Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-047 ~ ,;f'G-J/7 . Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 29, 1983 a Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 29, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at 8:30 p.m.); and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBUro,: We will now go on to Improvement No. SS-83-2. I will open the public hearing at this time. MRS. McNIESH: I have the affidavit of publication indi- cating that notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on August 11 and notices were mailed to the affected property owners on August 12. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is for the extension - approximately 590 feet - this is Red Fox Road and Trunk Highway 51 in this location and 694 is up to the north. This is extending sanitary sewer approximately 590 feet along the north side of Red Fox Road, with a two inch force main of about 400 feet. . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total cost is $29,970.00. It's proposed to be 100% assessed. The sanitary sewer works out to $24.03 per foot. The sani- tary sewer service force main is $7,454.19. We're proposing to assess that over a ten year period. This improvement has not been included in any bond issue - it's been handled < internally because of the $29,000 - a smaller amount - and obviously we would recommend the 10% carrying charge on that as we've done with the others, with the right of prepayment. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, could you give us the totals for each piece? , MR. POPOVICH: There are two pieces - Reiling has $16,821; . Jeffrey Nielsen has $13,149. MRS. McNIESH: There are no written communications. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the hearing to public comment then. MR. JOHN E. DAUBNEY, Attorney for George Reiling, St. Paul, Minnesota: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I'm an attorney and represent Mr. George Reiling, the owner of one of the parcels involved. I have a preliminary sketch for a plat on Mr. Reiling's property, which I would like to post over here. This is a little easier to understand than Christoffersen's map. This is the property Mr. Reiling owns - it's west of Lexington, south of the freeway and north of Red Fox Road. The subject property that wanted and needed the sewer is over here. It couldn't be fed with a gravity main so they had to have a force main and lift up to a point where a gravity main could take over. At the time this first came before the Council in March this year, Mr. Reiling said at that time he was proposing a development that would not need any sanitary sewer service from Red Fox Road west of the point where the sanitary main already exists - up at this point - this runs south below Red Fox Road. There were two alternatives proposed - referred to as one and two. The one that Mr. Christoffersen favored and the Council adopted carried the force main only part of the way and then permitted gravity to take over, and it's the gravity portion - approximately 700 feet - that Mr. Reiling is being assessed. Mr. Reiling proposes to develop the property so that the parcel here - identified as lot 7 - could be serviced off this proposed street sitting in a horseshoe area north of Red Fox Road. It would not receive any sanitary sewer from Red Fox Road. There is additional property to the south - Mr. Christoffersen, in his judgment, said I'm not going to assess any of this property to the south, but I am going to assess the property to the north, even though Mr. Reiling said he didn't want or need this particular sewer improvement. . The test is - as Mr. Popovich has told you - whether or not there's a benefit to the property. I think the term the courts usually use is whether or not there's an economic benefit. In other words, is Mr. Reiling's property worth an increase in value at least equal to the amount of the assess- ment? If that isn't so, then your assessment is invalid and -2- , , excessive (inaudible) and void. Now, because of the fact that under Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, it's necessary - if you're trying to protect your rights - you have to have a written objection. I have one here that I've written out in longhand and because you may have some difficulty reading my handwriting, I'm going to read this into the record and then file it with you, Mr. Mayor, in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Dated this day and directed to the City Council, City of Arden Hills, Improvement 55-83-2, and giving Mr. Reiling's parcel identification number from the assessor's office. This is to inform you that George Reiling, the owner of the property on the north side of Red Fox Road, east of Lexington Avenue, does object to the proposed assessment against his property for public improvement 55-83-2 for sewer extension to 1315 Red Fox Road. The Reiling property is unplatted and identified as except the west 406 feet and except the east 515 feet, being part of the northeast quarter lying southerly of Highway 694 (subject to roads and easements) in Section 27, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Mr. Reiling objects upon the grounds that the assessment is greater than the economic benefit to his premises and is not equitably spread between the benefitted properties. Signed by me as Mr. Reiling's attorney and it's also approved by Mr. Reiling and his signature is affixed to that. I'm filing that with you at this time Mr. Mayor and again, I would reiterate that the - Mr. Christoffersen's judgment determination is that the property to the south of Red Fox Road has no economic benefit, but Mr. Reiling has - the property that wanted and needed the assessment has a smaller assessment than Mr. Reiling. We feel it's inequitably spread between those properties. We feel there is no - or very little - economic benefit to Mr. Reiling because he does have a sewer running north and south to his property and would be serviced from that particular sewer as far as this development is concerned. . The other option that the Council had and chose not to accept and followed Mr. Christoffersen's recommendation, was to carry the force main from the existing gravity line all the way over to the property to the west - the one that wanted this. If this had been done, then clearly Mr. Reiling could not have been assessed. He cannot be assessed for the portion that fronts on the force main because you can't have two outlets into a force main because obviously, unless the pressures were exactly equal and you had a lot of complicated gate valves and so on, if one person is forcing their sewage into the line, it would back up into the other line unless, as I said, pressures were exactly equal or it was controlled by a series of exotic gate valves, which would be expensive to maintain as well as to install. But they could have had a force main all the way up to the sanitary main and then there would be no question about the assess- ment. -3- , . The judgment of the Council has been to adopt the choice recommended by Mr. Christoffersen - that is, partly force main because without a force main, the property to the west could not have been served. It's at a lower elevation than the distance of the previously existing sanitary line, which goes to the point which is indicated on Mr. Reiling's proposed plat as the north/south street at the left end, or the left end of the horseshoe. That's where the main comes at the present time. As I said, originally Mr. Christoffersen apparently recommended assessing Mr. Reiling for the area of the force main as well, but that apparently changed and at the present time he is only proposed to be assessed for the area that fronts on the gravity section of the line. It is his position - and we believe that we can substan- tiate it - it's his position that there is no economic benefit - or very little economic benefit - to his property. It's a matter of equity and it's a matter of judgment. Mr. Christoffersen's judgment is apparently that Mr. Reiling is benefitted. Mr. Christoffersen obviously is no expert on real estate values and he 'is simply making a judgment call. We feel, under these circumstances - and as illustrated by Mr. Reiling's proposed plat - and he's told you this before - I'm not going to harp on it - but it has little or no benefit. In other words, no increase in the value to his property by reason of extending this main to the property to the west that wanted and needed it. You could have done it for a more economic price had you gone force main the entire distance, but you chose not to do that. This didn't benefit Mr. Reiling and you would have had no benefit had it been force main all the way, but apparently - in a desire to spread the cost - Mr. Reiling's property was included. We also object to the fact that the property to the south, across Red Fox Road, could also be serviced by this particular main. At the present time, they're serviced by the north/south main - the one that Mr. Reiling proposes to use. We find it difficult to understand how Mr. Christoffersen - in his judgment - can state that Mr. Reiling's property is benefitted but the International Paper Company's property to the south is not benefitted. Its improvements are set back from the road a sufficient distance - additional buildings could be built on the south side of Red Fox Road and tied into this by either open trench or jacking under the street. In other words, it would have a potential benefit. We feel it has at least an economic benefit in an equal amount or greater than that benefitting Mr. Reiling'S property. So for all of those reasons, members of the Council, we respectfully object to the proposed assessment and, as I said, we have filed our objection for the record. I think you all understand the principles of this assessment very well and I think Judge Popovich has very ably stated the economic and legal principles involved. If you have any questions, we'll be happy to try to answer them at this time. -4- MAYOR WOODBURN: I guess I do have one. This is just proposed division that you're talking about. MR. DAUBNEY: Yes. , MAYOR WOODBURN: (Ina.udible) puttingiri'a: street right here. I presume, since this has never had a frontage assess- ment for sewer, that you would be willing - with this proposal - to pay a frontage rate on the sewer here. As I said, I believe (inaudible) does not have frontage assess- ments on that end of the property. You're proposing a street to be put in. I presume when the street goes in you would have to pay frontage on that. Is that what you would be willing to do? MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Mayor, I'm making no presumptions at this time and that issue is not before the Council. If Mr. Reiling is permitted to address the Council, he can tell you his view on that. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is this division in front of the Council? MR. DAUBNEY: We have not filed a preliminary plat as of this date. This is a preliminary sketch, prepared by a registered land surveyor - Milner Carley and Associates on Highway 96 over in the City of Shoreview, if I recall correctly. They are professional planners and he is City Attorney - correction, City Engineer - in the City of Little Canada, and I believe also in New Brighton, if I recall correctly. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? . MR. GEORGE REILING, 661 Heinel Drive west, Roseville: I would like to answer your question about whether we would accept the assessment on the new line on the new road. I would accept that assessment if International Paper would accept there's. They hooked on the same line. If you look back in your records, you'll see that they didn't - they were assessed originally an area assessment for sewer when it went through many years ago. (Inaudible) I told this Council last spring - when the watermain came through, they assessed us on two sides because they - the engineers - decided that we could have a road where we now decided to have it. We have a double assessment for water in that particular area. Now what you're saying - we shouldn't use that. We are going to use it. We're going to put a road in there and we are going to use the sewer and we are going to use the water because we have a double assessment. It isn't prudent for us to use a sewer on Red Fox Road when we have the one on the new road that comes in. MR. TIM NELSON, 2015 Rice Street, Roseville, Attorney for Mr. Nielsen: Although we had hoped that the portion -5- of the assessment for Mr. Nielsen could be less than it has been proposed, we are willing to agree to the assessment as proposed. I think it is a reasonable accommodation between the parties and the normal way such an improvement would be assessed. , MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? I will close the public hearing at this time and ask for the Council's comments and recommendations. COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: I have a question on the frontage. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, could you explain how the assessments were arrived at. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Mr. Reiling was assessed for 700 feet at the rate of $24.03 for gravity sewer and the Nielsen property was assessed 237 feet at the same rate - $24.03. Mr. Nielsen was also assessed $7,454 for the sanitary sewer force main. Reiling's totals $16,821 and the Nielsen's was $13 ,149.30. COUNCILMAN CHRISTIANSEN: Mr. Reiling's frontage on Red Fox Road is what? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Approximately 900 feet. MR. DAUBNEY: 875 feet from this point over to the west \ line - that is the existing main. He's assessed 700 feet of the 875 feet, assuming Mr. Carley's figures are accurate. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Our figures came off the section map - the county section map. MAYOR WOODBURN: Is there any disagreement there? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I believe there is. There's a discrepancy of 25 feet. MR. DAUBNEY: (Inaudible) measured from the center of this proposed street over to where the sanitary sewer main is. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: If he measures from the west side of the proposed street, then there would be the difference. That would be approximately a half a street. . MR. DAUBNEY: Can you tell us precisely where the main comes to at this point? Is this map accurate? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That map was shown at the public hearing for the improvement and at this hearing. MR. DAUBNEY: That's a slight discrepancy. -6- COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Christoffersen, why did we not assess anything south of Red Fox Road? , MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Because those properties - there are two properties that are developed and have sewer. A portion of that property has a storm water detention basin on it. We could not visibly see any potential further connection to those properties - they already have the sewer benefit, which they have paid for. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Mr. Daubney said it would have been cheaper to run a force main all the way - bypass Reiling's property. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That was in the original proposal. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Was that cheaper? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Why didn't we do that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The proposal was to run gravity sewer as far as possible, for the same reason that it was run to the east of this existing north/south line. There was a sanitary sewer running to the east of that, which Mr. Reiling was assessed for, I believe, under the Red Fox Road improve- ment, and which is also being used on the east end. This is a similar situation on the west side - there is a potential for gravity use. This is the approximate location, I assume (using Mr. Reiling's map), of the existing sewer line going north and south. When Red Fox Road was constructed, the sanitary sewer was constructed to the east, which was assessed. We also practiced the same thing in this direction - taking one as far as we could to the west - on the premise that this property was divided and there are two parcels using the sewer (inaudible). If this was divided the other direction, there certainly would be a use for that sanitary sewer - that gravity sewer. . MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Christoffersen, if this property had previously been developed and parcel 7 was serviced off the proposed north/south road on the west side of the horseshoe - if that were developed as the property to the south is developed - would you still have recommended an assessment of 700 feet, even though the owner and user of that lot wasn't going to hook into the sewer on Red Fox Road? I'm asking you to make that assumption here because that's what you're doing on everyone of these assessments. You're making an assumption as to benefits. MR. POPOVICH: Except, Jack - and I think you're going too far and I'd instruct him not to answer that - because it's an entirely different set of facts than what we have here right now. -7- , MR. DAUBNEY: I disagree, Peter. The property to the south - Mr. Christoffersen said he's not recommending an assessment for them, even though the sewer runs past their property, even though it's on the other side of the street - he says he's not going to assess them because they're already hooked into a different main down here. Mr. Reiling says - I'm going to hook into a different main up here. I think that's a valid assumption and I think it's an appropriate question to direct to the engineer. If he's going to (inaudible) judgment call - and that's what it is - then I think we should find out how he based that judgment. MR. POPOVICH: Except that what you have here is purely speculative - what is south is a fact - and I don't think we ought to get involved in a speculative plat that mayor may not come through. MR. DAUBNEY: I think it's a reasonable, prospective use of Mr. Reiling's property (inaudible). MR. POPOVICH: Let's say they made a mistake in what they did south - at previous assessment hearings. Whatever they did south would not be binding on what they would do from this point forward. For example, Mr. Reiling said well, they didn't assess the street down below - I can't remember whether they did or not - but if they put that street along the lines that the Mayor was asking about and there were utilities and a benefit - they could assess, irrespective of what happened down there. MR. DAUBNEY: Again, as you said Peter, that's specula- tive. MR. POPOVICH: It depends on the benefits received. MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Mayor, I know you have other things on your agenda tonight - I don't want to monopolize the Council's time. I appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation here this evening. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Can anyone tell me whether or not the properties - the development south of Red Fox Road - paid both a frontage and an area assessment for sewer? MR. POPOVICH: We'd have to go back and check the records. I can't remember. . MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Hicks, I have my own personal know- lege about that - I participated in the development (inaudible). I don't think they had a frontage assessment - they did have an area assessment. That's my recollection. I didn't represent the paper company, but I was representing other property owners in that area. -8- MR. REILING: That isn't my answer, your Honor. , MAYOR WOODBURN: Well, do you agree with your attorney MR. REILING: I don't expect him to know as much about my property as I know. First came the area assessment, then came the front footage on Red Fox Road. We were given credit for the area assessment on Red Fox Road. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Popovich, I didn't hear you say what time period is recommended on this assessment. MR. POPOVICH: We recommended ten years at IO%. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Can you mark the spot on your lay- out there where the change takes place (inaudible). MR. DAUBNEY: About that point, sir (indicating on map). Assuming it developed that way (inaudible). COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: What you have there with respect to the proposed layout - several lots around the horseshoe - that shows lots of a much smaller size than proposed lot 7. Why wouldn't it be reasonable for us to assume that lot 7 would develop in somewhat the same configuration as proposed lot I, so that there would be four - perhaps five - north/south (inaudible) lot 7 served by Red Fox Road, as to which - some of which, at least - Mr. Reiling's property would benefit from the service to Red Fox Road. MR. DAUBNEY: Mr. Mulcahy, that's a very good question. I think I have an answer for that. First of all, the portion that is west of where the force main ends - that area - if that was in a north/south lot - it would have no sanitary sewer available to it because we can't tap into that other force main. So you would have to have at least a lot that was large enough to hook into the gravity main here and then again have your building back here and have your construc- tion - grade your property so your sanitary sewer flowed to the east and then south. You couldn't develop in the area fronting on the force main - and I'm sure Mr. Christoffersen would agree with that, would you not Don? . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I would say that you would require perhaps - although there has been some building on that end recently - and I really don't know what the grades are - but it could be connected by gravity extended diagonally from that point - from the gravity service. If it could not be, it could be treated the same way as the Nielsen lot. It could be - mayor may not have a force main system in the building over in that corner. -9- MR. DAUBNEY: You're saying that you could hook a force main - you could hook into an existing force main? the and MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, I'm saying that you could extend force main to the same manhole that you have circled there discharge into that gravity sewer. I MR. DAUBNEY: In other words, have two force mains. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. MR. DAUBNEY: We feel that would not be economically feasible. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: (Inaudible) the lots east of there. MR. DAUBNEY: (Inaudible) such as lots 6 and 7 are larger sites is because in developing an industrial tract, we find that people need a variety of sizes of lots for different types of development. This is all zoned industrial, as is the property to the south, and we've found that in developing - and I say "we" because I've participated with other developers in this area - we've found that people looking for land are looking for different sized lots. Some of them want small lots. It's entirely possible - as I said - you might find people that want small lots. Mr. Reiling's concept of the development - his proposed platting - is in this particular configuration - having a large lot in the west end - simply because his lot and his tract demands some type of development for that type. For example, lot 6 is triangular - not because he likes a triangular lot but because that's what he owns. Again, the land on the other side, as we said, is not owned by him. As a matter of fact, I think that's part of the right-of-way. He goes up to 694 and I think this is part of of the interchange land owned by the State Board - the interchange of Snelling and 694. Councilman McAllister then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-47 RESOLUTION ADOPTING N~D CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-83-2 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: . l. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Improvement No. SS-83-2 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, -IO- , without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the pro- visions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assess- ments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objec- tions so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefitted by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in1984, 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. -ll- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Hicks, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon , said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 29th day of August, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there- from insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. SS-83-2. w~~~ and the .eal of .aid City thi.pf~ day of , 1983. ~A~~4J&~ 1ty C er Adm1n1strator . (SEAL)