the nature of the development, it includes other people. I have seen situations where developers will be assessed over one period of time and the other residential properties over a little longer period of time so that the yearly payment is down. You could do that in this case. For example, the Hansens are not developers and if you wanted to stretch theirs over ten years rather than six, or fifteen years rather than six, that's something you could do. MAYOR WOODBURN: What would the nature stand up? You said that reasons would be needed. of the reasons be that would legally MR. POPOVICH: I've seen it done, for example, where different classifications were done that way - industrial or commercial versus residential - because of the possible usage or the lack of immediacy of development. In all the years I've been doing this work, we've never had one where it's been certified that way by a council. The Ramsey County Auditor's office doesn't like it because what it really does is create two different things within the same assessment roll. It would have to be some pretty potent reason. MAYOR WOODBURN: Would a (inaudible) reason be the lack of expectation of immediate subdivision of this land? Would that be a suitable and adequate reason? MR. POPOVICH: I've never seen a court case that either upheld or denied that reason. MAYOR WOODBURN: Maybe it's about time there was one. . MR. POPOVICH: It's a matter of judgment for you as to whether you want to do this at this time. -4- MAYOR WOODBURN: by essentially a six temporary. The money for this improvement is carried year bond - a three and a three - . MR. POPOVICH: This was part of the bond issue in 1982. We sold $3,355,000. At the end of three years, you either have to pay that off or have another three year bond issue or a definitive bond issue of ten or fifteen years. Here we thought - because of the developer approach and everything - that running it over six years, we could have the first three years and then the next three years. If it developed faster than that, you wouldn't have to have that next three years, but you have one isolated piece of property there that is obviously a little different category than the others because of the present use. Of course, we know that and whether or not you want to go along with a different period of time, that's a judgment call based on what you feel the Hansens ought to do. MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any further questions from the audience? Six years is a little quick for private parties to payoff an assessment (inaudible). On the other hand, there's no question that somebody is going to make a handsome profit on this improvement on the back of that property some day. MAN IN AUDIENCE: t~y couldn't you just skip over that party and assess them in the event it was split at some time? MR. POPOVICH: That's an indirect question - should there be a deferment? As you know, this whole thing was considered to be 100% assessed. If you defer it - and that would mean $18,000 wouldn't come in on this particular bond issue - so somewhere you'd have to come up with $18,000 until that bond issue was paid off. It means you would have to get it out of other funds within the City or you'd have to spread $18,000 over the six year period as general taxes over the entire City. Tnen later on, if somebody hooked up ten years from now, then you could have that complete charge paid in full when somebody changed the utilization of the property. You'd get the $18,000, plus the interest that had accrued during that period of time and it would go into some fund. But meanwhile, you can't redistribute that back to the people in cash rebate checks. Somewhere that $18,000 has to be picked up between now and the time they pay, so defer- ments, while possible, are not really good for you over the long run. There will be a cash shortfall somewhere during the period of that bond issue. MAYOR WOODBURN: It appears that part of that answer is also the fact that we can't raise the assessment on any other lots, having given the maximum value - is that correct? . MR. POPOVICH: That's right. In other words, you'd have to have some pretty good evidence that the lots were benefitted -5- . more than the figure that is now there to pick up the others and give somebody a zero assessment and add the rest to the other particular lots. Obviously, if the landowner or the developer is willing to pick up another $18,000 and do it by consent, that's different, but there is some benefit to that property, forgetting about the Hansens as individuals. You run an improvement around the acreage and there is some benefit. They may argue as to how much, but there is some, forgetting about the present use of that property. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Popovich, how did you arrive at the approximately $5,300 for the street portion of the cost for the two Hansen lots and the figure for all the other lots was $8,300? MR. POPOVICH: The reason for that is that the developer agreed _ on the street and drainage portion of the improvement - to pay for the street through Floral park, as part of the developer agreement. Because he agreed to pick that up, that then did give a reduced assessment to the Hansens, where under other normal approaches, it would be that assessment to them. So they've already received that reduction because of the developer agreement. COUNCILMAN HICKS: So there is some relief. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: You refer to the two Hansen lots - I've forgotten why there are two lots assessed. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There are two developable lots in that area. This is the Hansen frontage, and we felt that the lot could be developed vertically this way - north and south of this line (inaudible) creating a lot here and a lot here. I think part of that lot concept came in the original planning with the planner, so far as the square footage per lot. MAYOR WOODBURN: I think this goes back quite a ways (inaudible) and I think it may be very borderline because of that extraordinary depth. There's some variation that occurs. COUNCIU~N MULCAHY: You mean two, three, four, five and six might be subject to variance already? MRS. ZEHM: They did have a width variance on those three lots. MAYOR WOODBURN: I remember discussing the variance, but I don't remember (inaudible). COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: That being the case, the provision of two lots on the Hansen property for assessment purposes works to their advantage versus three lots. Councilman Hicks . -6- ., pointed out - or his question pointed out - the advantage respect to the agreement with the developer on the road. watermain is connected from Floral Drive, but I assume it a loop that connects north as well. with The forms MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: We're putting in several hundred feet of watermain adjacent to the park and adjacent to the homes on the corner there without any assessment to that. Is that being picked up by the 17 lots? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The watermain was estimated in the total (inaudible) because it was part of a loop system. COUNCI~~ MULCAHY: You're hooking up to a loop there without getting any assessment (inaudible) or from the owner on the corner. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The owner on the corner has already received an assessment and has the benefit of the water along Floral Drive. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: You didn't include them in this assessment for that reason. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments or questions? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: On the stretch out for the two lots - I wish somebody would tell me what the rule is on pay-off and development. Can we get that paid off under certain circum- stances? MAYOR WOODBURN: As the lots are sold, they will be paid. There's a minimum period of pay-off time. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Are they subject to the development agreement? MRS. McNIESH: No, everything but the Hansen lot, and the developer, under the agreement, has to pay 1/6 of the total assessment each year. That could be in the form of paying the assessment in full for a few of them, but 1/6 of the total has to be paid each year. It would be all of the lots except Hansen's would be paid off in six years. COUNCIU~N MULCAHY: If we did any kind of an extended payment - we do not have a development agreement with the Hansens. It seems like we would have to have one in order to extend payments. MR. POPOVICH: You do not have to have a separate agree- ment with them. You can determine the period of time. The . -7- six years was arrived at because you had a developer's agree- ment, but if you wanted to go ten years for them, the developer's agreement would apply to the rest and the Hansen's could be spread over ten years. . MR. ROBERT G. HANSEN, 1465 Floral Drive: If that's the desire of the Council, we would be more than willing to enter into such an agreement, properly legally drawn, to at least spread this thing out over a longer period of time. You have our word that we have no desire or plan or idea to develop it currently or in the future. Obviously, we will not be here forever and it would certainly be of benefit to the community if some kind of agreement was entered into so that the money could be recouped. For us to be assessed on the same basis as the developer who has built this thing to make money, and all we're doing is continuing the same lifestyle we've had since we came out there - us shelling out 1/6 per year at 10% interest when we're not going to change anything except see a little less grass than we did - it seems a little - legally, probably, true - but practically it hurts a little bit. We deliberately wrote that out rather than me stand up and try to reiterate all this. I appreciate your consideration. We would be willing to enter into any kind of an agreement that would be legally binding both ways so that the City would get its money. MAYOR WOODBURN: Could an agreement be entered into with Mr. Hansen, Mr. Popovich, to spread this out over 12 or 15 years for that parcel, unless it was divided and platted, in which case it would be due? MR. POPOVICH: The assessment roll will have to be spread in equal installments over whatever period of time you arrive at. If you have a separate agreement that would provide, as you said, that if it was developed or anything then the full amount will be due and payable - it's an agreement. It's recordable and it floats along with the title, so if any subsequent owners - in case they were to die or had to sell the property - it would be a part of the condition of the title. That would be an enforceable agreement. For example, if you decided to go the 15 years and then six years from now something happened where the property changed or was developed, the whole amount would be due and payable in that six years - whenever that occurred. The only thing is - between now and when that happens - whatever the shortfall is, you're going to have to be able to pick that up, either internally within the City or by adding it to the general mill rate over the entire City. MAYOR WOODBURN: So we'd get it back eventually. MR. POPOVICH: You may eventually get it back - at some point in time you would. If you spread it over 15 years, you'd get 1/15 of the principal, plus 10% of the outstanding . -8- . . . . balance each year over 15 years. If you have another bond issue at three years and then go out any further, it would mean that you'd have from the sixth year to the fifteenth year money coming in, but meanwhile you'd have to take care of a bond issue. MR. MULCAHY: That's the problem. in the audience saying they want to pay help Mr. Hansen out. Any volunteers? I don't see any people increased taxes to MAYOR WOODBURN: As a point of fact, I don't think we would be paying extra taxes. We would be carrying $9,000 at the end of six years, which I'm sure would be finance able internally and we'd be getting 10% interest on that. I think we have enough money to finance $9,000 in six years and at the end of that period of time - six years or something - it would be paid off. MR. POPOVICH: Your big problem is not this isolated incident, but the precedent you're going to create in the future when other similar situations come before you. You take it on a case by case basis - which obviously you can do - I'm not speaking for or against (inaudible). We do provide deferment for those over 65, but that's a rare situation when that occurs. The statute provides for that. As to the others - it's a matter of looking on a case by case basis, determining if there's any hardship, and then if anybody else comes in on another improvement yet this year or next year and points to this - then you have to be able to distinguish why you wouldn't apply it to them as for somebody else. You start down that road of deferring a lot of improvements, and it could be a problem. That's all I'm saying. $9,000 isn't going to make or break the City - I'm talking about the principle that's involved. MAYOR WOODBURN: Normally, if it isn't development property with a developer, properties are assessed at 10 or 15 years. MR. POPOVICH: The only reason we moved from that 20 years - remember, a number of years ago everything was spread out over 20 years equally - but as the market got worse, then everyone started shortening up on their bond issues to make things more palatable. You will recall in 1982 when we were selling bonds where interest rates were. Something ten or fifteen years - even on definitive financing, very few cities are going out over 15 years. The majority are 15 years or less. The reason for that - it also affects the credit rating with Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service. We do have a good credit rating and part of it is the active participation and the meeting of debt (inaudible) without delaying it needlessly. That's a subjective factor. MAYOR WOODBURN: anybody over a period party. I don't think we've ever assessed less than ten years - for a private -9- MR. POPOVICH: No, we haven't. MAYOR WOODBURN: Developers are something else - they're selling off their lots and they want to get out of there in a few years. How does the Council want to proceed? . COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I'm inclined to the view that ten years is a reasonable accommodation. I'm also impressed by the fact that Hansen benefits from the adjustments, if you will, that you mentioned a moment ago - the paving exemption and the consideration that he has only two lots. I'm per- suaded that in combination those are sufficient accommodations for the assessment decision. I also believe that when that property comes in here for development that we'll be asked to divide it into three lots. (Inaudible) that will mean that somebody - whether it's Hansen or a purchaser - will benefit handsomely from this division. That's as far as I'll go. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: To clarify the acreage - the Hansen lot - assume that this is the Floral Drive right-of-way, which is an easement (inaudible) and you split the distance between Royal Lane and Floral Drive - make a dimension halfway through - take this dimension times this dimension - the square footage is approximately 39,600 square feet, which is slightly less than three lots at 14,000 square feet per lot. That's where the two lots came in. Two lots would be more than and the Council would have to get a variance. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Review for me again, Don - if we were to approve this assessment the way we discussed - six years for all the lots except Hansen's - ten years pay-off on his - what are the disadvantages? One, you set a precedent. We have other hearings tonight and we have other people coming in and asking for the same thing. Two, it would screw up the County some way. MR. POPOVICH: It's an accounting problem - they ought to be able to handle it. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Three, the bond people aren't real excited when we do something like this. What else? MR. POPOVICH: Your cash flow. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Okay, that's the other one. All the other taxpayers would have to chip in. COUNCILMAN HICKS: (Inaudible) comes out of your pockets. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Well where does it come from? COUNCILMAN HICKS: Temporary financing. We ultimately get the money - we just have to carry it for a while. It's a question of whether we have enough reserves to do it. . -10- MAYOR WOODBURN: We do have enough reserves and we've done that before many times. Councilman Hicks then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-44 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-81-5 . 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-81-5, 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, con- sider 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 objec- tions so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumer- ated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefitted 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 are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively. . 4. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 5 hereof, the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 10% 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 six (6) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, and one of each of the remaining install- ments, together with one year's interest on that and all -11- other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 5. The assessment against each of the following lots, pieces and parcels: The East 250 feet of the South 350 feet of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, subject to easements, all in Section 22, Township 30, Range 23. Ramsey County Parcel 25 02200 060 55 . together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel specified and all thereof. The total amount of each assessment against a parcel specified in this paragraph 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, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, 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. 6. 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 resolu- tion. 7. 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 McAllister and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen not yet present); and the following voted against . -12- . ' "II' . . the same: Councilman McAllister; 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 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 regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 29th day of August, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there- from insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-81-5. "':r; "' HAND and Che aeal of ,aid 'iCy Chi, O(':/d of~./)!!R.Aj.t~1)J , 1983. atA/~Wl~ C~ty Clerk Adm~nistrator day (SEAL) -13- 5"k'~3-'i5 .,; E,?'- ~r:. ." Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 29, 1983 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular 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 29, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at 8:30 p.m.); and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will move then to Arden Oaks, Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-81-3. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Mrs. McNiesh, do we have the affidavits of publication? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, I have an affidavit stating that the notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on Thursday, August 11, and certificate of mailing stating that they were mailed on August 12. MAYOR WOODBUffi~: will the engineer briefly explain the improvement. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Your Honor, this is for Improvement SS-W-P-ST-81-3, Arden Oaks, and abutting property. Essen- tially it includes sanitary sewer, watermain and streets. Sanitary sewer beginning at Oak Avenue, extending along Lake Johanna Boulevard, northerly along Highway 10, crossing Highway 10 into Arden Oaks Drive, around Arden Oaks Drive in a loop, down halfway on Wesley Avenue and Arden Oaks Court, ... . and also a stub being placed between private property and Lot 2 of the Arden Oaks subdivision. Watermain beginning at old Highway 10 and Lake Johanna Boulevard, extending northerly along the west side of Highway 10, crossing into Arden Oaks subdivision along Arden Oaks Drive, around Arden Oaks Drive, down Wesley and tying into County Road E, and also a stub along Arden Oaks Court and another stub beside the sanitary sewer and another stub extending across Highway 10 at this point. The green representing storm sewer draining along Wesley Avenue to Arden Oaks Court and around - partially around Arden Oaks Drive and then out into a detention basin. A group of catch basins carrying drainage into another storm water detention basin, and a group of catch basins draining the intersection along the east side of Highway 10, draining into another low area which conducts drainage to the north. It also includes concrete curb and gutter along Arden Oaks Drive - the location around Arden Oaks Drive, Wesley to County Road E, and in Arden Oaks Court. Your Honor, one other thing - there was an error in the assessments as far as descriptions. This property right here was inadvertently assessed with the next property at this location. This property received - the dark colored square represents a half a unit for street. The open square is a full unit for street; sanitary sewer and water - a triangle in an open circle. The solid triangle in an open circle is services. This lot was assessed - this was assumed to be a lot in this area that was assessed for all five units - street, sanitary sewer and water services. We find that the approximate area of this entire lot was somewhat less than what could be divided into two lots. The front portion - where I have drawn a line here, indicating about 14,000 square feet (inaudible). The remaining would be-about 11,300 or so, which is a substandard lot. That's how the assess- ments were placed on that lot - supposedly placed on that lot. Like I said, it was placed on this lot; it was intended to go on this lot. MR. POPOVICH: Is that common ownership - those two lots? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No. This is here, but this lot over here - the assessments for this lot - this ownership of this property here - was inadvertently placed on this piece of property here. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the original estimated cost of this project was $648,665.00. The actual cost as being assessed is $452,580.00. It's 100% assessed. We have the breakdown by five different utilities - sanitary sewer trunk, $2,248.87 per unit; sanitary sewer service, $331.01 per unit; water trunk, $1,637.19 per unit; water service, $239.08 per unit; street and drainage, $5,825.06 per unit - for a total per lot of $10,180 roughly. The proposal is to spread this over six years at the 10% . -2- . . carrying charge that we discussed earlier, with the normal rights of prepayment. As to the error that Mr. Christoffersen brought to your attention - that's not unusual for something like that to happen because of the very nature of the lots. I advised the Clerk's office today to notify the Branches and they're here this evening so they've received actual notice. The purpose of assessment hearings is to give notice to people - they're entitled to get both written notice as well as the published notice in order to satisfy the due process requirements under the federal and state constitutions. I thought if they were here and voice whatever objection they have to the Council - obviously when you didn't get anything in the mail, you didn't think you were going to be assessed, but it's obviously an error that one lot should have the assessment taken off and added to another lot. The rule on assessment hearings is that you don't increase proposed lot assessments to something different from the assessment roll, but if you'll look at the notice - the people receive a notice that there's an assessment roll on file and you can come up and take a look at it - and for. someone to have an assessment and then if you were to increase it at the assessment hearing - you should really do that after giving another notice. So that's why the Branches are here - they got their actual notice so that they're here. Hopefully we can go ahead tonight and adopt the assessment roll. If there were any violent objections, the only other thing we would do is eliminate the lot that received the assessment that shouldn't have it and hold a supplemental assessment hearing two weeks from now and we'd be right back here as we are tonight. That's the reason I made the suggestion that the Branches come to the meeting tonight. They receive the benefit and they don't have any other meritorious objections to the assessment - then obviously we could add that to the assessment roll tonight and certify the whole assessment, without the necessity of going through another publication - only as to that one parcel. As to the remaining parcels, we can certify that one tonight. Maybe that's a little involved as to the procedural part, but in view of the fact that the error was caught timely today - they didn't get written notice but they received actual notice so the due process requirements have been met and they are here. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written objections or comments? MRS. McNIESH: None, you Honor. MAYOR WOODBURN: I will open the hearing then to comments from the audience. Are there any comments from the audience? MRS. KATHY BRANCH, 1415 West County Road E: We received notice of this at approximately 5:05 today. At the last meeting that concerned this road - we did not -3- . receive notice of it at all. The only way I found out about it was because when I called the engineer - I was asking what was happening in the back of our lot - and he said we were wondering why you weren't at the last meeting and I didn't know what meeting he was talking about because I hadn't received notice, which I found, of course, rather distressing because I've been very, very interested in that development back there since it started - interested in where it was going - and I attended many meetings concerning that area because of my concern. In essence, when we're talking about that road - and I'm talking about the one (inaudible) that particular area - there are really only two people who live there that were affected by it and I, being one of them, didn't receive notification of it. I don't want to ponder that statement forever, but I want to emphasize the impact it had. The other thing - as the lot was drawn on there - it was shown that we had something like - well, they called it a lot and then a lot that was substandard. We bought one lot and on the back part of the lot - the part that is called the substandard lot - (inaudible) we bought because it was a pond area and we bought that because it was wild and natural. It had a pond-like area that had ducks and everything in it - not yearly, but at least a good portion of the summer. It was for that that we bought it. We never bought the lot with any plans of developing it. It was bought as one lot. When I called the engineer and asked what was being done to the back lot (inaudible) he talked about the fact that - I should back up - it now doesn't have any water - it hasn't all summer - and there was a drainage system that was built into it that I, as I understand, was okayed at that previous meeting - so our pond is gone, which was part of why we bought that particular lot, because of that habitat. It's a substandard lot that we don't want to develop and already it's being changed from the status that we had and now we're talking about being charged for sewer and all that other stuff on a lot that is being changed in front of us and we don't want it developed. We want to have that pond there just like it always was. The whole area around us has been changing because of the road and I know there's nothing we can do about that - that had to be done to better develop - but that area was our property. We liked what was going on there - we wanted it like that. Without getting emotional - which I am already - I will try to summarize that by saying that I really resent that assess- ment and think it's very unfair. . The other thing I guess I don't understand is I know we have a large lot in depth, but we're being charged more than anyone else in that development and we don't need that road. The people who couldn't get to their property without that road are being charged less than us. That to me seems unjust. Maybe it's because I'm naive to the workings of the govern- ment, but that doesn't seem right. Then, of course, as I kind of elaborated on the fact that - I know people say that when a road is put in it does add to the value of the -4- property and so therefore you should have an assessment, but I want to reiterate the fact that when we bought the property it was a quiet little area like living in the country in the city - that's what we bought it for - and it's already been changed by the road. I won't rehash that to death but that's my feeling. MAYOR WOODBURN: Thank you. We'll be discussing this, I'm sure. . MR. POPOVICH: Kathy, are you and your husband objecting to the lack of notice or really the benefit? If it's the notice too, then we'll just stop talking right now. MR. MELVIN BRM_CH, 1415 West County Road E: What's the benefit? MR. POPOVICH: I'm just asking you - the notice part you'll waive and you want to talk about the benefit. MRS. BRANCH: The only problem about the notice that I had was that if I was supposed to - I guess the fact that I failed to mention (inaudible) something about the reason they put a sewer in the back lot was for future development purposes and I said we don't plan on developing. At that time he said that we'd probably have trouble developing it anyway because Rice Creek Watershed would probably have something to say about that. So he was adding to the fact that I probably could never develop it anyway. So the time limit I'm talking about is that we should have had time to go to Rice Creek Watershed to get some statement from them and we didn't have that (inaudible) other than it was inconvenient. MR. POPOVICH: But the fact that you didn't get notice ten days ago - you just got it today - do you waive that and you want to argue about whether you got the benefit or not or do you want to argue about both? That's important for us for our proceedings because if we have to hold another hearing, we can hear all that argument at a later point and just remove your assessment and then we'll send you a notice and two weeks from now we'll be back here. That's why we asked them to notify you today so you could be here to argue about the merits - whether it ought to be reduced or (inaudible) but if you're going to insist that you have ten days written notice, then obviously we ought to move on. So you waive the notice? MRS. BRANCH: Yes. MR. POPOVICH: And you'll argue about whether you have benefit at all. MRS. BRANCH: Ye s . . MR. POPOVICH: Okay. -5- MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any further comments on this development? MRS. MARJORIE JOHNSTON, 3672 North Snelling Avenue: We have the lot right off Snelling by the Soo Line underpass. What I'm wondering - why are we charged on that back portion? There's no access on the road. We have absolutely no access to that road at all - none whatsoever. That road is not useful to us at all. . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Don, what lot is that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The developer - when he dedicated the right-of-way - dedicated right over abutting their property. There could be access built into there. MRS. JOHNSTON: What good is the access to us when the lot stands there wooded? What good would we get out of it? What benefit are we getting from it now? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Isn't it large enough to split off the back half and make another lot? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes it is. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: You can subdivide. MRS. JOHNSTON: We don't plan to. MR. ROBERT JOHNSTON: We've lived in this area - this same home - in about three months it will be 30 years. We pay taxes on that property on one lot and the people that we bought the home from built it and they probably had the same thing for 20 years- 30 years for us. One of the reasons we kept it undeveloped in the back - of course, progress hits. We liked it when it was the only place in thirteen acres - but this is progress. We want to know who is responsible for the assessments on our property and assuming that we want to subdivide? That's the assumption that we don't understand. Also, $5800 and some assessment for a road - Arden Oaks Drive - it's to the benefit of the new homes in the area - none to us. It's a question of who makes the assessment and who decides if we have two lots. I don't care if it was 500 feet long (inaudible). We've paid taxes for 30 years on one lot. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: (Changed Tape) . . .the land to see whether or not there's potential development and it's brought forth to the Council and the Council makes the final decision on it. The engineer makes the original recommenda- tions. This was what was recommended - that this lot be assessed, assuming that it could be split in half. The front half received a sewer and water trunk and sewer and water service benefit - the back receiving the same - in addition to the street benefit. . -6- MR. JOHNSTON: Who makes the decision? You recommend it - does the Council vote on it then? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you vote that we have two lots? MAYOR WOODBURN: No. That will be or will not be voted tonight. That's why we're here - to listen to you. MR. JOHNSTON: When the assessment is made and when you vote on it - how long does it take? . MR. POPOVICH: Mr. Johnston, if the Council disposes of the matter tonight - like you heard previously - they adopted two other improvements - people have 30 days to come in and pay the assessment if they wish and save any interest. If they don't come within that 30 day period, it's then certified to the County and beginning with your real estate taxes next year, you will pay. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not concerned about the method of paying. I'm concerned about the decision to assume that we were going to subdivide, which we haven't had any desire in 30 years and if I live another 30 years. It's the reason we bought that place - because of the area. It was much better then than it is now - new development (inaudible) that's just progress. We were minding our own business. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have one more question. We now have a neighbor across from our back lot. Are they assessed for the same distance almost as what we are? The corner lot there - are they assessed like we are? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: each lot being assumed to they are. They're assessed on a unit basis - receive the same benefit. Yes, MRS. JOHNSTON: Are we able to see all these assessments? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments from the audience? If not, we'll close the public hearing at this point in time and ask for the Council's comments or questions. COUNCILMAN HICKS: The property on the west side of Old Snelling - is that a part of the assessment? There are a couple of lots in there. Is that the same per unit cost as those on Arden Oaks? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There weren't any services placed in this location. The watermain and the sewer is over practically to the property line, so there weren't any services. These were not assessed for services - they would -7- have to come later. There was an assumption - as a matter of fact, we have a preliminary plat showing three lots - so we assessed three trunk water units and three sanitary sewer units on this property. COUNCILMAN HICKS: I can't remember if the Planning Commission sent that back for further study. I believe their concensus was possibly two lots should be the maximum in that area. If that's the case, how would that change the total assessments on the per unit basis? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The assessment rolls were made up, I believe, prior to the Planning Commission's action. I think that would have to be verified though. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. Zehm? MRS. ZEHM: They were presented with a plat - a subdivision of three lots. The Planning Commission did have some concerns and they wanted to rework it. I believe the engineer based his assessments on a plat that we had a couple of years ago for the three lots. I don't know what the outcome will be. He is coming in this week. He is recording one lot from that preliminary plan, which leaves enough frontage, I think, for another two lots, but whether he can actually get approval of it, I don't know. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Christoffersen, on Wesley Avenue, on the east side - how many lots outside of Arden Oaks are there that are being assessed? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: On the east side of Wesley - here's the south line of the plat. There is one lot platted right in this location and there was some potential - there were some plans in the past showing another. lot being divided across this property at this line. This particular owner that owns this property around the corner - lots 1, 2, part of 3, and lot 19 - there's potential for at least two additional lots and again he was assessed for half a street unit (inaudible). The triangles and squares indicate how the assessments were placed. COUNCILMAN HICKS: While you're on that area, I'd like you to review again the Branch property and what the final total was on the assessment regarding that lot and the questionable portion. MRS. McNIESH: The total assessment on the Branch property is $13,193.74. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Half a street is $2,912.54. . COUNCILMAN HICKS: What I'm asking, Don, is what's your rationale for the greater assessment when that doesn't appear to have any potential for subdivision? -8- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It does have a potential. It depends on how the Council looks at it - on variances for lot size. Potentially - as far as filling the marsh land - there might be a question on it. It's a very small marsh land compared to the drainage that drains into it, so there's a good chance that it could be filled. Whether or not the Councilor the Planning Commission would allow a lot of some standard size is the question. I guess this is - I'd rather place the assessment on it and have the Council take it off than I would leave it off and then have the Council direct me to assess it. It's a matter of placing the assessments for the worst possible conditions for people and getting Council 4It approval of that. COUNCILMAN HICKS: I guess I don't understand the mathematics of what happens when it's assessed and then we take it off. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: If it's assessed and you take it off, then the balance could be handled in two or three different methods. It could be assessed and deferred, similar to the others if it was divided. It could be taken off completely and the balance would then have to be spread - or should be spread then on the remaining lots accordingly. The sewer rates would increase and the water units - all units would increase somewhat. Or, in the third case, if the Council deems that that should be removed and leave the rest of the assessments the way they are, then it could be picked up by other funds from the City, such as general taxes. MRS. ROBERT JOHNSTON: I have one more question. On the sewer that you brought down to the middle of our property - are you assessed for the drainage hole that you put there along the side of our property? Also, what about that lot that's between us and the Soo Line underpass? Who's paying to bring the sewer line up to them? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: same as you on the front trunk, sewer service and They are being assessed for the portion for sewer trunk, water water service. MRS. JOHNSTON: How about that drain field? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The drainage has been included in the street and the developer did the drainage on his property. The drain field is not included in the assessment. MRS. JOHNSTON: They're going to receive the sewer off that line that we're paying for to bring down there, aren't they? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There is a common eight inch sewer that was constructed up to this point and then this common eight inches was considered as a trunk sewer, along with all the rest. -9- MRS. JOHNSTON: How about one that's built on? This man gets how much footage for free? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: They get a complete unit assessment for sewer and water and sewer and water services - the same as you. MRS. JOHNSTON: Who's picking that up? Is the developer? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I assume the developer is at this point in time. . MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that listed on the sheet also? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, it is. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: There's no way I can approve the assessment on that Branch property. That is a substandard lot back there and it's a very substandard lot. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There are some other substandard lots in that area. COUNCILl-1AN !.lcALLISTER: What can we do? When do we make that decision? Tonight? MAYOR WOODBURN: That could be made tonight, and probably should be, or it can be laid over. MR. POPOVICH: You could lay it over for a certain period of time - a week or so - but remember, we have to get something down to the County Auditor. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I know. I hate to lay it on the engineering firm that did this, but I think that was a terrible error. (Inaudible) and then put a substandard lot for assess- ments. In good conscience, I just can't vote for that. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? MR. POPOVICH: My suggestion would be - procedural-wise now - we have to amend the assessment roll and take off the one lot that has the assessment that shouldn't be assessed. You can also amend the assessment roll if collectively you feel that the Branches haven't received an assessment benefit for part of the property. They've waived the notice part, but it's that back lot. The other portion there of the lot - you could put that assessment on tonight - whatever that benefit is, forgetting about the back lot - if that's the concensus of the thing by moving ahead. Do you have a figure for that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Half a unit is $2,912.54. . MR. POPOVICH: How much would come off of that half lot? How much would come off if they followed Diane McAllister's suggestion as to that rear lot? -10- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That would be taking about $10,281.21 off. MR. POPOVICH: So $13,193.74, you subtracted $10,281.21, that comes to $2,912.53. From $13,000 down to $2900. I>1AYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: The proposal we're discussing now - we're taking off from the rear - or substandard - assessment, all of the water and all of the sewer and all of the road that has been assessed there. That's what's been subtracted. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: And the services for sewer and water. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Leaving only half a unit, the theory being that there's just one lot there and just side exposure or frontage, so that only half the road is appropriate, the problem being that the rest of that assessment has to be picked up somewhere. Mr. Popovich, did you say we could adjust the assessments on the other lots? MR. POPOVICH: We have a total assessment of $452,000. We're really talking about $10,281. We couldn't go back tonight and spread that $10,000 on the rest, because'they're all entitled to notice. You could spread it at a later date, as to whether you want to do it with $10,000, but the question is - out of a project of $452,000, whether you could absorb $10,000 over the life of this because of the 10% carrying charge and what have you - if you wanted to do that. The same principle applies here as we talked about earlier. It's (inaudible) it's easier to pick up from (inaudible) but if it becomes major, then it creates a bigger problem and you have precedent involved. The big question is - did it receive a benefit or didn't it? Is this a buildable lot or isn't it? If you're satisfied in your own mind that it's not and it did not receive a benefit, then we have no right to assess them anyhow. You have to come to the conclusion that it has received a benefit to the extent of the proposal. MAYOR WOODBURN: Could we ask the Council - so we .can go forward - does anybody think that there is a benefit - a full benefit - to the Branch's lot? Does anybody think that? COUNCILMAN HICKS: I don't think so. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I don't think so. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Let's consider right now that we're not considering that a divisible lot. Any further questions or comments from the Council? -11- COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Do we wish to return to the question on the Johnston property (inaudible) in terms of the possibility of a longer payoff period? . COUNCILMAN HICKS: It seems to me that that's a reasonable thing to do, on the same basis as what we've just done on the Hansen property. That would be my position. The next question is - there are lots 16 and 17 - that's private ownership, out- side of Arden Oaks - and then there's the property across the road, although that property across the road is in the process of being subdivided. We might logically use the six year rule on that and ten years on the other private property. (Changed tape) . . . might argue that they should have a ten year period like any other private ownership outside of the Arden Oaks development. It's a little different, in a way, because lot 16, I think, is for sale and the owner may not have it long. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: is that not true also on piece and that's one big ship. Following up on your observation - the Behr property? That's a large assessment and that's single owner- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is single ownership. MRS. McNIESH: That has a total assessment of $23,474.95. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There have been some plans submitted to the City (inaudible) indicating that this would be a lot and they would divide off this portion in here as a lot some- how. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: point is that we ought to here (inaudible). I can see that, but I think the be concerned with the principle COUNCILMAN HICKS: I would guess that that particular site is more likely to be subdivided and sold, more likely than the Johnston property. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: That could be, but we all know that it sometimes takes a long time to sell. COUNCILMAN HICKS: My point is - if you apply the ten year rule to that property also (inaudible). MRS. ZEHM: subdivide as Don lots - the Behr I might add that they do have approval to Christoffersen had described - those two lot. They just have not recorded it. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Is that something that lasts forever? MRS. ZEHM: There's no time limit. . -12- MAYOR WOODBURN: It's up for recording any time. Anything more from the Council? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I have a question for the engineer. Refresh my memory - is the easement to the Johnston property (inaudible) oak trees? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. Originally we were planning to take the sewer and water in this direction to this point and they were concerned about oak trees being removed, so rather than going this route, we came in this route. We do have an easement along their property. We didn't disturb the oak trees. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Did that cost us more money? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, it did. I don't recall the figure. MRS. RHODA BEHR, 1401 West County Road E: Like the Branches, we've lived here for 36 years and like the Branches we like the area - and the Johnstons. We have no intention of selling property, but we're going to be forced to because of our taxes. That's why we put a potential lot in - because I'm informed that we are going to be taxed some $23,474. Out of that, I was told that we are - out of that, $14,562 is for the street - as our half of the street - the street that we don't want. We liked it the way it was. It's going to cost us some $14,000 for a street that we didn't want. We have a street in front of our house. We don't need that street. MR. WILLIAM BEHR, 1401 West County Road E: We also have water in the basement out of it. I've contacted the contractor and they don't even come to look. I don't think we're getting a fair shake on any of this. Wno do I bring this up to - that we get a dry basement again? MRS. BEHR: When they put this road in, they also pushed dirt onto - there are two piles of dirt on our property right now. Why it's there, I don't know. Nobody asked us if they could shove this dirt from the development on our property. Now it's washing into the road. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, you don't inspect that personally, but your office does. Has anyone brought that to your attention? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I will bring it to their attention. MAYOR WOODBURN: I think we have contour levels through that whole area. Do you think we have the ability to do something about that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. . -13- MRS. BEHR: I just want $10,000 addition onto ours. for the street alone. to go on record - don't throw that We're already being taxed $14,000 MAYOR WOODBURN: Was that property developable before? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, it was. It's a developable piece of property, as far as services. MAYOR WOODBURN: Did it have services prior to this? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, it did not. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Did it have any road (inaudible). MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, it did not - only what's on lot 19. MR. WILLIAM BEHR: Who do I contact to come and take care of water in my basement? It wasn't there before all this development started. ~ would like a little action on this one way or another. The water is in the basement as of tonight and I've talked since the last rain to the engineer and they said well, we'll see, and that's it. All I'm asking is who do I contact? Do I have to go to an attorney or what? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I visited with Mr. Behr on the project to explain what the project consisted of and that there would be grading along the edges, maybe even encroaching somewhat on his property. We indicated to him that although it hasn't been done yet, the property would be graded and sodded in the area and also seeded behind where the dirt has been placed. It would be regraded down to grade. I believe most of it is in the boulevard area - there may be some on his property. He did mention to me the water in his basement. This was probably a month and a half ago that we met with him (inaudible) the wet season that we've been having. He is somewhat on top of a hill, although at one time (inaudible) it's difficult to tell why he's having water in his basement. This is somewhat on top of a hill also - this marshland - and the water is percolating through the soil into his base- ment. I really don't see how the project itself has added to it because the project is well (inaudible). As a matter of fact, I think the project is going to improve it because it will remove some of the ponded water from the area. As far as his having water in the basement - I would assume that there are many homes in Arden Hills that have water in the basement this year because of the wet weather we've had. MR. BEHR: year. (Inaudible) since this project started this . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: You're right - you probably had it this year because this has been one of the wettest years we've experienced. -14- MAYOR WOODBURN: Further comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Again, I would like to inquire whether there's an emerging concensus of the Council on the ten year time period for the lots not held by the developer. I would like especially to hear from Councilman McAllister because of her vote on the last project. . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I think we're opening a can of worms. Every assessment hearing from here on out we'll be having people (inaudible) who are going to want it for ten years (inaudible). I really don't know - mathematically - the difference between spreading it over six years or ten years. The first year it makes a big difference. I'm afraid we're going to have this at a lot of hearings (inaudible) and we'll have all kinds of deferments. I think it's a bad thing to start. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: The whole question is whether we can truthfully say that we have a greater obligation to people who have been with us a long time than we do to people (inaudible). COUNCILMAN HICKS: I support the ten years on two parcels - the Johnston site and the Branch site (inaudible). It's long term residents versus development. MAYOR WOODBURN: We're not looking at long term resi- dents - we're looking at our policy of development (inaudible) whether it's 30 years or one year has nothing to do with that. The developer has a particular development agreement to these particular sites (inaudibLe) accelerated pay-off. It has nothing to do with long term residents. It's a particular development agreement with a contractor. I think we should dispose of the fact that the taxpayers are paying (inaudible). The truth of the matter is that Arden Hills will benefit from this. We'll be getting more interest (inaudible). I'm certain that in the long term the taxpayers of Arden Hills will not pay a penny (inaudible) ten years versus six years. We're going to be getting it back with interest, above the interest we may be getting otherwise. COUNCIU4AN MULCAHY: (inaudible). You might as deserving of the ten the distinction. I thank you for that clarification treat the property across Snelling year (inaudible). I'm concerned about . MAYOR WOODBURN: As far as the years (inaudible) years are good for Arden Hills. We're all citizens of Arden Hills. To me it's not critical on the west side of Snelling either how we handle that, particularly because it is to be developed and platted out. Our previous action would indicate that it would have to be paid off at that point (inaudible). It's how the Council wants to treat this. I think, with the lack of any particular agreement, such as developers ordinarily -15- sign - which he signed, incidentally, for six years, and for six years only because of the bonding time. That's why they're spread for six years there. We've never done less than ten years for any lot in Arden Hills. I would like to ask Mr. Popovich - since this is unique - in respect to the $10,000 that the Council seems agreed upon as the decrease in assess- ments for the Branch property - could there be - if one wanted to - a later assessment hearing, spreading that over the remainder? . MR. POPOVICH: It gets impractical for costs - you have to publish your notice, send all that stuff out and have your other hearing, and really - on a $400,000 project - we're going to pick up that extra 1%, so we're going to pick up $40,000 that first year to cover administrative costs so that should (inaudible). If that's all we're going to change on it, I'd say, at that point, that we should forget it. MAYOR WOODBURN: Legally you could do it? MR. POPOVICH: Legally you could do it. Of course, you'd have to say there were some additional benefits to them with that additional cost. All assessments are based on whether they're benefitted - if the market value is benefitted. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Is your criteria six years for a developer and ten years for everyone else? I~YOR WOODBURN: I think the properties in question whether they should be ten or six - it's third level properties - I don't think it's going to matter. COUNCIu~N McALLISTER: track of the books. (Inaudible) for whoever keeps MAYOR WOODBURN: Direction has to be made for those who keep track of the books. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Does it throw off our bookkeeping anyway? MRS. McNIESH: If we have some six and ten, it's more apt to affect the County than the City bookkeeping. Councilman Hicks then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-45 RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-8l-3 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: . -16- 1. The proposed assessments for Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-81-3 should be and are hereby amended as follows: Name and Address Marjorie Erickson Peterson 1423 County Road E W. St. Paul, MN . Melvin Branch 1415 County Road E St. Paul, MN walter M. & Delores E. Dunnett 1541 Oak Avenue St. Paul, MN 55112 Walter M. & Delores E. Dunnett 1541 Oak Avenue St. Paul, MN 55112 Walter M. & Delores E. Dunnett 1541 Oak Avenue St. Paul, MN 55112 Description of Property Change Made Or1ginal Revised Parcel Code No. 25 67500 020 02 $13,193.74 $ o Parcel Code No. 25 67500 030 02 o 2,912.53 Shady Oaks Addn. Parcel Code No. 25 67500 031 04 11,658.18 o Shady Oaks Addn. Parcel Code No. 25 67500 033 04 o 3,886.06 Shady Oaks Addn. Parcel Code No. 25 67500 034 04 o 7,772.12 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 McAllister and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks and Mulcahy; and the following voted against the same: Councilman McAllister (Councilman Christiansen abstained, as he was not present for the entire hearing); whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman Hicks then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: . -17- Resolution No. 83-46 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS AS AMENDED FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-81-3 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-81-3, 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 pro- visions 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 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 assess- ments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objec- tions 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. adopted each of The proposed assessments as amended are hereby and confirmed as the proper special assessments for said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively. 4. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 5 hereof, the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 10% 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 six (6) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, 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. . -18- 5. The assessment against the following lot, piece and parcel: Robert W. Johnston 3672 North Snelling Avenue St. Paul, MN Parcel Code No. 25 67500 120 03 . together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel specified and all thereof. The total amount of each assessment against the parcel specified in this paragraph 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, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, 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. 6. 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 resolu- tion. 7. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified dupli- cate 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 McAllister and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks and Mulcahy, and the following voted against the same: Councilman McAllister (Councilman Christiansen abstained, as he was not present for the entire hearing), whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . -19- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared tIt_ the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 29th day of August, 1983, 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-81-3. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this of~~ay of ,:~ ' 1983. ~~ff}~ C1ty Clerk Adm1n1strator (SEAL) . '/Z& /3'-;'7 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 29, 1983 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular 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 29, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at 8:30 p.m.); and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBUffi~: We will now go on to Improvement No. SS-83-2. I will open the public hearing at this time. MRS. McNIESH: I have the affidavit of publication indi- cating that notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on August 11 and notices were mailed to the affected property owners on August 12. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is for the extension - approximately 590 feet - this is Red Fox Road and Trunk Highway 51 in this location and 694 is up to the north. This is extending sanitary sewer approximately 590 feet along the north side of Red Fox Road, with a two inch force main of about 400 feet. . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total cost is $29,970.00. It's proposed to be 100% assessed. The sanitary sewer works out to $24.03 per foot. The sani- tary sewer service force main is $7,454.19. We're proposing to assess that over a ten year period. This improvement has not been included in any bond issue - it's been handled 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 woul.d 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- excessive (inaudible) and void. Now, because of the fact that under Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, it's necessary - if you're trying to protect your rights - you have to have a written objection. I have one here that I've written out in longhand and because you may have some difficulty reading my handwriting, I'm going to read this into the record and then file it with you, Mr. Mayor, in accordance with the provisions of the statute. . Dated this day and directed to the City Council, City of Arden Hills, Improvement 55-83-2, and giving Mr. Reiling's parcel identification number from the assessor's office. This is to inform you that George Reiling, the owner of the property on the north side of Red Fox Road, east of Lexington Avenue, does object to the proposed assessment against his property for public improvement 55-83-2 for sewer extension to 1315 Red Fox Road. The Reiling property is unplatted and identified as except the west 406 feet and except the east 515 feet, being part of the northeast quarter lying southerly of Highway 694 (subject to roads and easements) in Section 27, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Mr. Reiling objects upon the grounds that the assessment is greater than the economic benefit to his premises and is not equitably spread between the benefitted properties. Signed by me as Mr. Reiling's attorney and it's also approved by Mr. Reiling and his signature is affixed to that. I'm filing that with you at this time Mr. Mayor and again, I would reiterate that the - Mr. Christoffersen's judgment determination is that the property to the south of Red Fox Road has no economic benefit, but Mr. Reiling has - the property that wanted and needed the assessment has a smaller assessment than Mr. Reiling. We feel it's inequitably spread between those properties. We feel there is no - or very little - economic benefit to Mr. Reiling because he does have a sewer running north and south to his property and would be serviced from that particular sewer as far as this development is concerned. . The other option that the Council had and chose not to accept and followed Mr. Christoffersen's recommendation, was to carry the force main from the existing gravity line all the way over to the property to the west - the one that wanted this. If this had been done, then clearly Mr. Reiling could not have been assessed. He cannot be assessed for the portion that fronts on the force main because you can't have two outlets into a force main because obviously, unless the pressures were exactly equal and you had a lot of complicated gate valves and so on, if one person is forcing their sewage into the line, it would back up into the other line unless, as I said, pressures were exactly equal or it was controlled by a series of exotic gate valves, which would be expensive to maintain as well as to install. But they could have had a force main all the way up to the sanitary main and then there would be no question about the assess- ment. -3- . The judgment of the Council has been to adopt the choice recommended by Mr. Christoffersen - that is, partly force main because without a force main, the property to the west could not have been served. It's at a lower elevation than the distance of the previously existing sanitary line, which goes to the point which is indicated on Mr. Reiling's proposed plat as the north/south street at the left end, or the left end of the horseshoe. That's where the main comes at the present time. As I said, originally Mr. Christoffersen apparently recommended assessing Mr. Reiling for the area of the force main as well, but that apparently changed and at the present time he is only proposed to be assessed for the area that fronts on the gravity section of the line. It is his position - and we believe that we can substan- tiate it - it's his position that there is no economic benefit - or very little economic benefit - to his property. It's a matter of equity and it's a matter of judgment. Mr. Christoffersen's judgment is apparently that Mr. Reiling is benefitted. Mr. Christoffersen obviously is no expert on real estate values and he 'is simply making a judgment call. We feel, under these circumstances - and as illustrated by Mr. Reiling's proposed plat - and he's told you this before - I'm not going to harp on it - but it has little or no benefit. In other words, no increase in the value to his property by reason of extending this main to the property to the west that wanted and needed it. You could have done it for a more economic price had you gone force main the entire distance, but you chose not to do that. This didn't benefit Mr. Reiling and you would have had no benefit had it been force main all the way, but apparently - in a desire to spread the cost - Mr. Reiling's property was included. We also object to the fact that the property to the south, across Red Fox Road, could also be serviced by this particular main. At the present time, they're serviced by the north/south main - the one that Mr. Reiling proposes to use. We find it difficult to understand how Mr. Christoffersen - in his judgment - can state that Mr. Reiling's property is benefitted but the International Paper Company's property to the south is not benefitted. Its improvements are set back from the road a sufficient distance - additional buildings could be built on the south side of Red Fox Road and tied into this by either open trench or jacking under the street. In other words, it would have a potential benefit. We feel it has at least an economic benefit in an equal amount or greater than that benefitting Mr. Reiling's property. . So for all of those reasons, members of the Council, we respectfully object to the proposed assessment and, as I said, we have filed our objection for the record. I think you all understand the principles of this assessment very well and I think Judge Popovich has very ably stated the economic and legal principles involved. If you have any questions, we'll be happy to try to answer them at this time. -4- MAYOR WOODBURN: I guess I do have one. This is just proposed division that you're talking about. MR. DAUBNEY: Yes. . MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) putting in a street right here. I presume, since this has never had a frontage assess- ment for sewer, that you would be willing - with this proposal - to pay a frontage rate on the sewer here. As I said, I believe (inaudible) does not have frontage assess- ments on that end of the property. You're proposing a street to be put in. I presume when the street goes in you would have to pay frontage on that. Is that what you would be willing to do? MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Mayor, I'm making no presumptions at this time and that issue is not before the Council. If Mr. Reiling is permitted to address the Council, he can tell you his view on that. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is this division in front of the Council? MR. DAUBNEY: We have not filed a preliminary plat as of this date. This is a preliminary sketch, prepared by a registered land surveyor - Milner Carley and Associates on Highway 96 over in the City of Shoreview, if I recall correctly. They are professional planners and he is City Attorney - correction, City Engineer - in the City of Little Canada, and I believe also in New Brighton, if I recall correctly. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? MR. GEORGE REILING, 661 Heinel Drive West, Roseville: I would like to answer your question about whether we would accept the assessment on the new line on the new road. I would accept that assessment if International Paper would accept there's. They hooked on the same line. If you look back in your records, you'll see that they didn't - they were assessed originally an area assessment for sewer when it went through many years ago. (Inaudible) I told this Council last spring - when the watermain came through, they assessed us on two sides because they - the engineers - decided that we could have a road where we now decided to have it. We have a double assessment for water in that particular area. Now what you're saying - we shouldn't use that. We are going to use it. We're going to put a road in there and we are going to use the sewer and we are going to use the water because we have a double assessment. It isn't prudent for us to use a sewer on Red Fox Road when we have the one on the new road that comes in. . MR. TIM NELSON, 2015 Rice Street, Roseville, Attorney for Mr. Nielsen: Although we had hoped that the portion -5- of the assessment for Mr. Nielsen could be less than it has been proposed, we are willing to agree to the assessment as proposed. I think it is a reasonable accommodation between the parties and the normal way such an improvement would be assessed. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? I will close the public hearing at this time and ask for the Council's comments and recommendations. COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: I have a question on the fron~age. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, could you explain how the assessments were arrived at. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Mr. Reiling was assessed for 700 feet at the rate of $24.03 for gravity sewer and the Nielsen property was assessed 237 feet at the same rate - $24.03. Mr. Nielsen was also assessed $7,454 for the sanitary sewer force main. Reiling's totals $16,821 and the Nielsen's was $13,149.30. COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: Mr. Reiling's frontage on Red Fox Road is what? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Approximately 900 feet. MR. DAUBNEY: 875 feet from this point over to the west line - that is the existing main. He's assessed 700 feet of the 875 feet, assuming Mr. Carley's figures are accurate. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Our figures came off the section map - the county section map. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is there any disagreement there? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I believe there is. There's a discrepancy of 25 feet. MR. DAUBNEY: (Inaudible) measured from the center of this proposed street over to where the sanitary sewer main is. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: If he measures from the west side of the proposed street, then there would be the difference. That would be approximately a half a street. MR. DAUBNEY: Can you tell us precisely where the main comes to at this point? Is this map accurate? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That map was shown at the public hearing for the improvement and at this hearing. . MR. DAUBNEY: That's a slight discrepancy. ~- COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Christoffersen, why did we not assess anything south of Red Fox Road? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Because those properties - there are two properties that are developed and have sewer. A portion of that property has a storm water detention basin on it. We could not visibly see any potential further connection to those properties - they already have the sewer benefit, which they have paid for. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Daubney said it would have been cheaper to run a force main all the way - bypass Reiling's tt property. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That was in the original proposal. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Was that cheaper? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Why didn't we do that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The proposal was to run gravity sewer as far as possible, for the same reason that it was run to the east of this existing north/south line. There was a sanitary sewer running to the east of that, which Mr. Reiling was assessed for, I believe, under the Red Fox Road improve- ment, and which is also being used on the east end. This is a similar situation on the west side - there is a potential for gravity use. This is the approximate location, I assume (using Mr. Reiling's map), of the existing sewer line going north and south. When Red Fox Road was constructed, the sanitary sewer was constructed to the east, which was assessed. We also practiced the same thing in this direction - taking one as far as we could to the west - on the premise that this property was divided and there are two parcels using the sewer (inaudible). If this was divided the other direction, there certainly would be a use for that sanitary sewer - that gravity sewer. MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Christoffersen, if this property had previously been developed and parcel 7 was serviced off the proposed north/south road on the west side of the horseshoe - if that were developed as the property to the south is developed - would you still have recommended an assessment of 700 feet, even though the owner and user of that lot wasn't going to hook into the sewer on Red Fox Road? I'm asking you to make that assumption here because that's what you're doing on everyone of these assessments. You're making an assumption as to benefits. tt MR. POPOVICH: Except, Jack - and I think you're going too far and I'd instruct him not to answer that - because it's an entirely different set of facts than what we have here right now. -7- MR. DAUBNEY: I disagree, Peter. The property to the south - Mr. Christoffersen said he's not recommending an assessment for them, even though the sewer runs past their property, even though it's on the other side of the street - he says he's not going to assess them because they're already hooked into a different main down here. Mr. Reiling says - I'm going to hook into a different main up here. I think that's a valid assumption and I think it's an appropriate question to direct to the engineer. If he's going to (inaudible) judgment call - and that's what it is - then I think we should find out how he based that judgment. . MR. POPOVICH: Except that what you have here is purely speculative - what is south is a fact - and I don't think we ought to get involved in a speculative plat that mayor may not come through. MR. DAUBNEY: I think it's a reasonable, prospective use of Mr. Reiling's property (inaudible). MR. POPOVICH: Let's say they made a mistake in what they did south - at previous assessment hearings. Whatever they did south would not be binding on what they would do from this point forward. For example, Mr. Reiling said well, they didn't assess the street down below - I can't remember whether they did or not - but if they put that street along the lines that the Mayor was asking about and there were utilities and a benefit - they could assess, irrespective of what happened down there. MR. DAUBNEY: Again, as you said Peter, that's specula- tive. MR. POPOVICH: It depends on the benefits received. MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Mayor, I know you have other things on your agenda tonight - I don't want to monopolize the Council's time. I appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation here this evening. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Can anyone tell me whether or not the properties - the development south of Red Fox Road - paid both a frontage and an area assessment for sewer? MR. POPOVICH: We'd have to go back and check the records. I can't remember. MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Hicks, I have my own personal know- lege about that - I participated in the development (inaudible). I don't think they had a frontage assessment - they did have an area assessment. That's my recollection. I didn't represent the paper company, but I was representing other property owners in that area. . -8- MR. REILING: That isn't my answer, your Honor. MAYOR WOODBURN: Well, do you agree with your attorney MR. REILING: I don't expect him to know as much about my property as I know. First came the area assessment, then came the front footage on Red Fox Road. We were given credit for the area assessment on Red Fox Road. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Popovich, I didn't hear you say what time period is recommended on this assessment. . MR. POPOVICH: We recommended ten years at 10%. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Can you mark the spot on your lay- out there where the change takes place (inaudible). MR. DAUBNEY: About that point, sir (indicating on map). Assuming it developed that way (inaudible). COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: What you have there with respect to the proposed layout - several lots around the horseshoe - that shows lots of a much smaller size than proposed lot 7. Why wouldn't it be reasonable for us to assume that lot 7 would develop in somewhat the same configuration as proposed lot 1, so that there would be four - perhaps five - north/south (inaudible) lot 7 served by Red Fox Road, as to which - some of which, at least - Mr. Reiling's property would benefit from the service to Red Fox Road. MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Mulcahy, that's a very good question. I think I have an answer for that. First of all, the portion that is west of where the force main ends - that area - if that was in a north/south lot - it would have no sanitary sewer available to it because we can't tap into that other force main. So you would have to have at least a lot that was large enough to hook into the gravity main here and then again have your building back here and have your construc- tion - grade your property so your sanitary sewer flowed to the east and then south. You couldn't develop in the area fronting on the force main - and I'm sure Mr. Christoffersen would agree with that, would you not Don? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I would say that you would require perhaps - although there has been some building on that end recently - and I really don't know what the grades are - but it could be connected by gravity extended diagonally from that point - from the gravity service. If it could not be, it could be treated the same way as the Nielsen lot. It could be - mayor may not have a force main system in the building over in that corner. . -9- MR. DAUBNEY: You're saying that you could hook a force main - you could hook into an existing force main? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, I'm saying that you could extend the force main to the same manhole that you have circled there and discharge into that gravity sewer. MR. DAUBNEY: In other words, have two force mains. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. . MR. DAUBNEY: We feel that would not be economically feasible. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: (Inaudible) the lots east of there. MR. DAUBNEY: (Inaudible) such as lots 6 and 7 are larger sites is because in developing an industrial tract, we find that people need a variety of sizes of lots for different types of development. This is all zoned industrial, as is the property to the south, and we've found that in developing - and I say "we" because I've participated with other developers in this area - we've found that people looking for land are looking for different sized lots. Some of them want small lots. It's entirely possible - as I said - you might find people that want small lots. Mr. Reiling's concept of the development - his proposed platting - is in this particular configuration - having a large lot in the west end - simply because his lot and his tract demands some type of development for that type. For example, lot 6 is triangular - not because he likes a triangular lot but because that's what he owns. Again, the land on the other side, as we said, is not owned by him. As a matter of fact, I think that's part of the right-of-way. He goes up to 694 and I think this is part of of the interchange land owned by the State Board - the interchange of Snelling and 694. Councilman McAllister then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-47 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-83-2 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-83-2 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, -10- , . without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the pro- visions 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 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 assess- ments. . 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objec- tions 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 was and is specially benefitted 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 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% 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, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, 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. . -11- ", . , . . The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Hicks, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All; and the following voted against the same: None; 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 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 regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 29th day of August, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there- from insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. 55-83-2. seal of said City this~~ w~.. M MY~l\ND and the day of 41- '-1) , 1983. i ~/~WJzfJ2~ ) C~ty er m~n~strator (SEAL) Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota August 29, 1983 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was . held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 29,1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at 8:30 p.m.)l and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator 1 Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerkl Donald Lamb, City Treasurer, Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineerl and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll move on now to proposed improve- ment W-83-5, south of State Trunk Highway 96. MRS. McNIESH: I have an affidavit stating that this notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on Thursday the 18th of August and on Thursday the 25th of August, and I have the certificate of mailing the notices on August 12th. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Your Honor, this is proposed water improvement W-83-5. The general location of the improvement is State Trunk Highway 96 and Highway 10. The proposed improvement is for the extension of a watermain between an existing 12 inch watermain at the intersection of 10 and 96 southerly along the west side of 10 -- actually it's along the west side of the frontage road of 10 -- southerly to the existing 12 inch watermain that crosses under Highway 10 just slightly north of Trunk Highway 96. We have investigated this improvement and find it to be feasible from an engineering standpoint. . . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total cost estimated here is $124,400.00. Of course, this is the feasibility hearing, so we won't know the actual cost until after the construction. Assuming there are 2500 feet of assessable frontage - of benefitted property - according to the engineer, and assuming it's 100% assessed, it would be $49.76 per front foot - roughly $50.00 per front foot. Whether we assess this over a period of ten years, six years - what have you - there are a lot of residents here so I would assume that a ten year period might be suggested - but we have no financing at this time because there is no pending bond issue. This will be handled internally and assuming there are enough of those, there will an issue next year or the year thereafter, which mayor may not pick this up, but will if it's required. For purposes of assessment costs, we would, of course, recommend at least 10%, but if interest rates are higher then, we would have a different carrying charge, depending on what the bond issues are, so we're at least that 1% over. MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any written questions or objections or comments? MRS. McNIESH: No, I have no written comments. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open this to comments from the audience in that case. Any comments from the audience? MRS. CHRISTINE MELQUIST, 1699 Chatham Avenue: My husband and I purchased the lot on Round Lake, just south of 4345, and I have some questions I would like to ask. My husband was wondering if it would be possible to use a six inch water line instead of an eight inch water line since - if you were to put in water - it would be a closed water loop - considering that a six inch line has enough cross-sectional area to handle 36 one inch residential lines and a six inch line would save $5.40 per foot. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll take these questions one at a time - I think you have more than one. Does your husband hire out for engineering? We may be looking around. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: First of all, I'd have to check out the unit prices. The unit prices I used (inaudible) the difference between an eight and a six is $4.00 a linear foot. The eight inch watermain extension is part of the whole water- main system in the City of Arden Hills, as planned in 1969. For flow rates, it was felt that an eight inch was necessary in this particular area. It's not necessary for domestic use. If it was just domestic use, probably a six inch would work, but we're looking at fire protection and we have to get a certain amount of flow for "peak day" types of things for fire flow. So it's really the fire flow needs that dictate the size of the watermain. -2- MRS. MELQUIST: Also, could the sod be eliminated and covered (inaudible) considering that savings would be $11.10 per foot - $2.00 per square yard (inaudible). If the home- owners could do it themselves, they could save some money. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It's been the City policy in the past to replace sod where sod is damaged and grass is damaged and to seed those areas that are not maintained lawns. Obviously, the Council - I suppose - could eliminate the sod if all of the residents along the route approve of that and do their own maintenance. That's certainly possible, but it hasn't been done in the past. MAN IN AUDIENCE: Is it really $11.00 a foot for sod? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: $2.00 a square yard. MRS. MELQUIST: How much savings would you realize by combining this project with the. proposed water improvement north of 96? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It's difficult to say. The esti- mates that we have included here are assuming that this would - if it was approved - be in the same contract. So the savings are reflected in this estimate. It could be more or less, but we were using the idea of combining the two projects. MRS. MELQUIST: What would be the cost of connecting up to the houses? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The homes in that area are set back. The estimate that Peter quoted you includes serviceS to the property line. As you well know, most of the homes are some distance from the right-of-way line - most of them are - a few of them are closer. It depends, obviously, on how far away you are. Up to the north end, they're practi- cally right next to the watermain. We were using $2,000 just for a connection. That's a different type of construc- tion. We were figuring all the way to the house, but that's an unusual case. I guess, to get an exact quote from a plumber would be the best way to approach that - for you to contact a plumber, a licensed plumber - maybe one or two of them - and have them come out and measure from the right-of- way line to your house and give you a quote. There may be some internal plumbing that is necessary also. MRS. MELQUIST: What are the chances of ever being reimbursed by the army for the contamination problems? Do the chances of being reimbursed fall if we put this improvement in before the pollution issue is resolved? And also, if the water is not (inaudible) health standards, would the army be obligated to reimburse us? . -3- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: My understanding of that issue is that currently, the Environmental Protection Agency has not considered this as a source to use superfunds because they do not - the Minnesota PCA recognizes there are traces in some wells along this reach - but they are not harmful. They have determined that they are not harmful at this time. A simple answer to your question - at this point in time it is not foreseeable that the EPA would contribute their superfunding to reimburse you. . MAYOR WOODBURN: I think the question may not have been answered . . . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I don't want to encourage (inaudible) that they're going to get payment for it. MAYOR WOODBURN: Future damages and suing back - I don't know if we have the expertise on that to answer you. COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: Based on our discussions with agents from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, it would appear that, at this time, the contamination is not sufficient enough south of 96 to warrant PCA or EPA to fund this project. Once this project is built and assessed out, the chances of getting the army or EPA to reimburse you for the expenses of this project are probably nil. MRS. MELQUIST: Would the assessment be at 100% or would the City or army share part of the cost? MR. POPOVICH: We've recommended 100% for purposes of the feasibility hearing. Obviously, if you have any extra money in between now and the assessment hearing - then it would be up to the Council to determine how to handle it. For purposes of tonight, you'd better assume you're paying for it by yourself. MAYOR WOODBURN: What has been the past policy on water- mains? MR. POPOVICH: It has varied. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I believe that the City did pick up part of the last improvement in that area. MR. POPOVICH: It has varied in previous projects - some at 100% and some where portions have been picked up by the City, depending on the particular needs of the project. MRS. MELQUIST: I'll let some other people ask some questions. Thank you. . MRS. JEANNE WINIECKI, 4471 Highway 10: The question is - did the potential for the contamination draw attention to the fact that this area should be served by water? The -4- question is - is the water coming because of the potential for contamination? And if that's the case, why are we paying $50.00 a foot for it? If that's not the case, we really find ourselves in a Catch-22 - the people to be served by this line. We're afraid of contamination - weire concerned about the water - but yet I'm sure there's no one in the room that would like to pay $50.00 a foot for it. MR. JAMES WINIECKI, 4471 Highway 10: How much was charged per foot when the water went up 96? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I believe the rate was $13.00 plus - close to $14.00.a foot. MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) along 10 there. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I would assume - of course, it's hard to tell because that wasn't included in the improvement - the COuncil did consider a very large water improvement at that time. I don't recall what percentage the Council deter- mined to be picked up by the City. MR. JAMES WINIECKI: That's close - $13.00 or $14.00 a foot - which leads into my next question. We shared in that cost. I believe our portion was about $600 or $700. Now you're asking us to pick up a full 100% assessment. Why aren't these other people being asked - the rest of the village - to share in the cost? I don't quite understand that. We're going to pay $50.00 or $60.00 a foot when we helped pay for their water. Why isn't the rest of the village helping us to pay for it? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Your Honor, there was an area charge of $419.46 per acre on the properties in between - right in the area of the current proposed watermain. The Council assessed those people an area charge because of the proximity of the watermain being constructed. In other words, it will help offset bringing watermain to that area. Had the eight inch watermain gone in at that time, the Council most likely would have charged a front foot cost more than $14.00 a front foot, but I don't believe the Council would have charged an acre charge at that time. MR. WINIECKI: Couldn't we go back and charge all the other residents an acre charge to help pay for ours? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's entirely up to the Council. To go back and charge somebody else an acreage charge - they have already paid an acreage charge and a front footage charge. Only those people beyond (inaudible). We can't go back and charge. MR. DWIGHT CARLSON, 4345 Highway 10: \~at accounts for that substantial increase - to roughly $50.00 from $14.00? . -5- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It was the increase in price per foot for watermain. Remember now, the City picked up part of that cost in the previous improvement. MR. CARLSON: This is before it has been let out for bids. You're making an estimate. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, an estimate of the cost. MR. CARLSON: Is tost of that because it's a small project or is it because the materials and cost of labor - it's my understanding that materials and labor should be possibly less than they were a year or two ago. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: We've been receiving relatively low bids, granted, but we're reluctant to use the lowest bids. We're using the average to make our estimates. In the near future, we expect it to turn around and we'd rather tell you that the job is going to cost more and - if it goes through - have it come in at a lesser cost than to tell you it's going to cost less and have it come in a lot higher. Another point is that this is a one-sided assessment. If there were properties on the other side being assessed, it would be $25.00 a foot. MAYOR WOODBURN: Could you clarify this question a bit? In the project you're talking about $14.00 a foot - you're talking about industrial was dumped into there. . . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) part of yours at that point. We're talking about a lot of sewer that went through there - two-sided (inaudible) and so it isn't the increased cost. The cost would have been not that much different. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It has gone up somewhat, but not that much. MAYOR WOODBURN: So what you're talking about - before, when you didn't want it - you would have been sharing that cost with other people. They've already been paying for some years. MR. CARLSON: Do you have any kind of a crystal ball estimate - if we were to find out three, four years from now that there was a problem developing more than it is now - to the extent that we would have to put the water in - what the estimated cost might be? I'm sure that's pretty diffi- cult to do, given that material costs stay relatively stable. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I don't think that will happen. I think you could anticipate maybe five to ten percent increase every year. -6- MR. LELAND ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: I would like to know why we're here. Why the issue of water? MAYOR WOODBURN: It was a time when we wanted to find out if you wanted it. You're here to tell us. . MR. ROEBKE: The way the conversation seems to have been going so far is that we're going to get water. I personally don't think we need it. I guess my opinion is - let's wait. If we have contaminated water, six block or nine blocks away from us, very likely within a certain number of years we're going to find our water is contaminated and what we should (inaudible) I believe that we would have a case against the army or whoever, and let them stand the cost. In my case, it's approximately $10,000 for water that I wouldn't hook up to. I'm back to where other people have been this evening - with roads being cut through and so on - we just. simply don't want it. I suppose there's some possible ecomonic value to my property by having water out there, but I'm not sure it's there if I don't hook up to it. So I have to incur another $2,000 or $3,000 cost bringing pipes in to my house. In my opinion, I don't feel I need it. MR. LEONARD GRUDNOSKE, 4445 Highway 10: I'm kind of asking the same question - did anybody petition for it? MAYOR WOODBURN: No. MR. GRUDNOSKE: I'm against it - that ridiculous figure of $50.00 a foot. Like he said, there are a lot of people there with more footage than him. We're not talking 80 foot lots along there - some are 240. For a more realistic figure of $18.00 or $20.00 - I could go along with that. .If the Council wants to assess us $18.00 or whatever fair figure you arrive at and put the rest on the general taxes - which I know you really wouldn't want to do - it depends on where our priorities are. I think it would make more sense to do that than to bury a power line on County Road E and pass that on to me, which (inaudible) think it was ridiculous. I'm against it. Like I say, if we could come in at $18.00 or $20.00 a foot - I'll pay my share, which I think is a fair share, but I can't see $50.00 a foot. MRS. JEANNE WINIECKI: The cost per foot - I'm curious - (inaudible) any different from people north of 96, whose cost is $16.23. That's still a single-sided road. That's such a big difference. MAYOR WOODBURN: There are several factors on that. Perhaps Mr. Christiffersen - do you want to explain some of the factors on why the cost north of 96 is different than south? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The Minnespta PCA has made appli- cation to the EPA for superfunds to install at least a -7- minimum six inch watermain from 96 to the north. That cost, as I recall, is approximately $130,000 - that estimate. The City plan calls for a 12 inch and an eight inch watermain to be constructed for fire flow protection. That cost is approximately $170,000, the difference being $40,000. That difference was proposed to be assessed to the abutting property owners and the rate would have been about $15.00 a foot for residential - 1.5 times that residential rate for conunercial. . MAN IN AUDIENCE: We're still not understanding why ours is more. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Because super funds would be picking up part of the costs - $130,000 for the cost of that water- main. MR. DAVID McDONALD, Attorney with Briggs and Morgan, St. Paul: (Inaudible) representing some of the other people in a lawsuit against some of the potentially responsible parties for the contamination of this area. I think most of the residents here expressed their positions pretty clearly. I'm not going to reiterate that. I think Jeanne Winiecki says it well when she says that they're sort of in a Catch-22. They do want to save an adequate supply of water. However, they don't feel responsible for the contaminated water con- ditions up there. They 'don't really feel that they should be paying for this water supply. I just want to make you aware of one of the legal problems that the residents may have if you were to go ahead and order the improvement and assess them for it. Under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, which is the Minnesota Superfund - there's a section in that act - Section 4, Subdivision 6 - which establishes a defense to parties that may have claims filed against them. We have initiated a lawsuit against some of the parties that we believe are responsible for that. That part of the law was to give a defense to those parties if certain actions were taken by a political subdivision, such as yourself, or even by a private person, without seeking Minnesota Pollution Control Agency authorization for those responses. There is a provision of law where you could go, if you wanted to, and seek approval by the MPCA before you did that and seek response costs from the parties responsible. If you didn't do that, there is at least an argument under the law that the people that we may sue on behalf of those residents that say there wasn't any EPA authorization for these costs (inaudible) and therefore we have a defense. I think that may prejudice both the City's position, if they ever decided to go after the potentially responsible (inaudible) and may prejudice the position of the rest. I think, for those reasons, while we do desire a safe water supply - I guess the point's been made by the neighbors . -8- and our point too - don't do it - or at least don't assess us (inaudible) . MR. POPOVICH: could go ahead and assess you? David, how can you say that the Council seek it from the other parties but not MR. McDONALD: What I'm saying is that the Council could decide to do this project and seek - by (inaudible) potential lawsuit - costs of the assessments as a response cost to the contamination problem in the community. . MR. POPOVICH: But we can't go ahead with the project until we know we have some method of getting the money. We could never order it on the contingent that we might recover in a lawsuit. A lawsuit can take two or three years MAYOR WOODBURN: I have some questions here. As you were talking about EPA damages - what about private damages if the army is found guilty of not going through EPA? A private lawsuit against the Department of the Army or whoever is responsible. In respect to (inaudible) fear of future contamination - my house is worth $50,000. If there was no fear of that contamination, by a potential buyer, it would be worth $60,000. Say you had that assessment and say you could get that - you might be able to too because of future fear. Couldn't you go for private damages without (inaudible). And on that basis, any action the Council takes would not prejudice that. MR. McDONALD: I'm not sure about that. MAYOR WOODBURN: I'm not pushing for this improvement. . MR. McDONALD: We are seeking those damages. We are claiming that the property values have been diminished because of the contamination problem. We '.re seeking those types of damages. We're also seeking a safe water supply for these residents. We would ideally like to have - this water system has advantages - it is a safer water supply because it's coming through the City of St. Paul system and they can monitor it much more closely than we can monitor private wells. We very well may ask for this remedy eventually, when we get to that point of the lawsuit, so we are doing those things. I guess I would be somewhat concerned - if this improvement was put in, I think the residents here have - they don't feel they should pay that money up front. That's what would be happening. They would be paying those assess- ments until we were able to establish - through a lawsuit - if we were able to establish - the liability of some other responsible persons. As Mr. Popovich pointed out, our law- suit could take several years and during that period we're asking these people to pay for it. Also, while I hope an action on your part (inaudible) I'm not absolutely sure of that. This new Minnesota Superfund law is so new, we don't even know what all the provisions mean. Just reading over -9- the law before tonight's meeting, I caught this provision which I had just skimmed over before, and I'm a little con- cerned if a project like this can go forward without going through the channels (inaudible) authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There may be a claim made by the defendants in our lawsuit that (inaudible). COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Is there anyone in favor of the improvement? . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: That's not a simple question - are they in favor of clean water or in favor of $50.00 a foot? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I meant the question to be clearer. Is anyone in favor of the improvement as proposed, with the costs as outlined? (No from the audience). MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there other comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I just want to make sure that members of the audience who patiently sat through the three previous - four previous hearings - understand the difference between those'hearings and this hearing. Those were assess- ment hearings where the improvement was in and there wasn't any question about whether it was going to be done. It had been done. We were trying to figure out how to pay for it. This is to inform us about what the people really want in this regard. It's quite possible that you do not want it - or at least don't want it at this time - and there are a number of other considerations. In no sense have I or any member of the Council up here made up their mind, nor are we pushing this improvement. This is an opportunity to discuss this thing - whether at this time it would be a good idea. That's why we're here tonight. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Mrs. McNiesh pulled some of the old records regarding the past watermain improvement. Out of a total of $600,000 and some, the City only picked up $39,000 of the total cost of that improvement. It was a very small percentage. You were absolutely right - the overall cost of that job was distributed over commercial properties and commercial acreage, which helped offset the cost to residential areas - the footage costs. The village picked up very little of that. MRS. GEORGINA CARLSON, 4345 Highway 10: I was just wondering how you decide if this is 100% (inaudible). MAYOR WOODBURN: First off, just a basis of reasonable- ness. Past practice enters into that, what was done in the past on these kinds of things. I think the $39,000 was an unanticipated shortfall (inaudible). Past practices, what -10- seems reasonable - it's a judgment call. MRS. CARLSON: Was it perhaps $39,000 out of $600,000 because there was so much industrial money pouring into that and so there wasn't the need or . MAYOR WOODBURN: The $39,000 actually came out of a compromise on a lawsuit. Otherwise it would have been 100%. $600,000, paid for by benefitted properties. The past practices on improvements like this - most often, at least - have been assessed 100%. . MRS. CARLSON: Do you think there's anything unusual about this proposal that would make it less than 100%? MAYOR WOODBURN: Perhaps it would be hiding to say that that determination is made at the assessment hearing. If it was 50%, would you want it? Say the City picked up 50%. Would that be worth it to you? MRS. CARLSON: More so than 100%. MAYOR WOODBURN: It's still bad, but only half as bad. MRS. CARLSON: I think the assumption that you had that everyone sitting out here doesn't want the proposal (inaudible) is maybe carrying it further than what I per- sonally would like. I wouldn't mind having water, but like the gentleman in back said - not at that price. Talking about $25.00 a foot versus $50.00 a foot - I'm thinking that that might change some of our minds out here. So to assume that we don't want it . . . MAYOR WOODBURN: We're merely trying to judge the depth of your feelings - how far it goes. MAN IN AUDIENCE: It's a shame to use even 50% of the City's money and/or our money if there's a good likelihood that somebody else would pay the bill. It's a sensitive issue because who knows at what point any of us should pay? COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: water now? (Audience response to check it very frequently? Are most of you using your mostly yes.) Are you having WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: The PCA is checking. They have (inaudible) check the water four times a year, which is really unheard of in their practice. They generally check once a year (inaudible) . MAN IN AUDIENCE: I think you've hit us with something that's not possible. Sure, $25.00 a foot - you could probably change my mind. I might possibly say go ahead and do it. But the whole thing revolves around, number one - benefit for the dollars we're going to be asked to spend. -11- I don't think that any of us here should pretend that we're going to get a 50% rebate, in a sense, from the City. It's not going to happen. If we get the water, we're going to pay for it 100% because that's been the practice. Am I more correct? MAYOR WOODBURN: You're closer to correct than what we were talking about before. . MAN IN AUDIENCE: So I think we have to decide as a group whether we want water at $50.00 a foot. If you want $50.00 a foot, say yes, and if we don't, then let's say no. WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: Do you want to continue drinking contaminated water? MAN IN AUDIENCE: alternatives. I have five gallons of water it's just fine. It's If I may address that - there are a distiller in my home, which distills in 12 hours. That's what I drink and a lot cheaper than $13,000 for water. COUNCILMAN HICKS: well? Do you have contamination in your MAN IN AUDIENCE: I have a distiller as a preventive piece of equipment. I don't care - if the water happens to get to that level where we shouldn't be drinking this water, it doesn't bother me. COUNCILMAN HICKS: So if I understood correctly, there aren't any people with wells in this area that are contami- nated to the point that it's dangerous. MAYOR WOODBURN: I will close the public hearing at this point. Councilman Christiansen then made a motion that the Council take this matter under advisement. The motion was seconded by Councilman McAllister. Motion carried unanimously. . -12- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the . attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date therein indicated with the original of said minutes on file in my office and that said extract is a full, true and correct transcript of said minutes, insofar as they relate to the proposed construc- tion of Improvement No. W-83-5 under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this ~~~ day of October, 1983. ~4Ld~~~ C~'ty C erR m ~strator (SEAL) .