Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 08-23-1982 w . . Minutes of Special Council Meeting Village of Arden Hills Monday, August 23, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. Village Hall Call to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present - Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmen Diane McAllister, Maurice Johnson, Thomes Mulcahy Absent - Councilman Dale Hicks Also Present - Bond Counsel Peter Popovich, Engineer Donald Christoffersen, Tre4surer Donald Lamb, Clerk Admin- istrator Charlotte McNiesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm Approval of Minutes McAllister moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that the Minutes of the August 9tb Council Meeting and addendum tbereto, be approved as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Business from the Floor None PUBLIC HEARINGS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: (See attached Minutes) Improvement No. ST-81-2, Lexington/694 Storm Drainage - Resolution No. 82-46, AdoptinR and ConfirminR Assessments Mulcahy moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council adopt _ aeeolution No. 82-46, Adopting and Confirming Improvement No. sT-81-2 Assessments. McAllister moved to amend the motion to add tbe following reasons: a) lack of benefit to the properties waa not .hown. b) alternate assessment figure~~ere not offered. Amendment was sccepted by Mulcahy and Johnaon and motion, as amended, carried unanimously. (4-0). Improvement No. P-81-1, Grey Fox Road - Resolution No. 82-4~4 AdoptinR and Confirming Asseaamenta. ( 6lJ Ii rJ- ) . Johnson moved, seconded by Mulcshy, that Council smend the asaesament roll reducing the asaeaament on parcel 25-02700- 340-78 from $15,020.00 to $5,837.50. Motion tarried unan- imously (4-0). . McAllister moved, aeconded by Jobnson that Council adopt Resolution No. 82-47, Adopting and Confirming Improvemsnt No. P-81-1 Assessments, .s amended, based on the following reasons: a) lack of benefit bas not been demonstrated b) numericsl alternatives were not offered c) properties ars benefitted Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Minutes of Special Council Meeting August 23, 1982 Page Two _~n_w Improvement No. P-80-1, County Road E - Resolution No. 82-48, Adopting and Confirming Assessments Johnson moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council adopt Resolution No. 82-84, Adopting and Confirming Improve- ment No. P-80-1 Assessments. Motion carried unanimously (4-0) Approval of Fall Park Program Council was referred to the Proposed Fall Park Program and to Buckley's memo of 8-23-82 re Weight Loss Clinic. McAllister moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve the Fall Park Program aa recommended by the Parks Committee. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). REPORT OF VILLAGE CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE MC NIESH . Gambling License"Application - Minnesota Deer Hunters Association JohnsoD moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council approve issuance of the Gambling License for Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, ss per application received, subject to receipt of police recommen- dation, and subject to the required 15 day waiting period (Ordi- nance No. 225). Motion carried (Johnson, Mulcahy, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; McAllister opposed). (3-1) Appointment Extension - Temporary Office Employee Johnson moved, seconded by McAllister that Council approve the extension of the appointment of temporary office employee Florence Honan,as needed, until Jane Lund returns to work. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). Payroll Council was referred to the Payroll, and one sdditional check, in the amount of $243.95, to Annie McNamee, playground instructor, for approval. McAllister moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council approve the Payroll and the additiona~ playground instructor check as pre- .ented. Motion carried unanimoualy (4~0). COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Lindey's Triangle McAllister reported she attended the Ramsey County meeting relative to the "Lindey's" Triangle" property; reported there will be an- other meeting on Sept. 7th at 10 a.m., Council Chambers, 3rd floor, Court House; reported Engineer Weltzin recommends the retention of the property by Ramsey County; suggested resident input at the September meeting may help influence the Board's decision. Pending Items for August 30th Agenda: 1. Ramsey County Action Programs, Inc. Slide PresentatioD. 2. Inflow/Infiltration Study review 3. Noise Ordinance discussion. . Safety Problem on New Brighton Road at Perry Park Council was referred to the Parks Minutes of Aug. 10th relative to e safety problem on New Brighton Road and County Rd. E-2 in the area of Perry Park. Council requested that the County be advised of the p rob lem. Appointments Woodburn euggested there is a need for more members on the Cable Advisory Committee; also noted that a liaison has. not been appoint.d to RCLM, '0. -2- JIIIIr Kinutes of Special Council Keeting Auauet 23, 1982 Pale Three Adjournment Kulcahy moved, seconded by 10:55 p... Motion carried McAllister, that the meeting adjourn at unanimously (4-0). (!l~JJ47I/ 2ii}tf/l~ Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Administrator tf~/zJ?~ Robert L. Woodburn .Mayor . Notice of Meeting The next aegular Council Meeting will be held on Monday, AUluat 30th at 7:30 p.m. at the Villa.e Hall. . -3- ~ : Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City COQ~cil City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, P~nnesota . August 23, 1982 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 23, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor woodburn and Councilmen Johnson, McAllister and Mulcahy; and the following was absent: Councilman Hicks. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Admin- istrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk Administrator; Donald G. Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Consulting Engineers; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the public No. ST-81-2, Lexingtonj694 storm drainage. lished the appropriate documents. hearing on Improvement The Clerk has pub- MRS. McNIESH: Yes, I have an affidavit of publication saying that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on August 10 and I have a certificate of mailing indi- cating that all the properties received notices, which were put in the mail on August 6. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll go on then to Mr. Christoffersen who will briefly explain the improvement involved. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Thank you your Honor. The first improvement is the storm sewer improvement. It's referred to as the Lexingtonj694 storm drainage improvement. The boundaries of the improvement district - to get you oriented - the boundaries for the drainage district - this is State Trunk Highway 51, Inter- state 694, Lexington Avenue and COQ~ty Road F. The drainage area under consideration is outlined by this line. The improvement included the construction of storm water detention basins, storm sewers and outlet control facilities. To begin with, north of 694, an outlet control structure was constructed by the pond near Fernwood and County Road F. The storm sewer went southerly . . , to an additional storm water detention basin and a storm water out- let structure. Over on the east, near the Lino Lakes property, another storm sewer was constructed southerly to a storm water detention basin - the westerly half of the storm water detention basin was previously constructed. The improvement also includes the purchase of that storm water detention basin and a storm sewer to the south. It further includes storm sewer along the west side of Lexington Avenue to Grey Fox Road, along Grey Fox Road westerly and then northerly under Trunk Highway 51 and then to Bethel Ditch. The improvement also includes costs that were not actually part of Arden Hills' construction but part of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's construction. They are constructing a storm sewer pipe from Lexington Avenue westerly to a point where it crosses Interstate 694 to a detention basin which they have constructed. MAYOR WOODBURN: How many governmental units are in this? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This includes Ramsey County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, the City of Shoreview and the City of Arden Hills. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will have a time for questions later. We'll ask Mr. Popovich, our fiscal consultant, for his statements. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, this is the assessment hearing, as you know. When the original feasibility hearing was had a year ago, the total estimated cost for the Arden Hills' share of this five party joint powers approach, was $945,527.00. The total cost, as it works out now, based on actual construction costs, is $772,554.00 - nearly $200,000.00 less. At the time we had our feasibility hearing, we projected an assess- ment rate of $3,940.00 per acre if we went 100% assessed. The recommendation is that $653,000 be raised by special assessments and $119,000 by general taxes or other City funds. Because of the reduced construction costs and total overall costs, there are 178.63 acres that will be assessed at $2,750.00 per acre and there are 72.59 acres that will be assessed at $2,233.26. The reason for the difference in these two figures is that 72 acres received an assessment in connection with County Road F when that storm drainage was put in some time ago and they were assessed $516.00 per acre - so they are getting credit, or the benefit, of that previous assessment. That's why that's reduced to $2,233.26. We're recommending that the assessments be spread over a period of 15 years in connection with this project and that ~~e interest carrying charge be at the rate of 10.01%. That's one percent over what we sold the bonds for. I might say that under the law you could go up to 12% or the current rate as certified by the Commissioner of Finance, but in the judgment of the City administrative staff and ourselves, we tried to stay with past policy of having only a one percent override over what 2 . we are paying on principal and interest and that one percent is for administrative costs. So in this situation, people have the right to pay the matter up in full within a 30 day period after the assessment roll is adopted. If they don't, it will be certi- fied to the County Auditor's office and be spread over the 15 years - 1/15 of the principal each year and 10.01% on the out- standing balance and, of course, that declines over the 15 year period and the public does have the right to prepay at anytime during that 15 year period as well as during the immediate 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll. MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any written questions or objec- tions? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, I have a number of them. I have one signed by Bruce Malkerson and James R. Steilen who are representing Hunter Sales, A & D Development, R. L. Gould, Roberts Construction, Christine Colestock and Starco Incorporated, d/b/a Scott Roberts Development Company. They are objecting to the assessments. Some of the reasons listed - the assessments exceed the special benefits to the properties; the special assessments constitute a taking of property without compensation in violation of state and U. S. constitutions and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; the City has not followed the procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 429.01; the assessment formula used by the City is arbitrary and unreasonable; some land owners have previously been assessed for storm drainage improvements and should not be assessed for new improvements; the problem, if any, sought to be corrected is one of a general nature and should be funded by general revenues; certain areas have been excluded from assessment which should be included; and because of previously existing storm sewer and roads serving the properties were adequate, no special assessment can now be made for new roads and storm sewer. They continue on in the letter saying that they would like to meet with staff and/or the Council members to review the rolls, if the Council tables action on the proposed assessments. They wish to work with the City in obtaining a satisfactory solu- tion to the problems and objections. It goes on to say that if they're adopted as proposed, they will undoubtedly file an appeal. I think that sort of summarizes their main objections. . I have another letter from East Side Beverage Company objecting to the assessments because the assessments exceed the benefits, the formula is arbitrary and unreasonable, the City didn't follow the procedure required by statute, the problem solved by the project is of a general nature and the funds to finance it should come from general revenues, and previous assessments have been made against the property for sewer I have another letter from George Reiling. He objects to the assessments levied against four different parcels. The reason for the objection is that he fails to see any benefit to the properties involved. 3 . I have another letter from Tri-State Land Company objecting to the assessments because the storm sewer improvement does not benefit Tri-State Land Company's property. The assessment deprives the protestant of said property without due process of law in violation of the U. S. constitution and constitution of the state of Minnesota. The proposed method of spreading the cost is arbitrary and capricious, unjust, discriminatory and in- equitable. The assessment is not properly made under Minnesota law and they request that all their property be excluded from any assessment. I have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Boss, who are objecting to the assessment. They say it is for a new drainage system of which they were never advised. They feel the property has been damaged by the new drainage system rather than helped and address - instead of a small drainage ditch at the edge of their property it's been widened and deepened and some trees cut down. They object to the holding pond at the back of their property and comment on the proposed development of the site which was before the Planning Commission and Council recently for an office-warehouse. They think they are being treated very badly by the City after being good citizens for 22 years. I have an individual letter from A & D Development Company objecting to the assessment and again saying there was no benefit conferred, speaking of the road. There is suitable access on Red Fox Road. In the event there is a benefit, of which they contend there is none, would be far less than the proposed assess- ment. We have a letter from Donald V. Roberts, President of Starco, objecting to the assessments that affect 1120 and 1140 Red Fox Road. They were charged for a storm sewer when Red Fox Road was built and don't see why they are being charged again. They are also against the storm sewer assessment. We have a letter from Scott Roberts objecting to the assess- ment at 3771-87 North Lexington. It states that the former drainage ditch in front of the property adequately took care of any storm water problems. Asked to be recorded as against the improvement. . Don Roberts of Roberts Construction feels the improvement wasn't necessary and he shouldn't be assessed. He wants to be recorded as against the assessment. R. L. Gould Company - we feel the existing road and sewer were more than adequate for the industrial park and see no need for a physical revision as property owners along Grey Fox Road do not benefit from either the new roadway or the storm sewer. No assessment should be made. H~~ter Sales, representinq Eugene Colestock, Christine Colestock and Hunter Sales - should be no assessments made for the roadway or sewer for anybody in the industrial park. Again, the same thing - the existing road and sewer were adequate and they object to any assessment. I think that's all. 4 MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, these are written things - do you want to comment later or now? . MR. POPOVICH: No, you should any further matters that come up. to give written communications and here. take them in consideration with They're required under the law they've been properly summarized MAYOR WOODBURN: The meeting is open for verbal comment - I guess I don't have to say for or against. You will have to identify yourself for the tape. We're required to make a verbatim recording of the proceedings, so please identify yourself. MR. Jk~ES STEILEN, Member of the Popham, Haik, SChnobrich, Kaufman & Doty Law Firm, 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: I'm here tonight on behalf of corporate citizens of Arden Hills, R. L. Gould, Hunter Sales and the Eugene Colestock family, Roberts Construction, which also has a property owned by subsidiary Starco, A & D Development. Some of these properties are owned by the corporation, some by the individuals who own the corporation, but basically all of these are good corporate citizens of the City of Arden Hills - good taxpayers, good friends of the City. They called because they are extremely concerned about the nature of these assessments. These companies are located in the industrial park south of the freeway. We did try and meet with City staff today but we were employed on short notice and were unable to schedule a meeting with City staff. That's not a criticism of City staff because it was extremely short notice for them. We did try to meet but weren't able to do so. But based on our conversations with these corporations and individuals who own and manage them, it would appear that they have very strong bases for challenging these assessments. The industrial park has not had a drainage problem. The drainage problem - if it exists - exists north of the freeway. It does not exist in the industrial park. The industrial park does not have a roadway problem. until such time as the City constructed the sewer and destroyed the road and, therefore, had to rebuild the road, there really wasn't any neces- sity for the owners in the industrial park to have new sewer and to have new roads. . It follows from that that the value of their property has not increased because of these projects. As far as we can tell, they have enjoyed no increase in market value that would justify these special assessments. There has, in fact, been no special benefit to the industrial park as is required by law to justify these assessments. When I look down our roll, Roberts Construc- tion is looking at $154,000 - their property hasn't increased that way. Hunter Sales' properties have been assessed in excess of $35,000; R. L. Gould, $49,000; .1'. & D Development, $47,000. Their properties simply have not increased in those proportions to market value and the assessments cannot be justified unless those properties have received special benefit and that is - unless those oroperties' market value has increased in that c . fashion. 5 . . For those reasons we ask that the City not adopt the assess- ment rolls. In particular, it has not benefitted the properties south of the freeway (inaudible) north of the freeway. We think it inappropriate that the assessment be adopted because what will happen is - we feel we are on very strong legal grounds, we will file the appeal, and if we are correct, the City will end up paying their attorney's fees and our attorney's fees. Because of new developments under the law, it's not simply a matter of losing the assessments - you end up having to pay much more these days under United States Code Section 1983. We think that that is not a step that the City ought to take if, in fact, we are right. We are willing to talk to City staff and do want to talk to City staff, but at this point it appears to be a very strong case. So we ask that you not adopt the proposals, that you consider spreading these costs across the City generally. Thank you. MAYOR WOODBURN: I have a question but maybe I'll save it for later. Mr. Popovich, do you want to make any comments now or do you want to explain anything later? MR. POPOVICH: Whatever the Mayor and Council prefer. It would seem to me, though, that we ought to get all of the oral objections. MAYOR WOODBURN: The gist of the written information has been expressed. MR. GEORGE REILING, 661 Heinel Drive, Roseville, Minnesota: I object to the assessments because we see no benefits derived from our properties. We never were in trouble - the state was. What's really happened, and I think the Village knows about it - I'm sure Mr. Don Roberts knows - that when the highway was first constructed, Mr. Daubney was able to get the state to put a larger main down Grey Fox Road. Mr. Daubney is an attorney and he wouldn't know what size that main should be. It later developed that the main wasn't large enough. That's one reason I think the state should pay for this project. The other is that again, we're not in any trouble. Yes, 694 underpasses did flood - but it didn't hurt our properties. So if it doesn't flood anymore, we have no advantages (inaudible). Plus, again, when Grey Fox Road was built, we paid for storm sewer. We shouldn't be asked to pay again. I think also that the County should pay - and I don't know what share they're paying, but whatever it is I'm sure it's not enough - the County is taking the drainage area away from Lexington Avenue and replacing it with pipe - that's fine, I'm glad the County is building the street - but we shouldn't have to pay for that street that the County is building. We had a street there. If they had to pay for it I don't think anybody would want the new street. That street is also used by many other people than we ourselves - people north of us and south of us and in Arden Hills and in Shoreview. I s~rongly object to any assessments. In our par- ticular case we feel there are no benefits to properties that we represent. Thank you. 6 . MR. CLIFFORD LUND, 2241 North Milton, Representing Roberts Properties: We have already submitted a general denial of benefits. However, there is one particular piece of property on the corner of Grey Fox Road and Dunlap that it appears we should only be - if we are assessed period - we should only be assessed for 116 feet of frontage rather than 300.4 and I wish to submit this letter. MAYOR WOODBURN: Would you point out which corner that is. MR. LD~D: It's on the northwest corner Grey Fox Road and Dunlap. There's a piece of property that the state owns in there. Our property doesn't come up against the roadway that was put in so we should not be assessed for the part that the state still o~~s. P~YOR WOODBURN: Is there anyone else? MR. TIMOTHY TYSON, Representing A & D Development Company, Which Leases Property to Tyson Warehouse Company at 1300 Grey Fox Road: We do have a letter before the Council and our attorney has explained most of our objections. We do not feel that it has benefitted our property at all and so we would at this time like to object. Thank you. MR. KENNETH BOSS, 1315 Red Fox Road: I just want to say that we're the only residents in the area. We think that the assessment is pretty high for something that hurt our property instead of helping it. I think they messed it up much more, as far as we're concerned, and it's keeping us from selling our property. We never had any trouble before. MR. GORDON MILLER, 1974 North Lexington, Roseville, with R. L. Gould Company: We had voiced our opinion in written form and I would also like to vocally state our opposition to this assessment. . MR. EUGENE COLESTOCK, President of Hunter Sales, 3737 North Lexington Avenue: I might as well get my two bits worth in Mr. Mayor. I was going to sit here and be quiet and not cause any problems. I would like to say that some of the things that have arisen - in the past - were readily predictable. This drainage system co~ing from the north and coming down Lexington Avenue, going westward on Grey Fox Road - has been purely a matter of convenience as far as the engineering problems and the City of Arden Hills are concerned. This could just as well have gone along County Road E or along the highway or along half a dozen different points and we wouldn't be quarreling about County Roan E or the assessments on it - either on an acreage basis or a frcnt footage basis. Further than that, I would like to re- iterate a ~oint that I made at the last Council meeting. Namely, that as far as the roadway is concerned - Grey Fox Road - which is no~ extended and goes on through to Highway 51 - that's the last thing in the world that the industrial park needed. That is goin~ to serve as nothing more than as a traffic convenience for the Villa~e. It's not going to serve the industrial park 7 . . in any way, shape or manner because, as.I have pointed out before, there is no one in the industrial park in the retail business. We are all in the wholesale business or the manufacturing business. We do not have traffic, per se. Therefore, as I said in my letter to you, there is no way that any part of the property in the industrial park is benefitting materially or otherwise from the addition of additional storm water sewer capacity or the roadway. And I might say that the year before last, I tore up my own boulevard, spent $1800 in having new grass and sod put in, and this time the construction crew came along and tore it all up with the roadway and put their own in. That's the kind of thing that kind of irks you - because we have paid for utility of sewers before and roadways before and all the rest of it before. I'm sure that all these people here that are objecting are feeling exactly the same way. A double burden is being thrown on them that shouldn't be thrown on them. This project, as far as I can see - and I'd be glad to be shown different - inures totally to the benefit of the Village - no one else. It does nothing for the industrial park. Thank you. CAROL BASIL, Representing East Side Beverage Company, 1260 Grey Fox Road, Arden Hills: We have submitted our written objec- tions to the assessment proposed and I would like to go on record as verbally opposed. Our feeling is very much in line with what has been said by our neighbors in the industrial park. Thank you. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is there anyone else? Any other points? Mr. Popovich, is there anything you would like to add? MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, I don't want to get into a debate with my colleague over there - Jim, who is representing so many of the objectors - as a lawyer he ob- viously has to indicate in writing how he feels. I might just say this, and obviously members of the Council have heard me say it before - all of our assessments are predicated on the benefits to the property. We've given credits where there have been previous assessments and obviously the City has taken up its proportionate share of those that we consider to have general benefit to the Citv as well. In this case there is a sizeable portion of the cost that is. The total cost did come down con- siderably less than originally estimated at the time of the feasibility hearing. As to the finding that the procedure was incorrect - I've been handling these for so many years with the City - we haven't goofed yet on the procedure as far as published notice. I'd like to know what the detail is if they have a procedural com- plaint. We're not taking property without due process of law. That's not the legal test. The legal test is whether or not the property has been benefitted. The allegation as to arbitrariness and capriciousness is not one of the items in the appeal section of the Local Improvement Code. It's a general benefit rather than a specific benefit - based on the engineer's recommendations and others, there is some specific benefit. 8 . . What it really boils down to - is the property benefitted to the dollar figure that is proposed to be assessed? That's where reasonable people can differ. They'll have their appraiser, I suppose, if they appeal, and the City will have its appraiser plus its own engineer. The practical problem as to a reference to Section 1983 of the U. S. Code, there hasn't been an assessment appeal in Minnesota yet that's been sustained on that basis. Maybe Jim and his associates have got some new theory of law that I haven't run into at all before, but that particular allegation doesn't bother me at all. As I said, this is where reasonable attorneys will differ on a particular approach. The Council should be mindful of the fact that these projects were included as part of the bond issue that was sold. We've covenanted with the bond holders and people who purchased the bonds that we would have a valid assessment proceeding. Obviously you can't issue bonds unless a minimum of 20% is assessed. Here the figures were a little higher than 20%, but there is a portion on general taxes as well. I haven't heard anything from any of the protestants as to what they think is reasonable. Some of them just said there is no benefit at all. That's a wide differ- ence. There's no area of getting together there and only the courts can determine that. The popham firm, on the other band, has indicated some desire to meet with the City staff and the Council and I presume that's in the nature of trying to determine what percentage should be charged, so at least there is a tacit admission that there is some benefit. If that is not the case and I read you wrong, then you've got to tell us if there's no benefit at all - not even 20% benefit - and then we can go from there and it's just going to have to be fought in a court of law. On the other hand, if he feels there is some benefit and the difference is something between the 85% that we've assessed and something over 20%, we should know that too. But there hasn't been any indication from them as to what they consider to be some benefit. Maybe, in wanting to sit down, some offer of compromise might be made and I know they don't represent all of the objectors but if there's a pattern to be set up, then it's probably a pattern that would apply to all of those similarly situated. Other than those general comments, you may wish to hear from the engineer as to how he arrived at the figures and where he feels the benefits might be. This is really not an adversary position - the purpose of the assessment hearing is to hear their comments and then take them under advisement. The give and take, or cross examination, or proof - that doesn't belong at the assessment hearing at all. The Council could, if it wishes, adopt the assessment roll tonight as is or we could move to continue it and then set it for a date sure. The purpose of that would be to do whatever further checking you may want to do. The Council could do that. All I suggest is that if you decide to take that approach and lay the Datter over to a date certain, that we do it so that there's sufficient time that once the assessment roll is adopted, that 30 days will elapse for anybody that wishes to prepay their assessDents, because we must have that 30 days elapse before October 10 or we can't certify to the 9 . . County Auditor. The County Auditor requires all of these to be in by October 10, back up 30 days from that and you're up into the first week of September, so you've only got a week to play with if you lay it over for further consideration. If you miss that October 10th certification, the matter gets delayed for one whole year - then we have to come back next year and assess and we have one more year of capitalized interest because we have to add it to the cost of the improvement and assess that at the interest rate - so it would increase everything proportionately if it got stalled for one year. I hope the Popham firm repre- sentatives are not interested in delaying it one year because I know they represent some cities too and they've been on the other side of the table from the side they're on tonight. We just can't delay it so that a year goes by because the costs will all go up 10% on the interest charge and we'll be right back a year from now trying to make the assessments. On the other hand, if the Council decides not to lay it over and adopts the roll as it is tonight, they have the 20 days to file notice with us and an additional ten days to file it in district court and the matter will be put on and meanwhile we'll be collecting assessments on the other properties not being challenged and the interest will begin to run and the people who have not objected can make prepayments. We just zero in then on a specific number of properties rather than delay the whole assessment roll. I would not want to see that happen. As in the past, if during the course of appeal, there is anything that objectors are able to show that would satisfy the City Attorney, Mr. Lynden, and myself, and there's always a chance of compromise at that particular point if, in fact, there's been something presented to us that we haven't seen before. But I think in all the years I've been out here, which goes back to the mid-50's, we've only had one assessment appeal, which was compromised just before trial - the water deal here a year or so ago. That's the only one of all the assessments that I can recall, from the hundreds and hundreds of assessments that have been made in the City. So I think we ought to find out from - particulary the attorney here who threatens the litigation - whether they feel there's any benefit. If they say there's no benefit at all, then it's black and white - you might as well go ahead and let's fight it out in another arena. On the other hand, if they feel there is some benefit - it's a matter of degree - then they should tell us. We say it's worth 85% of the total cost of the improvement - if they say it's nothing, then you're miles apart. On the other hand, if they say it's worth 50% or 60%, then we're zoning in on a particular area. Whether they want to do that tonight or do it - assuming you lay it over for one week, and you'll have to check your own agendas - whether or not you can schedule a reconvened meeting in time to get that 30 days starting to run before October 10th. MRS. McNIESH: We do have a meeting a week from tonight. 10 . MR. POPOVICH: So you could lay it .over one week. That is done frequently and I see no objection to it if the Council wishes to do it. On the other hand, just laying it over for the sake of laying it over - if nothing can be accomplished during that one week period, that doesn't particularly suit me personally. But I trust that the Council can evaluate the comments that are made, particularly of opposing counsel, and know that he is doing his job and is giving you a litany of all possible objections. I've done the same thing (inaudible). What it really boils down to - forgetting about the procedure and all the others - we've been along with this process all the way through and I see no irregu- larities in the procedure, no taking of land, no violation of Section 1983 - but one question that it zeroes down to is - is there a benefit? The Council knows that I've always said that to them and we've evaluated all of these proposals. So it's the degree and the amount of the benefit, as the case law says, to the increase in the market value. MAYOR WOODBURN: Thank you Mr. Popovich. I'll ask a ques- tion of Mr. Christoffersen at this time - are you aware of the property in question that was perhaps over-assessed 100 some feet? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That question would answered under the Grey Fox Road improvement. it has any bearing on this one. probably be best I don't know that MAYOR WOODBURN: I'll now pass this on to the Council for any comments or questions or for their action. COUNCIU~ McALLISTER: all or how much benefit. (Inaudible) absolutely no benefit at MR. POPOVICH: that I've said? Do fit or no benefit? . focus. Jim, could you address some of the things you think there's any benefit, a partial bene- Because we ought to get the parameters in MR. STEILEN: A question has been raised that I'd like to address first. I don't have the factual background, but the question was raised as to whether the City of Shoreview has paid the City of Arden Hills $470,000 on behalf of this project and whether that has been deducted from the amount to be assessed against those here tonight on the assessment roll. MAYOR WOODBURN: Shoreview is assuming that large amount of money - whether it's that exact amount - and it has been deducted. . MR. POPOVICH: Just so you know the facts - I'm looking at our original feasibility hearing. The original estimated cost of this project was roughly $1,500,000. Of that, Arden Hills' share was estimated to be $945,000 and it worked out to the figure I gave you earlier - $772,000. The Shoreview portion was $504,000 and it works out to about $400,000 now. They're assessing that in their own city. What we're talking about tonight is the $772,000 that we must raise within our own City, without any 11 contributions from anyone outside. They're handling their own proportionate assessments. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Just to round out that answer - Ramsey County is also contributing, according to their land, and the State of Minnesota is contributing, according to their land. MR. STEILEN: I might take a minute to address some of the comments that Mr. Popovich has made. I've always heard that he's one of the more eloquent and crafty speakers among City Councils and as I was sitting there being soothed by his voice, leaning in his direction, I have to admit that that's absolutely true. MR. POPOVICH: Jim, you forget - I wrote this law when I was in the legislature. MR. STEILEN: Everything I've heard about you is true. How- ever, I don't make any tacit admissions of benefits to my clients' property. I do have great respect for your staff. I think it would be valuable to sit and talk with the City engineer and who- ever else is responsible for spreading the assessments to see if there's room for reasonable men to come to agreement, but I do want to be on record of making no admissions - tacit or otherwise - that our property - my clients' property - has been benefitted by these improvements, because, to the best of our knowledge, it hasn't. I haven't seen or heard any evidence to the contrary and so I have no basis to make any kind of admission. I don't think that meeting would be a waste of time and I think it would perhaps be fruitful, but I'll leave that to the Council and its advisors. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: You said that there's no benefit to the property. MR. STEILEN: property. I have City engineer. As far as I know there is no benefit to the not had the opportunity of talking with the COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: If that's what you think, then why bother meeting? . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, I must comment on what was just said. As your advisor, where there's been no admission of a benefit - we're poles apart - and to sit down and talk, all they want to do is to cross-examine your staff and what have you, preparatory to their filing a lawsuit. I think we ought to fight it in another arena. I would recommend to the Council that you adopt the assessments. MR. COLESTOCK: I would like to make a comment, enlarging on the remarks made by both counsel. Actually, the occupants of the industrial park are interested - because we're pragmatists to begin with - in sitting down and seeing whether or not there is what can be interpreted as "reasonable settlement" being made. Let's face facts - it costs money to hire an attorney. It cost you money to hire Pete and it cost us money to hire our attorney. It takes a lot of time. We feel, as a group, that if we can sit 12 . down and resolve the differences amicably that we in all probabil- ity are willing to pay something as far as assessments are con- cerned. We're not willing to pay on the basis on which we've been assessed. That's the short and sweet of it. I don't think that Pete is justified in saying that we're taking an adversary position. We're taking a position where we hope we can compromise something that you can go away, we can away, both having accom- plished something that is constructive for the Village and for the industrial park. I hope that this enlarges on the intent as far as the people in the industrial park are concerned. We do not take an arbitrary position as to how we will settle; we would like to talk about it. There is no way that I know of that you can arrive at a conclusion except by sitting down and talking. Is that right? Do you agree? MAYOR WOODBURN: That's what we're for. MR. COLESTOCK: Alright. But the thing is - whether we go to court and talk about it or whether we get together with your people and talk about it - it doesn't make much difference - we're going to have to do this somewhere along the line. That's the key to the whole issue. Pardon me for disagreeing with you Pete. MR. POPOVICH: That's alright. MAYOR WOODBURN: I suggest that the time to talk about it may very well be tonight, on several bases, one of which is that's why we set up the meeting tonight - to talk about it. I'd like to say that I think you're overestimating the position of the staff in this. This improvement and the possible benefits has a 12 year history. For 12 years we've been looking at the costs and wondering how they were going to be spread. I believe I can say there is no cost in here that was developed solely - and perhaps even at all - by the village staff. Other sources outside advise us that these are appropriate. There is no cost here that has not been looked at for the last year and a half (inaudible). It's not the staff that has to be convinced at this point at all. . MR. COLESTOCK: But we have to be convinced and this is the thing about it - that the Council was made aware of our position long ago. This is nothing new - nothing exciting about it. We told you that we were unhappy with what was proposed, that we were going to take issue with it, and that's what we have done. We don't want to fight with the village. As I've told you in the past, we like to be good neighbors, we like to contribute to the overall financial health, the social relationships, the whole works - as far as the Village is concerned. But there comes a ~ime when we have to take a stand and that's what we've done. t1AYOR WOODBURN: Everything you say is true. Anything else from the Council? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Colestock, you feel there is some benefit to your property from this improvement? 13 . HR. COLESTOCK: Actually, if I laid. it out before you and said Hs. HcAllister - here's my property or his property, whoever - before and here is now - nothing has changed. We still go west when we turn off Lexington Avenue to drive into the property, the water still flows down and goes west to get through the storm sewer, our customers still do all of the same things they did before and they have no problems. So I have to say that the essence of the thing is no - there has been no benefit. But, as I said, we're pragmatists. We're not here to take a stand and say what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and we're not going to let you get away with it. What we're saying to you is that we think you're off-base as far as the assessment rate is concerned. We are willing to consider paying a certain amount of money, even though we don't think it's justified. So let's talk about it, because it's going to cost us both a lot more to go to court - in time, in money, in aggravation and maybe some friend- ships. We still like to be good guys, you know, when it's all said and done. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Okay, do you have a number in mind? HR. COLESTOCK: No, I don't. This is one of the reasons why we asked to sit down with your Council and with your City engineer and whoever else is concerned with how this assessment was approached. I can't answer all of the questions for this group, but in general I think you will find that they will back up what I am saying and go along with any reasonable situation. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: I believe for the past year and a half there have been times when the engineer, at some length, described how the assessments were determined, the topography, the direction of the flow, and what they expected. I don't know if you were here. Would there be any advantage in having him again describe briefly how they arrived at the flow, the direc- tion, the design - which, of course, then established the result. HR. GORDON MILLER: I see no reason that it would help. I can't speak, again, for anyone else but our property - the R. L. Gould property. We have one storm drain that takes water from off of our property and it goes onto the old Lexington Avenue system. Not anyplace on any of the new work that's been done. You've put in curbs and gutters on Grey Fox, but nobody uses Grey Fox as far as our customers are concerned. They're using our parking lot. So if we don't use the street and we don't use the storm sewer, how do we gain a benefit? . MAYOR WOODBURN: Where does your water go? HR. HILLER: goes undergrolli~d, It stays right on the property. Where it I don't know. It doesn't drain off. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: You said you do not use Grey Fox? MR. MILLER: For parking or anything. For driving on, yes. But we had a street and there was a perfectly driveable street the re . 14 . . MR. COLESTOCK: Mr. Mayor, I would say that the general opinion, as far as our group is concerned, is that we would like to see this thing laid over. We would like to meet with your legal counsel and your engineering people and sit down and trade ideas about this. I can't contribute much more to it at the present time. Mr. Johnson, I want to go back and try to answer a question you raised. It's true, a year and a quarter, a year and a half ago, is when this thing first came up. We made known our opposition as far as assessments were concerned at that time. We indicated to you at that time that we felt that this work was being done to the benefit of the Village and we realized why it was necessary. The thing, as far as we were concerned, was that it did nothing for the industrial park. What it was doing was going to drain the northern section - as shown on the map - of Arden Hills and of Shoreview. That's what it was going to do. Your problem from there was how to get rid of it after you cross 694. The way you got rid of it was by increasing the size of the sewer going down Lexington and going down Grey Fox Road. That's the short and sweet of it. As I said earlier, if another location had been found for the sewer, there would have been no question about you tearing up Grey Fox Road. You never would ha\~ thought of it. It was a great idea once you decided that's where the sewer was going to go, but it certainly was not a necessity. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: You are aware that probably the Minne- sota Department of Transportation and Ramsey County use as much of that buried sewer on the west side of Lexington as anybody. MR. COLESTOCK: Yes I am. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: I think you're also aware that we could not even have gone along or improved our portion of the Lexington improvement unless that storm sewer had been placed down below. MR. COLESTOCK: I don't question it at all. I can see the necessity for everything that's been done as far as that structure is concerned. I understand the necessity for draining that land. I understand that you have to find a way to get rid of it. What we're really discussing today is who is responsible for it. What we are saying is that this is a situation that is to the benefit of the Village as a whole - not to the industrial park. I said before and I'll say it again - we, as good citizens in the industrial park, are willing to bear our share. We're not willing to bear any more. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: We'll probably have to go back and see if we can get the State and the County to pay. MR. COLESTOCK: Well, I think that's the responsibility of the Village. The Village has put us in this position and I think if we're going to settle it, the Village is going to have to find a way out of it. 15 . MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything more from the Council? There were a few things that I heard that may deserve some comment. Of course, anytime we're talking about things, anyone thing that somebody says may not be the prime interest in their mind, so it may not have been important to the people that said them. I think the statement was that it's the water from the north that counts. It seems to me that the rains are about equal south and north in how the water comes together and that's why this is one whole area. It isn't for the north area. In fact, if it wasn't for the south area, we wouldn't have to do this drainage or we wouldn't have to contemplate it. The south area is very heavily developed and to some degree is higher than (inaudible) and the water running off is indeed coming from some of the properties in question. I think nowadays some of those properties would be required to be developed differently - some of those properties. The statement was that this is a general Village obligation. I don't understand that because every drop of water in this area comes from this area and nowhere else. It's caused by rainfall on this area. It's not caused by any rain outside of this and, therefore, it's not a general Village obligation for sewer. Somebody said that if there's a benefit, it's a Village-wide benefit, not a local benefit. That may indicate that there is some benefit. But still the water comes from this area and has to be taken care of in this area. If not for the industrial area, there wouldn't be any project. The industrial area generates the water run-off to a large extent, beyond what was there before, just as it generates the traffic. If there was no industrial area there would be no traffic - we wouldn't need the roads (inaudible). Put that back in farms and you can realize that we wouldn't need any roads there. There's quite .a bit of benefit to many of you for crossing that road, but that's another subject. MR. COLESTOCK: Mayor, may I have the floor for a moment? . MAYOR WOODBURN: No, you may not. I think I'd like to reiterate that at this point it's pretty well up to the Council. The Council has looked at these fiqures and now is the time for them to find our what's wrong with-them and now is the time for them to change them if it appears (inaudible). These are not at all new figures and they're not new to the Council. The Council has had input on these figures and had adequate time to talk about them. To lay it on the Village staff at this point I think is incorrect. If you can convince them that some of their figures are wrong and the amount of run-off, footage - what's needed in this area - that might be different. I think the buck is stopping right here now. Let's not overemphasize the amount that the Village employees contribute to this. We've been through it. Now, anything from the Council? COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Do you want to look at a rearrangement of the base cost between the state, county and municipal? V~YOR WOODBURN: There is no possibility. The State and County are contributing according to their land area at the same 16 . ratio that the City is being asked to contribute. We have agree- ments with them on a pro-rata basis, which is an equally divided basis, as we have with Shoreview for their run-off. There's two percentages (inaudible) that Shoreview is contributing to it because of the expense of taking out their water - a total of some hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's a cubic foot run-off basis for each of the areas and agreements have already been made. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I would like to ask the attorney - instead of $2750 per acre, do you have another number in mind? If so, what? MR. STEILEN: I do not have another number in mind because . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Thank you. MR. STEILEN: Can I finish? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: It seems to me that that's what we want to do - consider another number - but if you don't have one then . MR. STEILEN: Can I just ask one question, because one part of our objection really hasn't been addressed and then we can end it - that is the point that was made that the south end of the park, south of the freeway, was already adequately drained. It was the north part that was not adequately draining. So to say that the south has contributed and caused the problems is a mystery to us. An honest mystery. I'm not saying it isn't adequate as much as someone trying to explain the position of the landowners. We honestly believe that we had adequate drainage. Our problems - if you call them that - our needs were serviced by what we had. The sewer facility that we had only became inadequate for purposes of draining the land north of the freeway. That's why we have taken the position that our property hasn't changed. The value hasn't changed. It was adequately drained before and it's adequately drained now. That's the basic reason we're here tonight. We feel that in order to serve the property north of the freeway, we have ended up being assessed. It really doesn't answer the question or address the issue to say that the rainfall per square foot is the same - you're obviously right - it is the same. The question we have is - we were adequately serviced before, nothing's changed, from our standpoint - although the north is better served now - we're not better served. We don't believe, without reason, that our property values have increased and, if our property values haven't increased, I don't believe that the assessment is justifiable under law. }L~YOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen (inaudible). MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There miaht be some benefit in reviewing the presentation I made in the past on what happened. I might add - this is Lexington Avenue and this is Shoreview. Previously, all the drainage north of 694 found its way down, from both sides of 694, to the Lexington/694 interchange and then drained southerly 17 . along a ditch and in the culvert system ,and eventually out into Bethel ditch. These systems were inadequate, primarily because of all the development that has taken place in the whole area. At one time it was probably adequate, certainly, but as the area developed - not only north of 694, but south of 694 - it became apparent that new drainage structures were going to be needed. This is considering the whole drainage area as ultimately developed and not as it is today - ultimately developed. There are a lot of undeveloped pieces of property. By the way, they're treated equally as the developed pieces. The current plan calls for all of the drainage in Arden Hills on the north side of 694 and a good majority of the drainage in Shoreview, north of 694, to be routed to ponding in Arden Hills, some ponding in Shoreview - it comes to north of 694 and is carried westerly, which reverses the flow, into a new detention basin that the state has under construction right now, and it dis- charges through this detention basin and into this existing storm sewer - no increase in the size of the pipe. In other words, all of this flow, because of ponding, has been reduced. The storm sewer you see on Lexington Avenue, south of 694, carries a portion of the highway right-of-way and the remaining portion south of 694. So the drainage that's occurring south of 694 is going into this storm sewer. This storm sewer is designed for the ultimate develop- ment of the whole area and everybody contributes water to this storm sewer. You say it was adequate before - you'll recall we placed along Grey Fox Road - there is an existing storm sewer pipe in Grey Fox Road and we constructed another one parallel to it - a larger size - so it carried all of this water. So if you're saying that the water north of 694 is causing the problem down here - that is not true. The water north of 694 now is carried over to detention basins which ultimately discharge it into existing culvert/ditch systems. ~mYOR WOODBURN: Anything further from the Council? COu~CIL~mN MULCAHY: I have a question for Mr. Steilen. In your letter - which I realize you wrote today, perhaps under short notice - did you say on page 2 - I just want you to clarify what you mean by the statement where you said yOU asked for a meeting with the City staff to discuss the assessments and were denied. I don't understand that. . ~m. STEILEN: Councilman Mulcahy, I commented upon this. Actually this letter was written by my partner Bruce, who met with the landowners this morning and then tried to meet with the City. That was my reference at the beginning of my comments - that we tried to arrange a meeting with the City staff but it didn't work out. I think I said that I wasn't meaning to criticize the City staff because it's hard to work out a meeting on one day's notice or two day's notice - whatever it was. COD~CIL~illN MULCAHY: That's what I thought you said. So the statement about being denied a meeting is not really accurate. 18 MR. COLESTOCK: I tried to make that arrangement with Charlotte and she was unable to get the people together on such short notice. . COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: One further question for you Mr. Steilen. You referred, and Mr. Popovich referred also to U. S. Code Section 1983. In dealing with less knowledgeable persons, would you mind telling the less knowledgeable meIT~ers of the Council what it is we have to be concerned about in terms of U. S. Code Section 1983 so that we don't misstep? MR. STEILEN: That code section, as Mr. Popovich correctly said, doesn't deal specifically with special assessments and how you assess them and what the correct procedures are. What it does say is that if you deprive someone of their rights without due process, then that person has the right to sue you for attorney's fees, punitive damages and so on. It goes beyond the days of old when city councils - their only risk was that if the assessment was appealed that they might lose the assessment. It allows the landowner to recover some of the investments that they make in appealing an assessment. MR. POPOVICH: May I comment on that section? There hasn't been a case in the country where a special assessment has been challenged under 1983, where attorney's fees have been granted under that section. It's a new theory and I commend them because that's what lawyers are supposed to do - figure out new material. There are lots of tricks to theory and winning. The practical problem is that Section 1983 has been on the law books for years and years and years and it comes up in connection with discrimina- tion cases - female sports and male sports, discrimination in hiring and employment practices. That's where it has come up in the last number of years. As you follow the interpretations of 1983 - in fact, many of the justices - it's a federal law - have been wondering if the interpretations are far too broad and much more than the original (inaudible) wanted it to be. It's a novel theory and I compliment counsel for eoming up with it, but the gist is - they're going to rise or fall on an appeal in Minnesota - if they go to court - under our local improvement code and was the property benfitted and to what extent. That's what it boils down to. . I~. STEILEN: As Mr. Popovich said, we defend cities and represent cities as well as landowners and currently we are - insurance companies as well as representing cities - and we are currently defending some 40 lawsuits using this exact theory. Mr. Popovich is right - there is no decision right now because the Supreme Court only came down with this theory a year and a half ago. There will be plenty of opportunities for this theory to be justified if any of these 40 cases are successful. COUNCIL~~N MULCAHY: (Inaucitle) were you on the other side, would you be willing to have the following statement recited to you - that any special assessment adopted in excess of the special benefit constitutes a denial of constitutional rights? 19 MR. STEILEN: Yes, and we do advis~ our clients that. We have developing cities - (inaudible) I Minnetrista - and some re- developing cities - St. Louis Park - and we are very careful about those kinds of issues. . COUNCIL~~ MULCAHY: Would it be your position that if this special assessment should be deemed to be in excess of the benefit that you would, therefore, have the right to punitive damages against the Council and the City? ~ffi. STEILEN: Under 1983, we would potentially have that right. Whether we would choose to exercise it or not depends on the wishes of my clients and I have not asked them since that is so far off, if it's going to occur at all, and frankly we didn't come into the meeting with the idea of threatening and waving shotguns and so on. As Mr. Colestock said, we came to try and work things out and arrange meetings and so on, but to very firmly take our stand and it is not our intent to concentrate on threats. It is our intention to try and work things out and if we can't, we'll take our appeal and, as Mr. Popovich said, we'll let the courts work it out. MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) we're trying - with some back- ground too - figure out what is equitable. I guess our point is that equitability changes depending on where you are. MRS. KENNETH BOSS, 1315 Red Fox Road: I would like to say - Mr. Popovich said it depends on if the property is really aided by this thing. Mr. Christoffersen showed that holding thing there now that comes right down through our property, the same as it always did, only that you dug it deeper and dug it wider and didn't tell us you were going to do it. You said you were going to remove the weeds from our little stream that went through our property, so our property has been damaged by it. Nothing else has Changed - only they're (inaudible) back of us there and draining it right all down through our property with no pipe. It would come through this ditch that they dug later. We're not industrial like they are. MAYOR WOODBURN: I was wondering about that. Have they widened that ditch or did they . . MRS. BOSS: They widened it, they knocked down some of our trees. We asked them special and Mr. Townsend said no - we're only going to take the leaves out. It's widened, it's deeper, there are big banks on each side of it and some of our trees are missing. Was everybody notified that this big thing was going to be built back there? We've never had one bit of notice about it, until we got the notice to come to this meeting. Mr. Townsend said there was going to be no charge for taking these leaves out of our stream. That's where we are and we have an assessment for $4755 on our acre and a half. MAYOR WOODBURN: You are the owners of your property - it's in your name? MRS, BOSS: Yes, 20 MR. POPOVICH: We had the feasibility hearings a year ago and the same people got notices then as'for tonight. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is there any reason the Bosses (inaudible). . ca~RLOTTE McNIESH: I would have to look back to see where the notices were mailed. I believe they were mailed one. When we mailed the notice for this hearing, the address on the County rolls was their home address and we got the letter back saying it wasn't deliverable. We happened to know that Mr. and Mrs. Boss were living in Sutton Place so after we got it back - because it wasn't forwarded - we sent another notice. But I don't believe you were at Sutton Place a year ago, were you? V~S. BOSS: We were in May. MAYOR WOODBURN: your house. (Inaudible) even though it was addressed to MRS. McNIESH: I don't believe we got one back at the time of the feasibility hearing. I'll have to check that. MR. POPOVICH: Just so we don't get off on a tangent on the notice - the law says you can just make a good faith effort on sending the notice and whether notice is received or not - that doesn't vitiate the proceedings. Obviously you hope everyone will get it, but there is an exculpatory phrase as to the law. MAYOR WOODBURN: All we can do is try, but it's still nice to know that everybody got notice. (Inaudible) ask Mr. Colestock to have the last word. Is there anything else the Council wants to add? Mr. Colestock, you may have the last word. MR. COLESTOCK: You caught me unprepared. stand the situation from what the engineer just plan, as far as the distribution of storm water ongoing just parallel of 694. Is that right? Well, as I under- said, the original is concerned, was MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: 694 on the north side - Avenue. That's the way The original drainage did not parallel it flowed to the east and down Lexington it was before the improvement. . MR. COLESTOCK: As that situation stands now, what I see developing is - ac least for the village - a claim is going to be raised that with the development of new properties and building of new buildings and new facilities in the industrial park - you are contending that this system is going to be necessary to take care of the drainage problems generated by 100% utilization of the industrial park. Is that correct? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Are you talking just the industrial park south of the freeway? ~L~. COLESTOCK: Yes. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. 21 . MR. COLESTOCK: One of the interesting things about this is that Roberts properties, for one, we for another, I think Tyson for another, have all been told that if we want to build new buildings and pave new areas of the industrial park, we're going to have to have holding ponds. As a matter of fact, I appeared before the Council here a year ago to get a building permit and we agreed to put a new holding pond in at substantial expense and also at the expense of not being able to utilize more than 40% of our land area for building. Now I find that apparently the system was not adequate at that time. I find it hard to believe, in view of the fact that when the open ditch existed there we, nor no one else, ever had any problem with flooding. We did have water rising in the ditch - that's true. We did have water rising in holding ponds - that's true. But we never had any problem with flooding. I don't see - although I have not made any calculation as to the run-off requirement or the (inaudible) required to take care of what run-off we generate in that area. I doubt very much that we would have had any problem with what- ever developed - even with 100% coverage of buildings. I still feel that the problem that has developed here and the thing that we're arguing about is the fact that the village has had to find a way to take care of the run-off which is generated by the northern development of Arden Hills and of Shoreview. I see nothing more or less to it than that. The fact is that 20 years ago, when we first started this park - when Roberts first started in the park - none of us had any problems and none of us antici- pated any problems. We paid for sewer and we paid for roadways and we paid for all of the facilities. Up until the time this sewer was built and this road was put in, we had no problems. Now all of a sudden we're faced with problems which are going to cost us a lot of money and which we really don't know whether we have an answer to. I think that this is about the size of it. I haven't said much for a last word, but that's our position. As a group in the industrial park, we feel we are adequately taken care of. We needed nothing further from the village. One thing I want to remind you of, Mayor Woodburn, when you said that this sewage system was developed primarily for the industrial park - do you recall when the water system was put in the village? Do you know that a representative of Roberts Construction and myself and one or two others here were the movers and shakers that got it going? That was spread on the whole village because it benefitted the whole village. That's what's happening here. I think a parallel case can be drawn and a parallel case can be made for the benefit the village is receiving from having this work done. . MAYOR WOODBURN: What is the Council's pleasure? Action consisting of holding this over and modifying the outlined assessment or approving it? What does the Council want to do? COuNCIL~~N JOHNSON: Your Honor, I guess counsel repre- senting the assessed people here seems to feel (inaudible) and apparently he's never talked to the engineer. I really got the feeling he didn't know what the system is all about. If there is any advantage in him learning a little bit more about the system and reconsidering, then I'd say it's worth that time. (Inaudible). 22 . MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) deal with this. We've dealt with this for so long and so openly and.so publicly and this hearing has been set for long enough that to wait until today and hold this item up - there was adequate notice - I don't if it's fair to hold it up some more because they didn't have time (inaudible) . MRS. McNIESH: Notices were mailed on August 6. MAYOR WOODBURN: So they got there maybe the 10th, two weeks (inaudible), beyond the fact that everybody knew it was cominq Up. Many people knew it was coming up. Mr. Colestock, I think, was here, I believe, when we set the assessment time. One of the difficulties we have up here - we've lived with these figures for so long that there was no surprise to us. Anything else from the Council? Action or inaction? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: (Inaudible) make a motion. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Your Honor, I'm prepared to move the adoption of a resolution which adopts and confirms the assessment roll for Improvement No. ST-81-2, covering the Lexington/694 storm drainage, and to adopt Resolution No. 82-46. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I would like to add some reasons for the motion. A lack of benefit to the properties has not been offered and no alternative figures have been given to us. I think we have to proceed this way. MAYOR WOODBURN: I think that will be in the minutes. We have looked at this in various ways and the figure is not out of the blue. It has been looked into. COUNCI~Uti~ MULCAHY: I'd also like to say, particularly since I'm the newest member of the Council here, I haven't had the benefit of the earlier long discussions (inaudible) deciding to go ahead. I, for one, very much appreciate the input that we received tonight. I am a little disappointed, though, that with the practical matter - adequate notice to the affected per- sons and landowners, and in most cases a situation where we're dealing with relatively sophisticated business people, people who know I value their business as citizens of the village - it really would have been a bigger help to us if you could have come in strength a little sooner. Gene was here earlier and made some of these comments at one meeting that I'm familiar with. . My regret in voting for this assessment, and I will, and perhaps the following assessment, is that the citizens - particu- larly the business community - let us know too late - or not earlier enough anyway - about their feelings. I know that every person sitting up here, Councilman Hicks included, would like to hear from all of you. We're hearing mostly from the business community tonight. You're valued members of the community and we don't want to have a disagreement with you, least of all a lawsuit. In my view, it would really help us a lot more if you would get a lot more involved, serve on our committees, learn 23 . about and speak to these issues sooner and eloquently and that would help you and I think it would help us a great deal. I realize that that sounds a little,pious to you tonight - you have to pay the bills and you think we don't care about them. We certainly do. We have a lot of these issues before us and we're trying the best we can. I would ask you - as I did myself - to get involved in the village affairs and come see us and serve on our co~mittees, MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further from the Council? Hearing nothing, I will close the hearing. Councilman Mulcahy then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 82-46 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. ST-81-2 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. ST-81-2 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly cal- culated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valua- tion, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 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 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 benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. . 3. The proposed assessments 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 10.01% per annu~ accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assess- ment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment 24 . . from the date hereof to December 31, 1983, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1982, collectible in 1983, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole or at least 50% of such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made within 30 days after the date of this resolution. 5. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Johnson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All Present; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 25 . . STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of ninutes of a special meeting of the Council of said City held on the 23rd day of August, 1982, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. ST-8l-2. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City thiS~?y of September, 1982. @ t:?~ I :fA it/Am .. 1(1 /'Ite/Z , Ci y~lerk Admi~trator (SEAL) , . . . ~ . Extract of Minutes of Meeting' of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota August 23, 1982 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 23, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Johnson, McAllister and Mulcahy; and the following was absent: Councilman Hicks. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Admin- istrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk Administrator; Donald G. Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Consulting Engineers; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will now proceed with the hearing on Grey Fox Road, Improvement No. P-81-1, the same format as we had before. I will open the public hearing at this time and ask the Clerk Administrator, Mrs. McNiesh, if she has published the necessary notices. MRS. CHARLOTTE McNIESH: The notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on August 10 and notices were sent to the property owners on August 6. Y~YOR WOODBURN: the improvement. I will ask Mr. Christoffersen to describe MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Essentially the Grey Fox Road improve- ment consists of a purely street improvement, with the exception that there were catch basins constructed in Grey Fox Road. If the Council recalls, at the time the storm sewer improvement was approved, the Grey Fox Road improvement was not and we did not know whether there would be any improvement on Grey Fox Road so soon, so subsequently catch basins were installed and connected to the storm sewer constructed on the previous improvement. Grey Fox Road was improved to a 36 foot wide street with nine-ton load capacity (inaudible). It has concrete curb and gutter and essentially the westerly portion of Grey Fox Road was 32 feet wide in width, it had concrete curb and gutter but needed some repair, and also needed on one side - it was removed to allow the widening needed to meet M.S.A. standards. Grey Fox Road was a part of the City's M.S.A. improvement program and in . the five year improvement program. The westerly portion - curb and gutter on the south side where it needed to be replaced - new curb and gutter along the north side - this reach right in here, approximately five feet of this street was constructed (inaudible) and a completely new section was constructed in the middle, from this point to Dunlap Street - there was no existing street in that area - that con- sisted of paving, curb and gutter and grading. From this point on it was constructed to a 36 foot width, concrete curb and gutter. The Grey Fox existing prior to construction was a 32 foot wide street with no concrete curb and gutter. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, when the original feasibility hearing was held, it was estimated that the costs would be $543,900.00 and on an alternative basis, $482,900.00. The actual costs, as it now works out, are $285,790.00. At the time of the feasibility hearing, we projected a 100% assessment and that would have worked out to $110.00 a front foot. At that time we left it open because we wanted to give the worst possible picture and how much might go on general taxes and things like that. For the hearing tonight, we're recommending that 75% be assessed. That will raise $217,240.12 and the balance will be picked up by City funds - the balance between the $217,240.12 and the $285,790.00. That then makes an assessment rate of $50.00 a front foot instead of $110.00 a front foot that we had originally estimated. There were some properties - a couple of them - that were assessed in 1970 and were assessed at the rate of $8.42 a foot. Those properties will receive credit for that and they will then be assessed on this project at $41.58 a front foot, where the others that weren't assessed before will be assessed at $50.00 a front foot. The recommendation is that this be spread over a ten year period of time, with the interest carrying charge at 10.01%, which is roughly 2% less than what other cities are charging, but in view of the interest rate we got on our bond issue earlier, we're recommending that particular rate. . Obviously, if the assessment roll is adopted, you have 30 days to prepay without any interest penalty. If not, it will be assessed and start collecting with taxes next year. So 1/10 of the total dollar amount will be collected the first year, to- gether with interest at 10.01%, with a declining amount each year until in the tenth year it's only 1/10, plus 10.01% on that ]/10 principal. They have the right to prepay during that ten year period as well as during the 30 day period immediately after the assessment roll is adopted. 2 I think Mr. Lund raised a question earlier, in connection with the other improvement, as to his frontage. That should be one item that you consider as you go along with this hearing. ~ffiYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written ques- ... tions or objections? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, we have the objections that I read pre- viously presented by James Steilen, representing Hunter Sales, A & D Development, R. L. Gould, Roberts Construction, Christine Colestock, Starco Inc., doing business as Scott Roberts Development Company. Is it necessary that I read these . . MR. POPOVICH: As long as they're referred to. MRS. McNIESH: They're the same objections that were read in the prior hearing. Then I have a letter from George Reiling objecting to the assessments as he did in the prior hearing; a letter from A & D Development Company, objecting to the assessment, saying that as to the road there was no benefit conferred inasmuch as there was suitable access available to the property one block north on Red Fox Road. He contends that if there is a benefit, it should be less than the assessments. I have a letter from Donald Roberts, President of Roberts Construction Company, objecting as he objected in the prior hearing. A letter from Tri-State Land Company, citing the same objections as they did in the storm drainage project. A letter from R. L. Gould, similar to the letter referred to before, and one from Eugene Colestock, objecting to the assessment because there is no benefit to the property. The last letter I have is one signed by Donald Roberts, wherein he states that Parcel No. 25-02700-340-78 is assessed for a total front footage of 300.4 feet. They are fee owners of just less than 118 feet, with the remainder owned by the state of Minnesota. I believe the actual figure is 116.75 feet, which he feels should be the basis for the assessment rather than 300.4. Be has a diagram attached. I believe that covers it. ~ffiYOR WOODBURN: ation of objections, yourself. We will open the meeting then for consider- discussion and points. Please identify . MR. JAMES STEILEN, Popham, Baik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, 4344 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota: I'm here, as the Clerk Administrator said, on behalf of R. L. Gould, Hunter Sales, the Colestock family, Roberts Construction and A & D Development. I notice that once again, whoever projected the costs here was substantially over on the actual costs. I only wish that he had worked for Albert Quie and perhaps Ronald Reagan because they could use his services. Again, we object to this assessment because we don't believe that we have received a special benefit from this project. You will notice that each of those property owners had access and was using the existing road and found it very adequate. They didn't benefit and they did not petition the City to have that road improved in any way. To a person, they don't believe that 3 . . , ' the connection was of any value to them. In fact, they think it was a detriment in the industrial area. It has dramatically increased the traffic in the industrial park and although at this point I don't have any official counts, talking with the owners tonight they indicate that it quite visibly is through traffic. In other words, the great majority of the cars and traffic on Grey Fox Road now is through traffic - it's not industrial park traffic. What that indicates is that the community as a whole, and perhaps even greater than the Arden Hills community, is benefiting greatly from a connected and.improved Grey Fox Road. The land- owners believe that they have suffered from that and certainly haven't benefited. Again, if we measure special benefit - as I think we must - by increase in market values, the market value of their property has not increased because of the connection of that road. They still use the same access they always used, they had no complaints, it was adequate, they don't feel their market values have in- creased and don't believe there's been a special benefit to their property and as they look out their windows every day, they see the community using that road. For those reasons they have concluded - and I conclude - that that road improvement is of a general benefit to the community and not a special benefit to the particular landowners within the industrial park. For that reason we would ask you to not adopt the assessment roll and again to spread this cost across the community to reflect the fact that it is a general improvement. MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further? Anyone else? MR. CLIFFORD LUND, 2241 North Milton, Representing Roberts Properties: The property that we have a question on is this one right here - this little tail that sticks out here - is owned by the State of Minnesota so we should not be assessed for that because we do not abut the street on that portion. We at Roberts Construction - when they built the industrial park they put in the roads - Grey Fox Road and Dunlap Street - and when the City took them over, we had to put a two inch overlay on the street to bring them up to (inaudible) standard. Granted, there is no curb and gutter along Grey Fox Road, nor along Dunlap Street - no concrete curb and gutter - there is blacktop curb and gutter. We do not feel that we benefit except to the extent of the curb and gutter. MAYOR WOODBUro,: Any further comments? Anyone else? I believe we got your expressions from most of your letters. MR. TIMOTHY TYSON, Representing A & D Development Company, Which Leases Property to Tyson Warehouse Company at 1300 Grey Fox Road: Basically the same disagreement - whether or not it benefits our property or not - and that our access is all out Snelling Avenue or Highway 51 to the north and simply by going one block north on Red Fox, we have more than adequate (inaudible). In addition, it's always a problem for us when we do see that the majority of the traffic which has been created on Grey Fox with the new road is automobiles and we are not in the retail business 4 . by any means and we have noticed that there have been no instances where the truck traffic serving our facility has benefited in any way by the addition of extending Grey Fox to Lexington Avenue. Most all of our traffic originates from the freeway systems and we currently have no traffic coming north on Lexington Avenue into our facility via Grey Fox Road. MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further? Any comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Would it be appropriate to note for the record that Grey Fox Road may be having a particular problem now these days because of the closing of Lexington Avenue at this time. We couldn't get a good traffic count now, I'm sure, if that's the case, and in view of that through traffic referred to, would not be normal. MAYOR WOODBURN: (inaudible) . (Inaudible) increase in local traffic. MR. TIMOTHY TYSON: Speaking for myself, once I know that that shortcut is there, westbound on 694, I would bypass the stop- lights rather regularly, even when the road is completed, to gain access to westbound 694 or north 35-W without going through the stoplights on 694 and Lexington Avenue. Even when Lexington Avenue is complete, there is a shortcut onto the freeway system without going through the intersection - westbound on 694 (inaudible). We're in the trucking business so we're always looking for shortcuts. MAYOR WOODBURN: That would be coming up Lexington (in- audible) . MR. CLIFFORD LUND: Start by coming from the south. . MR. TYSON: Coming north on Lexington or from south of our facilities. MR. LUND: (Inaudible) bypass two stop signs. MAYOR WOODBURN: (Inaudible) although generally I'd be on that other highway to begin with rather than starting on Lexington. COUNCILMAN JOHNSON: Cliff, what is the (inaudible)? . MR. LUND: When they put the storm sewer in on Grey Fox Road, that's the way the easement went - not easement, but they had fee title - to Grey Fox Road and that little (inaudible) that goes back up there. So it belongs to the state. It's an open ditch right now, all green and full of trees and whatever. VlliYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, are you familiar with that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, and Mr. Lund's correct. That was originally obtained for ditch and culvert drainage. Appar- ently the drainage does occupy part of it. As far as placing 5 . , ' an assessment on the property, the north property line was used and not the south property line - we just followed the property line (inaudible). We used the dimension along the north property line, which was 300.4 feet. We treated the easement as public property. . MR. LUND: It's not an easement though. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It is public property because it belongs to the State of Minnesota. We treated it as public property. Normally, in this particular case (inaudible) right-of-way and the existing street is throughout the rest of the portion. In our view, the frontage can be made use of. If it is not occupied by storm sewer, a portion of that property could revert back to the property owner also. MR. LUND: Our frontage is actually Dunlap Street for that particular property. We have no need for that road whatsoever. MR. EUGENE COLESTOCK, President of Hunter Sales, 3737 North Lexington Avenue: I would like to add once more - I've heard all the objections that were raised on the previous issue as far as sewer is concerned and they apply as far as the road is concerned. It's my concensus, in the industrial park, that the road has served no purpose for anyone in the industrial park. We were happy, we were content, we were pleased, we had all of the access we needed (inaudible) areas that we wanted to be in in the indus- trial park. I would like to reiterate that the same objections apply all the way. MAYOR WOODBURN: Anything further from the Council? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I would like to ask the attorney or Mr. Colestock - are you saying you have no benefit at all? MR. COLESTOCK: That is correct. MAYOR WOODBURN: We have the same options that we had in the previous project. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I guess what I'm hearing from the audience is they don't feel they should be assessed anything for for this improvement. We can't go along with that because we have to assess a minimum amount because of the bond business. In view of no alternative (inaudible) numbers we have been looking at for a year. . Mayor Woodburn closed the hearing. Following a discussion of the amount to be assessed against Mr. Clifford Lund's property, Councilman Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 Resolution No. 82-470/ RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. P-81-1 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The proposed assessments for Improvement No. P-81-1 should be and are hereby amended as follows: Name and Address Description of Property Change Made Original Revised Clifford Lund 2241 North Milton Roseville, MN 55113 Parcel Code No. 25-02700-340-78 $15,020.00 $5,837.50 2. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the foregoing amendment is just and equitable to said proposed assessment, and necessary to a fair assessment for payment of the cost of said improvement The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Mulcahy and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All Present; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman McAllister, after indicating that a lack of benefit had not been demonstrated and in view of the fact that no alternative figures were offered, then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. ~-47 #- RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFI~1ING ASSESSMENTS AS AMENDED FOR IV~ROVEMENT NO. P-81-1 . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Improvement No. P-81-1, against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly cal- culated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valua- tion, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 7 - . . . Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and pub- lished, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment as amended was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments as amended are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 10.01% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1983, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1982, collectible in 1983, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole or at least 50% of such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made within 30 days after the date of this resolution. . 5. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Johnson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All 8 '. ... . . Present; and the following voted against the same: None; where- upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a special meeting of the Council of said City held on the 23rd day of August, 1982, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. P-81-1. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of said City this c?7--c-t day of September, 1982. ();tuUttf (jJ)lS;}~L City Clerk Administrator (SEAL) . . ~ .... Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota August 23, 1982 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 23, 1982, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Johnson, McAllister and Mulcahy; and the following was absent: Councilman Hicks. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Admin- istrator; Dorothy Zehrn, Deputy Clerk Administrator; Donald G. Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Consulting Engineers; and Peter S. Popovich.of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: I guess we are ready to proceed with the third assessment hearing, which is Improvement No. p-80-1. Ca~RLOTTE McNIESH: notice was published in and notices were mailed August 6. I have the affidavit saying that the the New Brighton Bulletin on August 5 from the post office in New Brighton on MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Your Honor, I don't have a slide on this one. The improvement consisted of constructing street lighting, median islands and sidewalk along County Road E. An eight foot pedestrian sidewalk along the south side and a six foot sidewalk area extending from (inaudible) to Carroll Furniture, then a break in the sidewalk, and the sidewalk begins again at the easterly portion of McGuires' property and extends to Lexington Avenue. There was a relocation of a driveway at McGuires and construction of islands from the east to the west end anc varied electrical work, plus a report by the planner - a landscaping report by the planner. 11R. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the original estimated cost was $630,000. It turned out to be $516,166. If you will recall, the task force, at the feasibility hearing - prior to the feasibility hearing - recommended a 50/50 . . -. split and that recommendation was again reiterated by the staff so that $258,083 would be raised by assessments and the City would pick up $258,083. The cost works out to $52.89 a front foot on the front foot assessments. On the acreage assessment, there are 33 acres that would be assessed at $1,173.10 per acre. We're recommending that this be spread over the ten year period as well, with the interest carrying charge of 10.01%, with the rights of prepayment as expressed earlier. MAYOR WOODBURN: I will ask the Clerk Administrator if there are any written objections or other opinions or questions. MRS. McNIESH: There are none. ~~YOR WOODBURN: I will open the hearing for everyone on the floor. I hear nothing. We will move on then to the Council for their comments. Hearing no comments from the Council, I will close the hearing and ask the Council for their action. Councilman Johnson then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 82-48 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. P-80-1 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Improvement No. P-80-1 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly cal- culated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valua- tion, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and pub- lished, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the con- struction 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 2 , . . ., and parcels of land, respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 10.01% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1983, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1982, collectible in 1983, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter ~~til the entire assessment is paid. 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole or at least 50% of such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made within 30 days after the date of this resolution. 5. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman McAllister and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All Present; and the following voted against the s~~e: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 3