Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-044 /~d~"- !'if-i!.t/.. , 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 absen t: None. Also in attendance were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Dorothy Zehm, Deputy Clerk; Donald Christoffersen of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: We will now move to the Royal Hills improvement, SS-W-P-ST-8l-5, and ask the Clerk Administrator if we have the appropriate notifications. MRS. McNIESH: I have the Affidavit of Publication of the notice of public hearing in the New Brighton Bulletin on Thursday, August ll, and the certification that the notices were mailed to the property owners on August 12. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll ask the engineer to explain the improvement. . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is an improvement serving the Royal Hills plat, including two private lots. It includes the installation of watermain from Floral Drive to Floral Park, along Royal Lane, and also along Norma Avenue, north and south. The watermain is shown in blue and the sanitary sewer is shown in red. Sanitary sewer begins just on the west side of Floral Park, runs along Royal Lane, and also along Norma Avenue. It also includes storm sewer - shown in green - between the street and the abutting lots. It includes concrete curb and gutter, aggregate base and bituminous paving from Floral Drive, along Royal Lane, and also on Norma Avenue. The two potential private lots are in this area right here, some- what adjacent to Floral Park on the south side of Royal Lane. . MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, would you explain the financing possibilities. MR. POPOVICH: The total cost is $205,414.00. At the feasibility hearing, it was estimated at $247,lOO.00. It is proposed to be 100% assessed. The sanitary sewer trunk would be $1,065.63 per unit; the sanitary sewer service, $275.78 per unit; the water trunk-, $l,736.34 per unit; water service, $264.09 per unit. The street and drainage portion would be $8,329.99 for the Royal Hills lots and $5,990.40 for Mr. Hansen's lots. The difference there was done by agreement because the developer is paying for the portion of the street through Floral Park. It's proposed to be assessed over a six year period. ~nis was included in thel982 bond issue and the interest rate, as I said before, was 9.01%, so our recommenda- tion would be that this also be assessed at 10% for the carrying charge if it isn't prepaid during the 30 day period or prior to the normal installments. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, are there any written communications? . MRS. McNIESH: Yes, your Honor, I have one letter from Mr. and Mrs. R. G. Hansen, l465 Floral Drive. We, Robert G. and Evelyn V. Hansen, object to the proposed assessment against our property for the following reasons, and will appreciate your consideration of relief. (I) We have lived in our home at this address for over 23 years and records will reveal that at no time have we applied for permits to plat or develop or sell any part of our property. (2) We do not now desire to so develop our property, feeling that in its native wild state it's perfect. (3) The addition of street, water, sewer, curb and gutter runs completely counter to our wishes because we don't need them now and, more important, we won't use them. (4) We are currently paying appropriate assessments and charges for similar items for Floral Drive in front of our property and do feel that to be charged for the back portion is redundant. (5) Our utiliza- tion of our land is for personal dwelling and use. It is not providing us with income or profit, therefore we don't feel that we should incur tremendous extra costs to continue living our normal lives. (6) The proposed assessment would seriously affect our personal financial position because, among other reasons, my retirement age is less than four years away. Should the assessments be levied, we might be forced to sellout and move, which is certainly not appealing to us in view of the fact that we have greatly enjoyed being a part of the community of Arden Hills for so many years. -2- (7) In summary, we believe that we will not be benefitting because of the revisions to the north end of our property and we are asking to be relieved of the assessment responsibility. Signed by the Hansens. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any other written statements? . MRS. McNIESH: That's all. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the meeting then to the audience for any comments they might have. Please identify yourself and your address. Any comments from the audience? There being no comments from the audience, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the Council. Any comments from the Council? COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Popovich, it was a little hard to hear when you ran down each of the costs, but as I heard you and calculated - does this come to about $ll,700 for the Royal Hills lots and about $8,600 for the two lots - the Hansen property? MR. POPOVICH: That's right. You would add up all those individual costs. COUNCILMAN HICKS: So you're looking at two lots - double that for the Hansen property - $17,200. MRS. McNIESH: The assessment against the Hansen property is precisely $18,664.48. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I could understand how the Hansens feel and I really agree with their point - that's not why they bought the property, wanting to sell - however, is there any way we can legally say fine, we'll forgive you this assessment provided you never subdivide. Is there any legal way - I mean, they might sell this property tomorrow and the new owners might say hey, I want to sell off these lots. I don't understand the legality of it. Is there any way we can prevent this from happening? . MR. POPOVICH: It's a difficult question you ask. The normal rule of law is - it isn't the present use of the property that applies. It's what is the benefit to the property, whatever might happen in the future. The situation is - you have no control over what someone might do later. Even if you could agree to it by agreement with the Hansens that nothing would ever happen and it would always remain that way, then, of course, you have to pick up that $l8,000 some other way - either through cash or an assessment against everybody else in the City under general taxes. That's the problem. Sometimes you can defer it because of age or some extraordinary reason, but that just means that eventually they would have to pay the principal, plus all the accumulated interest. We haven't had any deferments before in the City -3- here. That's the practical problem. They could die tomorrow and the property would be sold and then other people would want to use that property. . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: I guess that's my problem. they need a quick buck, they could decide to sell that, is a benefit to those two lots. If and it MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Popovich, would you like to cOllUllent on the length of time. It's a little shorter than some - not for developer's lots, but for the private ones. MR. POPOVICH: You could set a period of time - the statute says if you desire to have any particular parcel within the assessment roll be over a different period of time than others, you could do so if you stated the reasons why and there were good standards for it. For example, a developer comes in and wants property subdivided and the utilities and everything in and we'll enter into a development agreement for a period of time - three, five or six years. Because of the nature of the development, it includes Qther people. I have seen situations where developers will be assessed over one period of time and the other residential properties over a little longer period of time so that the yearly payment is down. You could do that in this case. For example, the Hansens are not developers and if you wanted to stretch theirs over ten years rather than six, or fifteen years rather than six, that's something you could do. MAYOR WOODBURN: You said that reasons would be needed. What would the nature of the reasons be that would legally stand up? MR. POPOVICH: I've seen it done, for example, where different classifications were done that way - industrial or commercial versus residential - because of the possible usage or the lack of immediacy of development. In all the years I've been doing this work, we've never had one where it's been certified that way by a council. The Ramsey County Auditor's office doesn't like it because what it really does is create two different things within the same assessment roll. It would have to be some pretty potent reason. MAYOR WOODBURN: Would a (inaudible) reason be the lack of expectation of immediate subdivision of this land? Would that be a suitable and adequate reason? . MR. POPOVICH: I've never seen a court case that either upheld or denied that reason. MAYOR WOODBURN: Maybe it's about time there was one. MR. POPOVICH: It's a matter of judgment for you as to whether you want to do this at this time. -4- MAYOR WOODBURN: by essentially a six temporary. The money for this improvement is carried year bond - a three and a three - . MR. POPOVICH: This was part of the bond issue in 1982. We sold $3,355,000. At the end of three years, you either have to pay that off or have another three year bond issue or a definitive bond issue of ten or fifteen years. Here-we"" thought - because of the developer approach and everything - that running it over six years, we could have the first three years and then the next three years. If it developed faster than that, you wouldn't have to have that next three years, but you have one isolated piece of property there that is obviously a little different category than the others because of the present use. Of course, we know that and whether or not you want to go along with a different period of time, that's a judgment call based on what you feel the Hansens ought to do. .. .:;... MAYOR WOODBURN: Are there any further questions from the audience? Six years is a little quick for private parties to payoff an assessment (inaudible). On the other hand, there's no question that somebody is going to make a handsome profit on this improvement on the back of that property some day. MAN IN AUDIENCE: lofuy couldn't you just skip over that party and assess them in the event it was split at some time? MR. POPOVICH: That's an indirect question - should there be a deferment? As you know, this whole thing was considered to be lOO% assessed. If you defer it - and that would mean $18,000 wouldn't come in on this particular bond issue - so somewhere you'd have to come up with $18,000 until that bond issue was paid off. It means you would have to get it out of other funds within the City or you'd have to spread $18,000 over the six year period as general taxes over the entire City. Then later on, if somebody hooked up ten years from now, then you could have that complete charge paid in full when somebody changed the utilization of the property. You'd get the $l8,000, plus the interest that had accrued during that period of time and it would go into some fund. But meanwhile, you can't redistribute that back to the people in cash rebate checks. Somewhere that $18,000 has to be picked up between now and the time they pay, so defer- ments, while possible, are not really good for you over the long run. There will be a cash shortfall somewhere during the period of that bond issue. . MAYOR WOODBURN: It appears that part of that answer is also the fact that we can't raise the assessment on any other lots, having given the maximum value - is that correct? MR. POPOVICH: That's right. In other words, you'd have to have some pretty good evidence that the lots were benefitted -5- .:.J.' more than the figure that is now there to pick up the others and give somebody a zero assessment and add the rest to the other particular lots. Obviously, if the landowner or the developer is willing to pick up another $18,000 and do it by consent, that's different, but there is some benefit to that property, forgetting about the Hansens as individuals. You r.un an improvement around the acreage and there is some benefit. They may "argue' as ,.to how nluCli,' but there "is.'some, - forgetting about the present use of that property. COUNCILMAN HICKS: Mr. Popovich, how did you arrive at the approximately $5,300 for the street portion of the cost for the two Hansen lots and the figure for all the other lots was $8, 300? MR. POPOVICH: The reason for that is that the developer agreed - on the street and drainage portion of the improvement - to pay for the street through Floral Park, as part of the developer agreement. Because he agreed to pick that up, that then did give a reduced assessment to the Hansens, where under other normal approaches, it would be that assessment to them. So they've already received that reduction because of the developer agreement. COUNCILMAN HICKS: So there is some relief. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: You refer to the two Hansen lots - I've forgotten why there are two lots assessed. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There are two developable lots in that area. This is the Hansen frontage, and we felt that the lot could be developed vertically this way - north and south of this line (inaudible) creating a lot here and a lot here. I think part of that lot concept came in the original planning with the planner, so far as the square footage per lot. MAYOR WOODBURN: I think this goes back quite a ways (inaudible) and I think it may be very borderline because of that extraordinary depth. There's some variation that occurs. COUNCIU1AN MULCAHY: You mean two, three, four, five and six might be subject to variance already? MRS. ZEHM: They did have a width variance on those three lots. . MAYOR WOODBURN: I remember discussing the variance, but I don't remember (inaudible). COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: That being the case, the provision of two lots on the Hansen property for assessment purposes works to their advantage versus three lots. Councilman Hicks -6- pointed out - or his question pointed out - the advantage respect to the agreement with the developer on the road. watermain is connected from Floral Drive, but I assume it a loop that connects north as well. with The forms MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. '~~~""';~"~r~~~~~~~q~~~~~?Wi~~~Jl~~~g~f~d~~f(1f~f~e=-,=-,",~..~. .~. homes on the corner there without any assessment to that. Is that being picked up by the l7 lots? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The watermain was estimated in the total (inaudible) because it was part of a loop system. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: You're hooking up to a loop there without getting any assessment (inaudible) or from the owner on the corner. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The owner on the corner has already received an assessment and has the benefit of the water along Floral Drive. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: You didn't include them in this assessment for that reason. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. MAYOR WOODBURN: Any further comments or questions? COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: On the stretch out for the two lots - I wish somebody would tell me what the rule is on pay-off and development. Can we get that paid off under certain circum- stances? MAYOR WOODBURN: As the lots are sold, they will be paid. There's a minimum period of pay-off time. COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: Are they subject to the development agreement? MRS. McNIESH: NO, everything but the Hansen lot, and the developer, under the agreement, has to pay l/6 of the total assessment each year. That could be in the form of paying the assessment in full for a few of them, but l/6 of the total has to be paid each year. It would be all of the lots except Hansen's would be paid off in six years. . COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: If we did any kind of an extended payment - we do not have a development agreement with the Hansens. It seems like we would have to have one in order to extend payments. MR. POPOVICH: You do not have to have a separate agree- ment with them. You can determine the period of time. The -7- six years was arrived at because you had a developer's agree- ment, but if you wanted to go ten years for them, the developer's agreement would apply to the rest and the Hansen's could be spread over ten years. MR. ROBERT G. HANSEN, 1465 Floral Drive: If that's the , desire of the Council, we would be more than willing to enter 'n'~"'i:nto""'such=an""agreenient7'"ProperlcT]:~a;J;17.drawnrt-tJt'"at'>:leas~-".; "". .....:;.;;. -. , spread this thing out over a longer period of time. You have our word that we have no desire or plan or idea to develop it currently or in the future. Obviously, we will not be here forever and it would certainly be of benefit to the community if some kind of agreement was entered into so that the money could be recouped. For us to be assessed on the same basis as the developer who has built this thing to make money, and all we're doing is continuing the same lifestyle we've had since we came out there - us shelling out 1/6 per year at lO% interest when we're not going to change anything except see a little less grass than we did - it seems a little - legally, probably, true - but practically it hurts a little bit. We deliberately wrote that out rather than me stand up and try to reiterate all this. I appreciate your consideration. We would be willing to enter into any kind of an agreement that would be legally binding both ways so that the City would get its money. MAYOR WOODBURN: Could an agreement be entered into with Mr. Hansen, Mr. popovich, to spread this out over 12 or l5 years for that parcel, unless it was divided and platted, in which case it would be due? MR. POPOVICH: The assessment roll will have to be spread in equal installments over whatever period of time you arrive at. If you have a separate agreement that would provide, as you said, that if it was developed or anything then the full amount will be due and payable - it's an agreement. It's recordable and it floats along with the title, so if any subsequent owners - in case they were to die or had to sell the property - it would be a part of the condition of the title. That would be an enforceable agreement. For example, if you decided to go the 15 years and then six years from now something happened where the property changed or was developed, the whole amount would be due and payable in that six years - whenever that occurred. The only thing is - between now and when that happens - whatever the shortfall is, you're going to have to be able to pick that up, either internally within the City or by adding it to the general mill rate over the entire City. . MAYOR WOODBURN: So we'd get it back eventually. MR. POPOVICH: You may eventually get it back - at some point in time you would. If you spread it over l5 years, you'd get l/15 of the principal, plus 10% of the outstanding -8- balance each year over 15 years. If you have another bond issue at three years and then go out any further, it would mean that you'd have from the sixth year to the fifteenth year money coming in, but meanwhile you'd have to take care of a bond issue. ,1.- -" ~,1. 1 -.- . ,.~. ~R. MULCAH)': ,,!-'hat~s_the problem.~,don't .see any"peopl,~. m 't'h~ aud1:errce--saY:Lti<r"'th~ant"tO"'''Pay=i'trdrea13eu -e~xe~~' ". help Mr. Hansen out. Any volunteers? , J _A' MAYOR WOODBURN: As a point of fact, I don't think we would be paying extra taxes. We would be carrying $9,000 at the end of six years, which I'm sure would be financeable internally and we'd be getting 10% interest on that. I think we have enough money to finance $9,000 in six years and at the end of that period of time - six years or something - it would be paid off. MR. POPOVICH: Your big problem is not this isolated incident, but the precedent you're going to create in the future when other similar situations come before you. You take it on a case by case basis - which obviously you can do - I'm not speaking for or against (inaudible). We do provide deferment for those over 65, but that's a rare situation when that occurs. The statute provides for that. As to the others - it's a matter of looking on a case by case basis, determining if there's any hardship, and then if anybody else comes in on another improvement yet this year or next year and points to this - then you have to be able to distinguish why you wouldn't apply it to them as for somebody else. You start down that road of deferring a lot of improvements, and it could be a problem. That's all I'm saying. $9,000 isn't going to make or break the City - I'm talking about the principle that's involved. MAYOR WOODBURN: Normally, if it isn't development property with a developer, properties are assessed at 10 or l5 years. . MR. POPOVICH: The only reason we moved from that 20 years - remember, a number of years ago everything was spread out over 20 years equally - but as the market got worse, then everyone started shortening up on their bond issues to make things more palatable. You will recall in 1982 when we were selling bonds where interest rates were. Something ten or fifteen years - even on definitive financing, very few cities are going out over 15 years. The majority are l5 years or less. The reason for that - it also affects the credit rating with Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service. We do have a good credit rating and part of it is the active participation and the meeting of debt (inaudible) without delaying it needlessly. That's a subjective factor. MAYOR WOODBURN: anybody over a period party. I don't think we've ever assessed less than ten years - for a private -9- MR. POPOVICH: No, we haven't. MAYOR WOODBURN: Developers are something else - they're selling off their lots and they want to get out of there in a few years. How does the Council want to proceed? ~ COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: I'm inclined to the view that ten .., ~~..a, rEli;l~onaI;>1,e"i;lccQmm9di;lt.ion." T 'nt~~qlpressed bv ."~-~ f.ne~j!!act tlfat:Han~eri"15ei'ie-~"""attjtrStlU","b;, It''yo~'' ,r." ;'1ft",,, will, that you mentioned a moment ago - the paving exemption and the consideration that he has only two lots. I'm per- suaded that in combination those are sufficient accommodations for the assessment decision. I also believe that when that property comes in here for development that we'll be asked to divide it into three lots. (Inaudible) that will mean that somebody - whether it's Hansen or a purchaser - will benefit handsomely from this division. That's as far as I'll go. -~-....,~...,,,, MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: To clarify the acreage - the Hansen lot - assume that this is the Floral Drive right-of-way, which is an easement (inaudible) and you split the distance between Royal Lane and Floral Drive - make a dimension halfway through - take this dimension times this dimension - the square footage is approximately 39,600 square feet, which is slightly less than three lots at l4,000 square feet per lot. That's where the two lots came in. Two lots would be more than and the Council would have to get a variance. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Review for me again, Don - if we were to approve this assessment the way we discussed - six years for all the lots except Hansen's - ten years pay-off on his - what are the disadvantages? One, you set a precedent. We have other hearings tonight and we have other people coming in and asking for the same thing. Two, it would screw up the County some way. MR. POPOVICH: It's an accounting problem - they ought to be able to handle it. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Three, the bond people aren't real excited when we do something like this. What else? MR. POPOVICH: Your cash flow. COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Okay, that's the other one. All the other taxpayers would have to chip in. COUNCILMAN HICKS: (Inaudible) comes out of your pockets. . COUNCILMAN McALLISTER: Well where does it come from? COUNCILMAN HICKS: Temporary financing. We ultimately get the money - we just have to carry it for a while. It's a question of whether we have enough reserves to do it. -10- MAYOR WOODBURN: We do have enough reserves and we've done that before many times. Councilman Hicks then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 83-44 ~; .,." _':;";'1f!'~,,\:--':--':\'':'" _"<-_'--~'''~~:-'~'':1''~'''~'''~';' r:--,,'f,: ,,:", -'_~>-I""-/'", ,.'_oi""",~~>:\ ':'-,ry''''':;'-:>''';'''-'';''';Y''~~'''"''''-'';'~-'t"l'~-:~''---' . ~.--_. ...~,- RESOLO'i'iGN AUoPTING ANU bJ~l".Lt<iYrrNG-... . ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-81-5 "_"~,W',"-i"''":'''''',;' ~-;"'''''.' '."._.__~i"-. ~. .... .. ..-...~-..... 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-W-P-ST-8l-5, against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, con- sider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments. . 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objec- tions so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumer- ated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefitted by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively. . 4. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 5 hereof, the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of lO% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of six (6) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, and one of each of the remaining install- ments, together with one year's interest on that and all -11- other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 5. The assessment against each of the following lots, pieces and parcels: e:.., ",,~: .~.----'ilio.... The East ,,2,5.().. feet of the South 350 feet of the North-l:I2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest l/4, subject to easements, all in Section 22, Township 30, Range 23. Ramsey County Parcel 25 02200 060 55 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel specified and all thereof. The total amount of each assessment against a parcel specified in this paragraph shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of ten (lO) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1984, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1983, collectible in 1984, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 6. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole or at least 50% of such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made within 30 days after the date of this resolu- tion. 7. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman McAllister and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: . Mayor Woodburn and Councilmen Hicks and Mulcahy (Councilman Christiansen not yet present); and the following voted against -l2- . . the same: Councilman McAllister; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of said City held on the 29th day of August, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there- from insofar as the same relates to Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-8l-5. day WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of ~~ , 1983. of said City thiS~~~ . c~(fl~ (SEAL) ________-1 <_