Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-045 '" ,,/ ~ ,', ,t::.,J....e.~e<+...'-' ,fe -tiE 4- $i}-'Ic, I, f . Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 29, 1983 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 29, 1983, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks, McAllister and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen arrived at 8:30 p.m.); and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will move then to Arden Oaks, Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-Bl-3. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Mrs. McNiesh, do we have the affidavits of publication? MRS. McNIESH: Yes, I have an affidavit stating that the notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on Thursday, August ll, and certificate of mailing stating that they were mailed on August l2. MAYOR WOODBUm~: will the engineer briefly explain the improvement. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Your Honor, this is for Improvement SS-W-P-ST-Bl-3, Arden Oaks, and abutting property. Essen- tially it includes sanitary sewer, watermain and streets. Sanitary sewer beginning at Oak Avenue, extending along Lake Johanna Boulevard, northerly along Highway lO, crossing Highway lO into Arden Oaks Drive, around Arden Oaks Drive in a loop, down halfway on Wesley Avenue and Arden Oaks Court, . . r and also a stub being placed between private property and Lot 2 of the Arden Oaks subdivision. Watermain beginning at old Highway 10 and Lake Johanna Boulevard, extending northerly along the west side of Highway lO, crossing into Arden Oaks subdivision along Arden Oaks Drive, around Arden Oaks Drive, down Wesley and tying into County Road E, and also a stub along Arden Oaks Court and another stub beside the sanitary sewer and another stub extending across Highway lO at this point. The green representing storm sewer draining along wesley Avenue to Arden Oaks Court and around - partially around Arden Oaks Drive and then out into a detention basin. A group of catch basins carrying drainage into another storm water detention basin, and a group of catch basins draining the intersection along the east side of Highway 10, draining into another low area which conducts drainage to the north. It also includes concrete curb and gutter along Arden Oaks Drive - the location around Arden Oaks Drive, Wesley to County Road E, and in Arden Oaks Court. Your Honor, one other thing - there was an error in the assessments as far as descriptions. This property right here was inadvertently assessed with the next property at this location. This property received - the dark colored square represents a half a unit for street. The open square is a full unit for street; sanitary sewer and water - a triangle in an open circle. The solid triangle in an open circle is services. This lot was assessed - this was assumed to be a lot in this area that was assessed for all five units - street, sanitary sewer and water services. We find that the approximate area of this entire lot was somewhat less than what could be divided into two lots. The front portion - where I have drawn a line here, indicating about 14,000 square feet (inaudible). The remaining would be-about Il,300 or so, which is a substandard lot. That's how the assess- ments were placed on that lot - supposedly placed on that lot. Like I said, it was placed on this lot; it was intended to go on this lot. MR. POPOVICH: Is that common ownership - those two lots? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No. This is here, but this lot over here - the assessments for this lot - this ownership of this property here - was inadvertently placed on this piece of property here. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the council, the original estimated cost of this project was $648,665.00. The actual cost as being assessed is $452,580.00. It's lOO% assessed. We have the breakdown by five different utilities - sanitary sewer trunk, $2,248.87 per unit; sanitary sewer service, $33l.0l per unit; water trunk, $l,637.19 per unit; water service, $239.08 per unit; street and drainage, $5,825.06 per unit - for a total per lot of $lO,l80 roughly. The proposal is to spread this over six years at the lO% -2- . . carrying charge that we discussed earlier, with the normal rights of prepayment. As to the error that Mr. Christoffersen brought to your attention - that's not unusual for something like that to happen because of the very nature of the lots. I advised the Clerk's office today to notify the Branches and they're here this evening so they've received actual notice. The purpose of assessment hearings is to give notice to people - they're entitled to get both written notice as well as the published notice in order to satisfy the due process requirements under the federal and state constitutions. I thought if they were here and voice whatever objection they have to the Council - obviously when you didn't get anything in the mail, you didn't think you were going to be assessed, but it's obviously an error that one lot should have the assessment taken off and added to another lot. The rule on assessment hearings is that you don't increase proposed lot assessments to something different from the assessment roll, but if you'll look at the notice - the people receive a notice that there's an assessment roll on file and you can come up and take a look at it - and for someone to have an assessment and then if you were to increase it at the assessment hearing - you should really do that after giving another notice. So that's why the Branches are here - they got their actual notice so that they're here. Hopefully we can go ahead tonight and adopt the assessment roll. If there were any violent objections, the only other thing we would do is eliminate the lot that received the assessment that shouldn't have it and hold a supplemental assessment hearing two weeks from now and we'd be right back here as we are tonight. That's the reason I made the suggestion that the Branches come to the meeting tonight. They receive the benefit and they don't have any other meritorious objections to the assessment - then obviously we could add that to the assessment roll tonight and certify the whole assessment, without the necessity of going through another publication - only as to that one parcel. As to the remaining parcels, we can certify that one tonight. Maybe that's a little involved as to the procedural part, but in view of the fact that the error was caught timely today - they didn't get written notice but they received actual notice so the due process requirements have been met and they are here. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written objections or comments? MRS. McNIESH: None, you Honor. MAYOR WOODBURN: I will open the hearing then to comments from the audience. Are there any comments from the audience? MRS. KATHY BRANCH, l4l5 West County Road E: We received notice of this at approximately 5:05 today. At the last meeting that concerned this road - we did not -3- . receive notice of it at all. The only way I found out about it was because when I called the engineer - I was asking what was happening in the back of our lot - and he said we were wondering why you weren't at the last meeting and I didn't know what meeting he was talking about because I hadn't received notice, which I found, of course, rather distressing because I've been very, very interested in that development back there since it started - interested in where it was going - and I attended many meetings concerning that area because of my concern. In essence, when we're talking about that road - and I'm talking about the one (inaudible) that particular area - there are really only two people who live there that were affected by it and I, being one of them, didn't receive notification of it. I don't want to ponder that statement forever, but I want to emphasize the impact it had. The other thing - as the lot was drawn on there - it was shown that we had something like - well, they called it a lot and then a lot that was substandard. We bought one lot and on the back part of the lot - the part that is called the substandard lot - (inaudible) we bought because it was a pond area and we bought that because it was wild and natural. It had a pond-like area that had ducks and everything in it - not yearly, but at least a good portion of the summer. It was for that that we bought it. We never bought the lot with any plans of developing it. It was bought as one lot. When I called the engineer and asked what was being done to the back lot (inaudible) he talked about the fact that - I should back up - it now doesn't have any water - it hasn't all summer - and there was a drainage system that was built into it that I, as I understand, was okayed at that previous meeting - so our pond is gone, which was part of why we bought that particular lot, because of that habitat. It's a substandard lot that we don't want to develop and already it's being changed from the status that we had and now we're talking about being charged for sewer and all that other stuff on a lot that is being changed in front of us and we don't want it developed. We want to have that pond there just like it always was. The whole area around us has been changing because of the road and I know there's nothing we can do about that - that had to be done to better develop - but that area was our property. We liked what was going on there - we wanted it like that. Without getting emotional - which I am already - I will try to summarize that by saying that I really resent that assess- ment and think it's very unfair. . The other thing I guess I don't understand is I know we have a large lot in depth, but we're being charged more than anyone else in that development and we don't need that road. The people who couldn't get to their property without that road are being charged less than us. That to me seems unjust. Maybe it's because I'm naive to the workings of the govern- ment, but that doesn't seem right. Then, of course, as I kind of elaborated on the fact that - I know people say that when a road is put in it does add to the value of the -4- property and so therefore you should have an assessment, but I want to reiterate the fact that when we bought the property it was a quiet little area like living in the country in the city - that's what we bought it for - and it's already been changed by the road. I won't rehash that to death but that's my feeling. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Thank you. We'll be discussing this, I'm sure. MR. POPOVICH: Kathy, are you and your husband objecting to the lack of notice or really the benefit? If it's the notice too, then we'll just stop talking right now. MR. MELVIN BRN.CH, 1415 West County Road E: What's the benefit? MR. POPOVICH: I'm just asking you - the notice part you'll waive and you want to talk about the benefit. MRS. BRANCH: The only problem about the notice that I had was that if I was supposed to - I guess the fact that I failed to mention (inaudible) something about the reason they put a sewer in the back lot was for future development purposes and I said we don't plan on developing. At that time he said that we'd probably have trouble developing it anyway because Rice Creek Watershed would probably have something to say about that. So he was adding to the fact that I probably could never develop it anyway. So the time limit I'm talking about is that we should have had time to go to Rice Creek Watershed to get some statement from them and we didn't have that (inaudible) other than it was inconvenient. MR. POPOVICH: But the fact that you didn't get notice ten days ago - you just got it today - do you waive that and you want to argue about whether you got the benefit or not or do you want to argue about both? That's important for us for our proceedings because if we have to hold another hearing, we can hear all that argument at a later point and just remove your assessment and then we'll send you a notice and two weeks from now we'll be back here. That's why we asked them to notify you today so you could be here to argue about the merits - whether it ought to be reduced or (inaudible) but if you're going to insist that you have ten days written notice, then obviously we ought to move on. So you waive the notice? MRS. BRANCH: Yes. . MR. POPOVICH: And you'll argue about whether you have benefit at all. MRS. BRANCH: Yes. MR. POPOVICH: Okay. -5- MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any further comments on this development? . MRS. MARJORIE JOHNSTON, 3672 North Snelling Avenue: We have the lot right off Snelling by the Soo Line underpass. What I'm wondering - why are we charged on that back portion? There's no access on the road. We have absolutely no access to that road at all - none whatsoever. That road is not useful to us at all. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Don, what lot is that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The developer - when he dedicated the right-of-way - dedicated right over abutting their property. There could be access built into there. MRS. JOHNSTON: What good is the access to us when the lot stands there wooded? What good would we get out of it? What benefit are we getting from it now? COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Isn't it large enough to split off the back half and make another lot? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes it is. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: You can subdivide. MRS. JOHNSTON: We don't plan to. MR. ROBERT JOHNSTON: We've lived in this area - this same home - in about three months it will be 30 years. We pay taxes on that property on one lot and the people that we bought the home from built it and they probably had the same thing for 20 years- 30 years for us. One of the reasons we kept it undeveloped in the back - of course, progress hits. We liked it when it was the only place in thirteen acres - but this is progress. We want to know who is responsible for the assessments on our property and assuming that we want to subdivide? That's the assumption that we don't understand. Also, .$5800 and some assessment for a road - Arden Oaks Drive - it's to the benefit of the new homes in the area - none to us. It's a question of who makes the assessment and who decides if we have two lots. I don't care if it was 500 feet long (inaudible). We've paid taxes for 30 years on one lot. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: (Changed Tape) . . .the land to see whether or not there's potential development and it's brought forth to the Council and the Council makes the final decision on it. The engineer makes the original recommenda- tions. This was what was recommended - that this lot be assessed, assuming that it could be split in half. The front half received a sewer and water trunk and sewer and water service benefit - the back receiving the same - in addition to the street benefit. -6- MR. JOHNSTON: Who makes the decision? You recommend it - does the Council vote on it then? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. . MR. JOHNSTON: Do you vote that we have two lots? MAYOR WOODBURN: No. That will be or will not be voted tonight. That's why we're here - to listen to you. MR. JOHNSTON: When the assessment is made and when you vote on it - how long does it take? MR. POPOVICH: Mr. Johnston, if the Council disposes of the matter tonight - like you heard previously - they adopted two other improvements - people have 30 days to come in and pay the assessment if they wish and save any interest. If they don't come within that 30 day period, it's then certified to the County and beginning with your real estate taxes next year, you will pay. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not concerned about the method of paying. I'm concerned about the decision to assume that we were going to subdivide, which we haven't had any desire in 30 years and if I live another 30 years. It's the reason we bought that place - because of the area. It was much better then than it is now - new development (inaudible) that's just progress. We were minding our own business. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have one more question. We now have a neighbor across from our back lot. Are they assessed for the same distance almost as what we are? The corner lot there - are they assessed like we are? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: each lot being assumed to they are. They're assessed on a unit basis - receive the same benefit. Yes, MRS. JOHNSTON: Are we able to see all these assessments? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: . Yes. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments from the audience? If not, we'll close the public hearing at this point in time and ask for the Council's comments or questions. . COUNCILMAN HICKS: The property on the west side of Old Snelling - is that a part of the assessment? There are a couple of lots in there. Is that the same per unit cost as those on Arden Oaks? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There weren't any services placed in this location. The watermain and the sewer is over practically to the property line, so there weren't any services. These were not assessed for services - they would -7- have to come later. There was an assumption - as a matter of fact, we have a preliminary plat showing three lots - so we assessed three trunk water units and three sanitary sewer units on this property. . COUNCILMAN HICKS: I can't. remember if the Planning Commission sent that back for further study. I believe their concensus was possibly two lots should be the maximum in that area. If that's the case, how would that change the total assessments on the per unit basis? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The assessment rolls were made up, I believe, prior to the Planning Commission's action. I think that would have to be verified though. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. Zehm? MRS. ZEHM: They were presented with a plat - a subdivision of three lots. The Planning Commission did have some concerns and they wanted to rework it. I believe the engineer based his assessments on a plat that we had a couple of years ago for the three lots. I don't know what the outcome will be. He is coming in this week. He is recording one lot from that preliminary plan, which leaves enough frontage, I think, for another two lots, but whether he can actually get approval of it, I don't know. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Christoffersen, on Wesley Avenue, on the east side - how many lots outside of Arden Oaks are there that are being assessed? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: On the east side of wesley - here's the south line of the plat. There is one lot platted right in this location and there was some potential - there were some plans in the past showing another lot being divided across this property at this line. This particular owner that owns this property around the corner - lots l, 2, part of 3, and lot 19 - there's potential for at least two additional lots and again he was assessed for half a street unit (inaudible). The triangles and squares indicate how the assessments were placed. . COUNCILMAN HICKS: While you're on that area, I'd like you to review again the Branch property and what the final total was on the assessment regarding that lot and the questionable portion. MRS. McNIESH: The total assessment on the Branch property is $l3,193.74. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Half a street is $2,9l2.54. COUNCILMAN HICKS: What I'm asking, Don, is what's your rationale for the greater assessment when that doesn't appear to have any potential for subdivision? -8- . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It does have a potential. It depends on how the Council looks at it - on variances for lot size. Potentially - as far as filling the marsh land - there might be a question on it. It's a very small marsh land compared to the drainage that drains into it, so there's a good chance that it could be filled. Whether or not the Councilor the Planning Commission would allow a lot of some standard size is the question. I guess this is - I'd rather place the assessment on it and have the Council take it off than I would leave it off and then have the Council direct me to assess it. It's a matter of placing the assessments for the worst possible conditions for people and getting Council approval of that. COUNCILMAN HICKS: I guess I don't understand the mathematics of what happens when it's assessed and then we take it off. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: If it's assessed and you take it off, then the balance could be handled in two or three different methods. It could be assessed and deferred, similar to the others if it was divided. It could be taken off completely and the balance would then have to be spread - or should be spread then on the remaining lots accordingly. The sewer rates would increase and the water units - all units would increase somewhat. Or, in the third case, if the Council deems that that should be removed and leave the rest of the assessments the way they are, then it could be picked up by other funds from the City, such as general taxes. MRS. ROBERT JOHNSTON: I have one more question. On the sewer that you brought down to the middle of our property - are you assessed for the drainage hole that you put there along the side of our property? Also, what about that lot that's between us and the Soo Line underpass? Who's paying to bring the sewer line up to them? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: same as you on the front trunk, sewer service and They are being assessed for the portion for sewer trunk, water water service. MRS. JOHNSTON: How about that drain field? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The drainage has been included in the street and the developer did the drainage on his property. The drain field is not included in the assessment. . MRS. JOHNSTON: They're going to receive the sewer off that line that we're paying for to bring down there, aren't they? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There is a common eight inch sewer that was constructed up to this point and then this common eight inches was considered as a trunk sewer, along with all the rest. -9- MRS. JOHNSTON: How about one that's built on? This man gets how much footage for free? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: They get a complete unit assessment for sewer and water and sewer and water services - the same as you. . MRS. JOHNSTON: Who's picking that up? Is the developer? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I assume the developer is at this point in time. MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that listed on the sheet also? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, it is. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: There's no way I can approve the assessment on that Branch property. That is a substandard. lot back there and it's a very substandard lot. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There are some other substandard lots in that area. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: What can we do? Wnen do we make that decision? Tonight? MAYOR WOODBURN: That could be made tonight, and probably should be, or it can be laid over. MR. POPOVICH: You could lay it over for a certain period of time - a week or so - but remember, we have to get something down to the County Auditor. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I know. I hate to lay it on the engineering firm that did this, but I think that was a terrible error. (Inaudible) and then put a substandard lot for assess- ments. In good conscience, I just can't vote for that. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? . MR. POPOVICH: My suggestion would be - procedural-wise now - we have to amend the assessment roll and take off the one lot that has the assessment that shouldn't be assessed. You can also amend the assessment roll if collectively you feel that the Branches haven't received an assessment benefit for part of the property. They've waived the notice part, but it's that back lot. The other portion there of the lot - you could put that assessment on tonight - whatever that benefit is, forgetting about the back lot - if that's the concensus of the thing by moving ahead. Do you have a figure for that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Half a unit is $2,9l2.54. MR. POPOVICH: How much would come off of that half lot? How much would come off if they followed Diane McAllister's suggestion as to that rear lot? -10- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That would be taking about $IO,28l.21 off. MR. POPOVICH: So $13,l93.74, you subtracted $lO,281.21, that comes to $2,912.53. From $13,000 down to $2900. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: The proposal we're discussing now - we're taking off from the rear - or substandard - assessment, all of the water and all of the sewer and all of the road that has been assessed there. That's what's been subtracted. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: And the services for sewer and water. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Leaving only half a unit, the theory being that there's just one lot there and just side exposure or frontage, so that only half the road is appropriate, the problem being that the rest of that assessment has to be picked up somewhere. Mr. Popovich, did you say we could adjust the assessments on the other lots? MR. POPOVICH: We have a total assessment of $452,000. We're really talking about $lO,28l. We couldn't go back tonight and spread that $lO,OOO on the rest, because they're all entitled to notice. You could spread it at a later date, as to whether you want to do it with $lO,OOO, but the question is - out of a project of $452,000, whether you could absorb $lO,OOO over the life of this because of the 10% carrying charge and what have you - if you wanted to do that. The same principle applies here as we talked about earlier. It's (inaudible) it's easier to pick up from (inaudible) but if it becomes major, then it creates a bigger problem and you have precedent involved. The big question is - did it receive a benefit or didn't it? Is this a buildable lot or isn't it? If you're satisfied in your own mind that it's not and it did not receive a benefit, then we have no right to assess them anyhow. You have to come to the conclusion that it has received a benefit to the extent of the proposal. MAYOR WOODBURN: Could we ask the Council - so we can go forward - does anybody think that there is a benefit - a full benefit - to the Branch's lot? Does anybody think that? COUNCILMAN HICKS: I don't think so. . COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I don't think so. MAYOR WOODBURN: Let's consider right now that we're not considering that a divisible lot. Any further questions or comments from the Council? -11- COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Do we wish to return to the question on the Johnston property (inaudible) in terms of the possibility of a longer payoff period? . COUNCILMAN HICKS: It seems to me that that's a reasonable thing to do, on the same basis as what we've just done on the Hansen property. That would be my position. The next question is - there are lots l6 and l7 - that's private ownership, out- side of Arden Oaks - and then there's the property across the road, although that property across the road is in the process of being subdivided. We might logically use the six year rule on that and ten years on the other private property. (Changed tape) . . . might argue that they should have a ten year period like any other private ownership outside of the Arden Oaks development. It's a little different, in a way, because lot l6, I think, is for sale and the owner may not have it long. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: is that not true also on piece and that's one big ship. Following up on your observation - the Behr property? That's a large assessment and that's single owner- MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is single ownership. MRS. McNIESH: That has a total assessment of $23,474.95. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There have been some plans submitted to the City (inaudible) indicating that this would be a lot and they would divide off this portion in here as a lot some- how. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: point is that we ought to here (inaudible). I can see that, but I think the be concerned with the principle COUNCILMAN HICKS: I would guess that that particular site is more likely to be subdivided and sold, more likely than the Johnston property. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: That could be, but we all know that it sometimes takes a long time to sell. . COUNCILMAN HICKS: My point is - if you apply the ten year rule to that property also (inaudible). MRS. ZEHM: I might add that they do have approval to subdivide as Don Christoffersen had described - those two lots - the Behr lot. They just have not recorded it. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Is that something that lasts forever? MRS. ZEHM: There's no time limit. -l2- MAYOR WOODBURN: It's up for recording any time. Anything more from the Council? . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I have a question for the engineer. Refresh my memory - is the easement to the Johnston property (inaudible) oak trees? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. Originally we were planning to take the sewer and water in this direction to this point and they were concerned about oak trees being removed, so rather than going this route, we came in this route. We do have an easement along their property. We didn't disturb the oak trees. MAYOR WOODBURN: Did that cost us more money? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, it did. I don't recall the figure. MRS. RHODA BEHR, l401 West County Road E: Like the Branches, we've lived here for 36 years and like the Branches we like the area - and the Johnstons. We have no intention of selling property, but we're going to be forced to because of our taxes. That's why we put a potential lot in - because I'm informed that we are going to be taxed some $23,474. Out of that, I was told that we are - out of that, $14,562 is for the street - as our half of the street - the street that we don't want. We liked it the way it was. It's going to cost us some $l4,000 for a street that we didn't want. We have a street in front of our house. We don't need that street. MR. WILLIAM BEHR, l401 West County Road E: We also have water in the basement out of it. I've contacted the contractor and they don't even come to look. I don't think we're getting a fair shake on any of this. Who do I bring this up to - that we get a dry basement again? MRS. BEHR: When they put this road in, they also pushed dirt onto - there are two piles of dirt on our property right now. Why it's there, I don't know. Nobody asked us if they could shove this dirt from the development on our property. Now it's washing into the road. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, you don't inspect that personally, but your office does. Has anyone brought that to your attention? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I will bring it to their attention. . MAYOR WOODBURN: I think we have contour levels through that whole area. Do you think we have the ability to do something about that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes. -13- MRS. BEHR: I just want $lO,OOO addition onto ours. for the street alone. to go on record - don't throw that We're already being taxed $l4,000 . MAYOR WOODBURN: Was that property developable before? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Yes, it was. It's a developable piece of property, as far as services. MAYOR WOODBURN: Did it have services prior to this? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, it did not. MAYOR WOODBURN: Did it have any road (inaudible). MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: No, it did not - only what's on lot 19. MR. WILLIAM BEHR: Who do I contact to come and take care of water in my basement? It wasn't there before all this development started. I would like a little action on this one way or another. The water is in the basement as of tonight and I've talked since the last rain to the engineer and they said well, we'll see, and that's it. All I'm asking is who do I contact? Do I have to go to an attorney or what? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I visited with Mr. Behr on the project to explain what the project consisted of and that there would be grading along the edges, maybe even encroaching somewhat on his property. We indicated to him that although it hasn't been done yet, the property would be graded and sodded in the area and also seeded behind where the dirt has been placed. It would be regraded down to grade. I believe most of it is in the boulevard area - there may be some on his property. He did mention to me the water in his basement. This was probably a month and a half ago that we met with him (inaudible) the wet season that we've been having. He is somewhat on top of a hill, although at one time (inaudible) it's difficult to tell why he's having water in his basement. This is somewhat on top of a hill also - this marshland - and the water is percolating through the soil into his base- ment. I really don't see how the project itself has added to it because the project is well (inaudible). As a matter of fact, I think the project is going to improve it because it will remove some of the ponded water from the area. As far as his having water in the basement - I would assume that there are many homes in Arden Hills that have water in the basement this year because of the wet weather we've had. . MR. BEHR: year. (Inaudible) since this project started this MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: You're right - you probably had it this year because this has been one of the wettest years we've experienced. -l4- . MAYOR WOODBURN: Further comments from the Council? . COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Again, I would like to inquire whether there's an emerging concensus of the Council on the ten year time period for the lots not held by the developer. I would like especially to hear from Councilman McAllister because of her vote on the last project. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I think we're opening a can of worms. Every assessment hearing from here on out we'll be having people (inaudible) who are going to want it for ten years (inaudible). I really don't know - mathematically - the difference between spreading it over six years or ten years. The first year it makes a big difference. I'm afraid we're going to have this at a lot of hearings (inaudible) and we'll have all kinds of deferments. I think it's a bad thing to start. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: The whole question is whether we can truthfully say that we have a greater obligation to people who have been with us a long time than we do to people (inaudible). COUNCILMAN HICKS: I support the ten years on two parcels - the Johnston site and the Branch site (inaudible). It's long term residents versus development. MAYOR WOODBURN: We're not looking at long term resi- dents - we're looking at our policy of development (inaudible) whether it's 30 years or one year has nothing to do with that. The developer has a particular development agreement to these particular sites (inaudibLe) accelerated pay-off. It has nothing to do with long term residents. It's a particular development agreement with a contractor. I think we should dispose of the fact that the taxpayers are paying (inaudible). The truth of the matter is that Arden Hills will benefit from this. We'll be getting more interest (inaudible). I'm certain that in the long term the taxpayers of Arden Hills will not pay a penny (inaudible) ten years versus six years. We're going to be getting it back with interest, above the interest we may be getting otherwise. COUNCIU1AN MULCAHY: (inaudible). You might as deserving of the ten the distinction. I thank you for that clarification treat the property across Snelling year (inaudible). I'm concerned about . MAYOR WOODBURN: As far as the years (inaudible) years are good for Arden Hills. We're all citizens of Arden Hills. To me it's not critical on the west side of Snelling either how we handle that, particularly because it is to be developed and platted out. Our previous action would indicate that it would have to be paid off at that point (inaudible). It's how the Council wants to treat this. I think, with the lack of any particular agreement, such as developers ordinarily -l5- . . sign - which he signed, incidentally, for six years, and for six years only because of the bonding time. That's why they're spread for six years there. We've never done less than ten years for any lot in Arden Hills. I would like to ask Mr. Popovich - since this is unique - in respect to the $10,000 that the Council seems agreed upon as the decrease in assess- ments for the Branch property - could there be - if one wanted to - a later assessment hearing, spreading that over the remainder? MR. POPOVICH: It gets impractical for costs - you have to publish your notice, send all that stuff out and have your other hearing, and really - on a $400,000 project - we're going to pick up that extra l%, so we're going to pick up $40,000 that first year to cover administrative costs so that should (inaudible). If that's all we're going to change on it, I'd say, at that point, that we should forget it. MAYOR WOODBURN: Legally you could do it? MR. POPOVICH: Legally you could do it. Of course, you'd have to say there were some additional benefits to them with that additional cost. All assessments are based on whether they're benefitted - if the market value is benefitted. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Is your criteria six years for a developer and ten years for everyone else? 14AYOR WOODBURN: I think the properties in question - whether they should be ten or six - it's third level properties - I don't think it's going to matter. COUNCIll~N McALLISTER: track of the books. (Inaudible) for whoever keeps MAYOR WOODBURN: Direction has to be made for those who keep track of the books. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Does it throw off our bookkeeping anyway? MRS. McNIESH: If we have some six and ten, it's more apt to affect the County than the City bookkeeping. Councilman Hicks then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-45 . RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-81-3 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: -16- . I. The proposed assessments for Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-81-3 should be and are hereby amended as follows: Name and Address . Marjorie Erickson Peterson 1423 County Road E W. St. Paul, MN Melvin Branch 1415 County Road E st. Paul, MN walter M. & Delores E. Dunnett l541 Oak Avenue St. Paul, MN 55112 Walter M. & Delores E. Dunnett l54l Oak Avenue St. Paul, MN 55112 Walter M. & Delores E. Dunnett 1541 Oak Avenue St. paul, MN 55112 Description of Property Parcel Code No. 25 67500 020 02 Change Made Original Revised $ o $13,193.74 Parcel Code No. 25 67500 030 02 o 2,912.53 Shady Oaks Addn. Parcel Code No. 25 67500 031 04 1l,658.18 o Shady Oaks Addn. Parcel Code No. 25 67500 033 04 o 3,886.06 Shady Oaks Addn. Parcel Code No. 25 67500 034 04 o 7,772.12 2. It is hereby found and determined by this Council that the foregoing amendment is just and equitable to said proposed assessment, and necessary to a fair assessment for payment of the cost of said improvement. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman McAllister and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks and Mulcahy; and the following voted against the same: Councilman McAllister (Councilman Christiansen abstained, as he was not present for the entire hearing); whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed . and adopted. Councilman Hicks then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: -l7-