The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 08-21-1979w �-� Minutes of Sp�cial Council Vtllag� of Arden Hilis Tuesday, August 21, 1979 - Village Hall Meetina 7:30 p.m. Call to Order Pursuar�t:to due call and nottce tfiereof, Mayor Crepeau called the m�eting to order aY ?:30 p.m. Roll Call Present - Mayor Henry J. Crepesu, Jr., Councllmen James Wingert, Charlie Crtchton, Ward Hanson, Robert Woodtrurn . s Absent - None Also Presenfi - Vlllaqe Engi�eer ponatd Christoffersen, Fiscal Con- sul#ant Peter Popo�ich, Treasurer ponald Lamb, Clerk Administrator Charlofite McNiesh, Deputy Clerk. Dorothy Zehm PUBLIC NEARINGS: iSee atteched for more detatfed Minutes) Mayor Cr�peau opened the Public Nearing at 7:35 p.m. and Clerk Admin- Isfiretor McNiesh veriffed pubiication ot Hearinq Notice in the Mew Brighton Bulletin on August 2, 1979, and that poti¢es were mefled to affected property owners on August 6, 1979. After a brief descrtption of the ar�a involved in th� watnr impro�+e- ments by Enuineer Christofiersen, and an explanatfon ot Froposed, financtnq ay PTscal Co�switant Popovtch, the fofTowing cou�ments we re heard: f. McNiesh read two letters prof�sttng the srea charge on propertles not acivally served: � 2. 3. Mr. Jim Milier, 4482 N. Snellinq Avenue, asked that pro- posed charc�es be repeated for residenttal and commerciai front foot and �creage. Answer by Popovich: RQstdential front foot @ S 13,982665 Commercial fronfi toot t 20�973997 Residentiat Acreage Q 559..306b Commerct:al Acreage � 838.9599 Mr. JoMn Grudnoske, 4439 Hiqhway, 10 Reviewed ifst of names of thpse pr�sent afi previous Hearings on February 6th and June 19th. Asked,why propert;es not actually served should Ce assessed; said he and Ervins repatred tfietr welis (his cost at $1,400) eft�r the water mein on Highway ID Nas doted down; sees no advantag� to his property; has 1 house in center of his 1.6 aere !ofi which cannot Le sub-di:VFded;'(road at front and lake to r�ar?. Answer by Christoffersen: Poticy has heen to charge Ist 200" of property depth from street a front foot a�sessment; 6al- ance of property an acreage assessment. Woodburn and Han�on concurred tAat if lot cannot be subdivided, it does nat seem appropriate to eharge both an acreage and front topt eharge. 4. Letartd RoebkeT 4355 Hiqhway 10 Said hee doesn't agree thaY an area charge is reasonabfe; get assessed, Dut no water; If you assess me, then give me water; oth�rwise I M�ve no Intention of paying this sssessa+�nt; said thts area charge should hays been made ciear before this meeting. 'V i fNinufies ot Speciai Council Meeti�g Page Two August 21, t979 Ansaer by Christoffersen: Each improvement in this Vtllage has been assessed front footage anQ acreage charges. Hanson noted that the area charoe xas brouoht out at the Improvement Hearings. 5. Jim Wtniecki, 4471 Hiahway 10 Asked for Minutes of the tormer meettn�s; recalls no mentlon of properties betng assessed en area charge prevtously. Popovich read trom verbatim minutes of ineetina of June 19, 1918, tn which "acreage charges" were dtscussed and it was explained that, under • the base plan, Engineer wtll have to place an area assessment "at least on an area basis" even thouah no water wTll be provided in front of your houses. Popovich explatned that the Durden of proof of "no benefit" ts on the property ow�er, which is the purpose of tonigk�t's meetTng; beneflt is a Judgemental matter; there is a basis for an area assessment; determination must be made as to whether fihe dollar charge is appropriate. 6. John 6rudnoske, 4439 Hiqhway 10, further noted that if a water main is extended on Highway 10, entiae front footege assessment will be on only one stde of ftighaay 10; there are no properties� ta assess across the street. Woodburn explained that acreaae charges are necessary-to pay for mains of an approprTate size to serve the area. 7. Jim Wl��teck�, 447t Hiqhway 10 Asked the cost to serve the few property owners along Highway 10, not currently served In this area. Answer: It wtli be expensiwe for the comparatively small sec�ment of main, whlch ean only be assessed to.� benefitted properties; noted that this was brought out at the Improvement Heari�g. 8. �lenn 6eqqfn� 4519 Lakeshpre Place Asked amount of hEs assessment - was referred to Assessment Roll. It aes expiained that this assess- ment represents full front footage. 9. Leonard Grudnoske. 4445 Hiqhway 10 Asked if assessment policy for this Improveme�t fs different from previous water improvements in the City. Answer: It was explained that previously $7.50lfront foot (residenttal) and $II.00/tront ft (commerciai) • was used, plus a certain percentage of the costs exceeding this amount, which brauoht assessment to very close to the method presently used. (0. Jim Wtniecki aaked if the amount listed in the Assessment Roll is finai; assessment can't go any higher than ttgure re co rde d? Answer by Popovich: AIl costs have been added and spread as recorded; it an error is found, a supplemental Hearino would be necessary to amend the assessments up-ward. _Z_ -v � c Minutas of Special Council Meeting August 21, f974 tl. Lee Roebke safd he has the distinct impressTon that the dectsio� has already been made, which he didn't Iike; asked if the excess over 200' goes atl the way to the lake? Chr4stoffersen expleined.that the excess, over 2b0', was calcufated to the property Iine; believes none of the tots referred to, go to the lake. Woodburn stated that the dectSions have not been made yet; predicted some changes xould be made In the Assessment Ro1i. . Roebke asked the cost if we run fihe water at this time. Christoffersen estimated at least 10�-15� increase tfiis year for the short stu6, Nhfch was • 3100,000 I# years ago. 12. John Grudnosk� safd. he ts opposed to the water I mp rovement. Atter determining there were'no further questions or comments, the Publlc Hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. After discussion, Hsnson moved, seconded by Winaert, that'GounCil adopt Resolution No. 79-41 Resotution Amending Assessment Roll tor Improvements Nos. 77-5 and 78-2 - Northwest Area, by reducing McClung assessment by Outlot A acreage requlred by Rfce-Creek Watershed District for ponding (exact acreage to be determined from R.16.��,.._ ��_ MlMiations). Motion carried unanimously. � ,• f N��sNi moved that Ccuneil adopt Resolution 79-41 t2) asending 1fis�i�iH- mant Roll for leprove�nt Noa. 77-5 aod 78-2 by reducing arsa cf+arges tc f419,48 per residential acre and to f629.22 per co�amercial acre, the 25� reduetlon of approximately 539,040to be pmid by generai taxes. Motiwa rag seconded by Crtchton and carried unania�ous��. � . . . • ---- - - - - - - - --- Han�11 MM�� N�Nd by Crichton, 4hat Council adop�.�T �-� No. 7'9-4l, As��lrl1M Adopting and Confirmina Am�nded Assessment Roll for Improvement Nos. 77-5 and 78-2, Motlan carried unantmously. Pr000sed Assessments for Improvement No. 78-I Janet Estates Mayor Crepeau opened the Pubtic Hearfng at 10:08 p.m. and Clerk Admtn- Istrator �1cNiesh verifled publication of Heartng Notice ln the New ' Brighton Builetin on August 2, 1979 and that Notices.were mailed to i aff�acted property owners on Auaust 6, 19?9. After a brtef description of the area involved in the Janet Estetes sanitary sewer, water, street and drainage (mprovement, and an explane- tion by Fiscal Consultant Popavich of proposed f(nancing, Crepeau asked for questions and commen+s from the flaor. Af'ter determining there were no'questlons or . m mments, the Public Hearing was closed at 10:12 p.m.; Wtngert moved, seconded by Hanson, thet Counci! adopt Resofutlon No. 79-43, Resolution Adoptin� and Confirminq Assessment Roll tor Improvem�nt No. 7a-I, Janet Estates. Motion carrted unanimously. � Proposed Assessments for Improvement No. 77-7 Yalentine Lakeview No. 3 Mayor Crepeau opened the Public Hearfng et IO:i4 p.m. and Clerk Rdmtni- strator McNiesh verified publicatton of Hearing Notices in the New Brt�hton Bulletin on August 9, 1979 and that Notices were mailed to aftected property owners on August 6, 1979. After a brtef.descript(on of the area involved in the Valentine Lake View No. 3 sanitary sewer, Nafier, street and drainage tmprovement by Engineer ChrTstoffersen, and en explanatton of proposed fFnancine by Fiscal Consultant Popavich, the Heartng was opened to comments from the floor. After determtning there were no questions or comments, the Hearing was closed at IO:i8 p.m. -3- =v Y � Minutes of Special Council Meetin� August 21, 1979 Wingert moved, seconded by Crichton, that Council adopt Resolutlon No. 74-44, Resolution Adoptina and Confirming Assessme�t Rol{ for Improvement No. 7�-7, Valentine Lake Vtew No. 3. N'otion carried unanimously. Proposed Assessments tor Imorovement No. 78-5_ Water - Frarnwond to Mayor Crepeau opened the Pubitc Hearing at 10:19 p.m. and Clerk Administrator McNiesh verifled publication of Notice of Hearinq in the New Brightoo Bulletin on August 2, 1979 and that Notices were malled to aftected property owners on August 6, 1979. • After a 6rief description of the area invoived fn the water Improve- 'ment by Engineer Christoffersen, and an explanation by Fisca! Con- sultan# PoQovich of proposed financirq ,the Hearfn_a yras opened to the floor for questions and comments: �.G�l�.�"�Yi�ee��• ` After determining 4here were no comments or questions, the Heartng was ciosed at 10:22 p.m. _ Hanson moved, seconded by Wingert, that Council adopt Resotutfon �, No. 79°*45, Resolution Adoptt�g and Confirming the Assessment Roll '��' o �vement No. 78-5, Wat r, - Fernw� t�ngton i�ve_nug_. � Motion ca rled unanimousiy. A�'@�t�Y�m�.T,t� Ad.iournme�t Wingert moved, seconded 6y Hznson, that the meeting adjourn at 10:23 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. � �� Charlotte McNiesh Clerk Adminisfirator Notice of Nleetinq The next Regutar Councii Meeting will be heid on Monday, Augusf 27, 1979 at 7:30 p.m, at the Viliage Hall. �, J �� i �v l J Extract of Minutes oi Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hi11s Ramsey County, Minnesota � Held: August 21, 1979 Pursuant to due ca11 and notice thereof, a speciaf ineeting of the City Council oE the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 1979, at 7:30 o'clock p. m. The followinq members were present: Mayor Crepeau and Councilmen Hanson, Wingert, Crichton; and the following was absent: Councilman Woodburn. Also in attendance were: Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Donald Christo£fersen of Short, Ellio�, Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. The City Clerk Administrator presented an af£idavit showing publication of notice of hearing on the proposed assessment for ComUined Improvements W-77-5 and W-78-2 in the New Briqhton Bulletin on August 2, 1979, which affidavit was examined, found sati�factory, and ordered placed on £i2e: The Clerk Administrator also exhibited a Certificate of Mailing Notice of Hearing �o aIl affected property owners. • MAYOR CREPEAU: I will ask the city enqineer, Mr. Don Christoffersen, to briefly explain the i.mprovements involved and outline the area on Che map. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The improvement serves the aYea outlined in pink and shaded in blue. It consists of tlie construction of watermain along the south side of Highway 96, past New Highway 10, and on the north side of Highway 96 for a short ways, and again on the south side and along the east side of the frontage roaci, down 14th street, across open field, back to Old Highway 10, northerly 2 on Old Highway 10, crosszng new 10 and Snelling Avenue, a connection being made between this point and that, plus an • extension through McCZung Drive over to Hamline. It a3.so includes a small portion of watermain on 13th Street Northeast. The assessments were based on a front footage basis and also an area basis. If the property is £ronting - I will use this as an example - if it's fronting on a watermain,it 5vas assessed on a front foot basis on th� front with a 200 foot setback. That daes not have an area assessment, and heyond that there was an area assessment applied. On a corner lot a front foot basis was applied, plus ].5 feet around the corner and 185 feet was not assessed, and then if it continued, a front foot assessment wou2d apply. MAYOR CREPEAU: S nOw ask our Peter Popovich, to briefly explain the area assessment. fiscal consultant, Mr. the financiag, ss well ag MR. POPOVICH: The total cost of thsse two combined improve- ments totals $679,834. Based on a 100 percent assessment of this cost against the benefited property raithin the•area v�ould mean that we would have ta raise that amount of money, and th� question is thea how much would be by front footage and how much by acreage. On a residential front footage it's $13.98 a front �oot and that will raise $299,549. Commercial frontage is $20.97 a front foot and that will raise $2Z2,349. The acreage assessment as computed as indiaated by the enqineer is $559.30 an acre for residential property, and the comt�rcial acreage is $838.95 per acre, and the total vf those two will raise $155,000. The balance of $8,280 is raised by 1 inch services oi $345 eaah, $1,227 by 6 inch services at $614 �ach and there ase two of those, and $2,130 on 8 inch services at $710 and fhere are three of those. When you add that up it will total the to tal cost. • Eormulas such as acreage charges or front foatage charges are mereZy a means to arrive at equitably apportioning out the total cost. If you were to eliminate the acreage, for ex�.mple, it would then �an that that total amount of $155,000 would hawe to be spread by increasing the front footage cost or hy some other type formula such as a unit charge or what have you. Over the years the cities have generally determined that if there is a beneEit because o£ location in the proxi.mity of the 3 improvement that they should receive an acreage eharge, and the £ront footage, depending on the number of front feet you have, � wauld be the front footage charge in of itsel€. The_charg�s . for services are explanatory because there are dif€erent amvvnts £or different size services, and the difference between residential and commercial is justified beeause of different uses of the property, but as I said, the approach is tv finti out what the total aast is. The cost has to be financed and apportioned out as equitably as possi..ble based on �he beneiits the property has received for the improvement that's been put in. It's proposed the assessments be spread over 20 years so the first installment would be co2.Lected beginning with taxes next year and the £irst half of the installment would be due on May 31 and the second in October of 1980. The carrying charge would be at 8$ on the unpaid balance. The Council has adopted in the past, a policy that i€ people wish to prepay to save the interest charges they can pay in full within 30 days after the assessment roll is adopted ' and pay no interest, but you have also gone a bit £urther and said you will accept 50 percent of the to tal assessment, so if somebody has a$5,OOD assessment and doesn't want to.pay the full $5000, aT.though they have the right to do it, they could pay $2,500 and the other $2,500 would be spread over the 20' year period of time. COUNCILMAN CRIGHTOPI:' 2'm assuming the figures you were quoting were approximate ones - just for the record., MR. POPOVICH:' I left out same pennies. Mayor Crepeau announced that the meeting was open for the aoa- sideration of objections, if any, to said pxnposed assessment. All persons present were then given the opportunity to pre��nt oral objections, and ail written objections theretb£ore:filed with the City Clerk'Ac3ministrator were presented and consid�red, and all such objections were tabulated as follows: . writ ben communicativns: Edith Ervin, 4441 Highway lOc Protested the ax�ea assessment, indicating that she £elt residents should only be assessed when the improvements are made wrhere they live. Dwight and Georgia Carlson, 4345 Highway 10: Also objected to the area assessment. m � Oral presentations were made by the following: . • MR. JIM MIZLER, 4482 North Snelling Avenue: Asked Mr. Popovich to repeat the front foot and acreage assessment amounts. MR. JOHN GRUDNOSRE, 4439 Hiqhway 10: Reviewed list of names of persons present at previous hearings on February 6 and June 19. Commented that he had his well repaired at a cost of $1,400 after the watermain on Aighway 10 was voted down, and that Mr. Ervin had also had his well repaired. Mr. �rudnoske further said that he has 1.6 aares of Iand, with his house located in the center of the property, and doesn't feel he should pay the acreage charqe since there will never be more than one service required because the property can't be sub-divided. Mr. Christof£ersen repeated the city policy of charging the first 200 feet of property depth from the street a£ront foot assessment, and the balance of property an acreage assess- ment. Mr. Grudnoske said the only benefit to him is for one service to his house and for that reason doesn't understand why he should pay an acreage charge. Pointed out that he realizes his lot..is wider than his neighbors and he realizes his frontage charge would be more theirs. Also said that he could understand the area charqe if he could build additional houses behind his. Councilmen Woodburn and Hanson agreed that if additional houses cannot be built on the lot, the area assessment should not be charged. MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Objeated to the area assessment. Said he should not be assessed unless he's able to use the facility. He doesn't intend to connect to the water and refuses to pay the assessment. Further said that the matter of area assessments should have been brought up at previous meetings. Mayor Crepeau pointed out that each water area in the city has been assessed acreage as well as front footage. Councilman Aanson said that the water assessments were discussed at the feasibility hearings. MR. JIM WINIECRI, 4471 Highway 10: Said he did not.recall the area assessment being discussed at previous meetings, and asked that the minutes from those meetings be checked. Mr. Popovich read from the verbatim minutes of the meeting of June 19, 1978 in which acreage charges were dissussed, and it was explained that under the base plan the engi.neer would hsve i� to place an area assessment at least on an area basis even though no water would be provided in front of the houses. • He further explained that the burden oi proof of no bene£it is on the property owner, which is the purpose of the assessment hearing. Benefit is a judgemental matt�er and there is a basis for an area assessment but determination must be made as to whether the dollar charge is appropriate. MR. JOAN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10: Asked if the Northern States Power property would be assessed.. Couneilmaa Crichton replied that they are included in the assessment roll. MR. ALLEN JOHNSON, 4529 Lakeshore Place: Asked why residents.had to use a certified plumber to hook up the water when that isn't a requirement in other cities. Mrs. McNiesh said that a city ordinance requires it and she believed the state required that all sewer and water work be done under the supervision of a licensed plvmber. MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Hiqhway 10: Cited the case of a man in the city who had built his own house with•the help of friends, where no licensed electricians or plumbers were used. Councilman Crichton's remarks were inaudible. MR. FRANK WINIECKE, 4175 Highway 10: Told of having his sewer connected, and at the same time having extra copper tubing put in which has been damaged by the water contractor, Houle. Mr. Winiecke also said that Houle had pulled the apron off of the culvert. Mayor Crepeau assured Mr. Winiecke that the city engineer would look into the matter. MR. JOHN MC CLUNG, 4326 North Snelling Avenue: Has been assessed for 4.26 acres of land, much of whieh, or all, is being required by Rice Creek Watershed to be set aside for nutrimental purposes. Asked if it's the Council's intent to assess that kind of property that must be set aside for such a purpose. Mr. Christoffersen said he was not aware that the property was required by the watershed district. � MR. JIM WINIECKE, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if the pond on his father's property (Erank Winiecke) was being assessed. Mr. Christoffersen replied that six-tenths of an acre was heing assessed. 0 MR. JOHN LAWYER, 1484 West Highway 96: Is being assessed for 431 feet of frontage and five and a half acres for a . total assessment of $9,267.02. Because of the siae of the assessment he doesn't think the property will increase in vaZue. Further said that there's a large slough in the back of the property covering 1.62 acres, but since houses could not be built up to the water he calculated that there were 2.64 acres unsuitable for building. Also said that a second house couldn`t be built at the front of the property without deqrading the value of the house already there. Further, privacy.would be lost as well as energy since some of the trees that serve as a windbreak would have to be destroyed. Suggested that the front footage should be cut to 50�. FIe felt that $2,832.64 should be subtracted from his assessment. He further suggested to the Council thafi the petitioners for the improvement were land developers who will realize Iarge sums of money from the development of the area. Iie feels that the city has not struck a correct balance between who benefits by the improvement and how much they benefit, and who pays and how much they pay and that what has been done is not an equitable distribution. Mr. Lawyer also indicated that he has no intention of developing his land. Mayor Crepeau asked Mr. Christoffersen how much of the Lawyer property was deleted for wetland. Mr. Christoffersen replied that none was deleted because the city has a drainage plan and the low spot in Mr. Lawyer's property was not included in a ponding area. He was assessed for a total of 5.64 acres and 431 £eet. MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Said it doesn't seem reasonable that a man who owns five acres of land has to spend $10,000 for the purpose of flushing the toilet or getting a drink of water. Councilman Crichton noted that the assessments are based on what could happen to property in the future, and not what exists now. MR. ALLEN JOHNSON, 4529 Lakeshore Place: Commented on the condition of the road after the installation of the water. Mr. Christoffersen indicated that the contractor has not • finished Lakeshore Place. MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: Said he had heard that all that's needed on Lakeshore Place is the aealcoat. MR..Christoffersen replied that he hasn't made a final inspection of the project and if surfacing is required,.it will be done. � MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: Asked how many petitioners there were, and whether they were 358 of theproperty • owners, or represented 35$ of the property. Mr. Popovich noted that it isn't the number of people that count under the law, but rather the amount of affected property. It's 35$ of the affected property - not 35� of the number of individuals. He also said that he and the engineer had checked the petition and it did exceed 35:� of the affected property. At this time the Clerk Administrator re-checked the petition, and Mayor Crepeau announced that it was 46$ of the property owners who asked for the improvement. MR. JOHN GRUDNOSRE, 4439 Highway 10: Said that if a water main is extended on Highway 10 at some future time, the entire front footage assessment will be on only one side of Highway 10 since there are no properties to assess across the street. Since they're being asked to pay an acreage assessmant now, who will help them pay the cost when they get service to their property. Councilman Woodburn explained that acreage charges are necessary to pay for . trunk mains of an appropriate size to serve the area. . . MR. JIM WINIECKE, 447]: Highway 10: Asked if someone could explain what the cost would be to the people living on Old Highway 10 when they get water service. The consensus of the Council members was that it will be expensive for the comparatively small segment of watermain, which can only be assessed to benefit ted properties. It was pointed out that this fact was brought out at the feasibility hearing for the improvex�nt. MR. GLENN BEGGIN, 4519 Lakeshore Place: Asked amount of his assessment. He was referred to the assessment roll, and.it was explained that this assessment represents a full front footage and he wonld not be assessed for water again. MR. LEONARD GRUDNOSKE, 4445 Highway 10: Asked if assessment policy for this improvement is different from previous water improvements in the city. Councilman Crichton explained that previously $7.50 a front £oot was charged £or residential property and $11.00 a front foot for commercial, plus a certain percentage of the costs exceeding this amount, which brouqht the assessment to very close to the method presently used. MR. JIM WINIECKI, 4471 Highway 10: Asked if the assessment amounts shown in the assessment roll are final, or if they could be revised upward. Mr. Popovich replied tktat if an error should be found oz any parcels of property omitted, a supplemental. assessment hearing would have to be held to amend the assessments upward. 8 MR. LEE ROEBIiE, 4355 Highway 10: Said he has the distinct impression that the decision has already been made. Asked if • the 200 feet setback for property on Highway 10 goes all the way to the 2ake or if the progerty owners are charged for the property in excess of 200 feet. Mr. Christof£ersen said he doesn't believe any of those properties exten. beyond 200 feet. Councilman Woodburn stated that the decisions have not been made yet and he predicted that some chanqes would be made in the assessment roll. MR. LEE ROEBKE, 4355 Highway 10: Asked the cast if water were run at this time, hir. Christoffersen estimated at least 10$ to 15$ increas.e this year for the short stub, which was $1Q0,000 one and a half years ago. MR. JOHN GRUDNOSKE, 4439 Highway 10. Said he was opposed to the water improvement. There being no further questions or co�ents, Mayor Grepeau closed the hearing at 9:20 o'clock p. m. ' After a Council discussion of the �iews presented by the . property owners, Councilman Hanson introduced the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-41 (1) RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR COMBINED IMPR(}VEMENTS W-77-5 and W-78-2 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: l. The proposed assessments for Combined Improvements W-77-5 and W-78-2 should be and are hereby amended by reducing the A2eClung assessment of Outlot A acreage required by Rice Creek Watershed District for po.nding, as follows: � Parcel Number 25 49000 O10 03 Change Made Original Revised $ 3,391.50 $ 3,246.08 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 Wingert, ana 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. Councilman Hanson then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-41 (2) RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENTS FOR COMBINED Ib1PROVEMENTS W-77-5 and FJ-78-2 �J BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The proposed assessments for Combined Improvement W-77-5 and W-78-2 shouid he and are hereby amended by reduei:ng the area charges to $419.48 per residential acre, and to $629.22 per commercial acre, with the 258 reduction of $39,000 to be paid by general taxes, as follows: Parcel Number 25 01600 240 53 25 01600 250 53 25 01600 020 54 25 01600 040 54 25 01600 050 54 25 01600 070 54 25 01600 030 55 25 01600 05U 55 25 01600 060 55 25 01600 080 55 Change Made Original Revised $ 6,359.32 33.56 425.07 12,947.63 3,146.10 6,843.11 151.01 156.61 162.20 156.61 $ 4,769.49 25.17 �� 12,195.36 3,111.14 6,408.25 113.26 117.45 121.65 117.45 10 Chanqe Made Parcel Nvmber Original Revised � 25 01600 090 55 $ 5,984.58 $ 4,488.44 25 01600 I00 55 206.94 155.21 : 25 Oi600 120 55 173.39 130.U4 25 01600 O10 56 2,444.75 2,208.56 25 01600 020 56 805.40 604.�5 25 02100 010 Ol 12,104.42 11,908.66 25 02100 020 Ol 39,115.11 37,149.15 25 02I00 040 06 268.47 201.35 25 02100 04U 07 917.26 687.95 25 02100 060 27 12,371.49 11�855.53 25 02100 150 27 10,226.92 10,218.53 25 02100 030 35 10,709.32 9,788.57 25 02100 030 36 20,969.80 19,371.54 25 02100 020 38 18,910.16 3,7,643.33 25 62100 030 38 15,866.04 14�674.72 25 02100 020 51 4,418.2Q 4,015.50 25 02100 040 52 21,175.35 20,S1U.40 25 02100 050 52 9,954.26 7,806.52 25 02160 060 52 3,255.16 2,955.72 25 02100 070 52 40,077.02 39,395.37 25 021D0 030 75 15,352.97 14,975.44 � 25 021�0 O1.0 76 b,359.32 5,923.06 25 02Z00 060 80 27,375.26 26,141.99 25 02100 020 81 5,590.27 5,398.72 11 Parcel Numher • 25 02100 040 81 25 U2100 050 81 25 02100 O11 83 . 25 02200 020 27 25 02200 040 27 25 02200 060 27 25 02200 U80 27 25 02200 100 27 25 02200 120 27 25 02200 130 27 25 02200 020 28 25 02200 020 29 25 02200 030 29 25 02200 060 30 25 02200 080 30 25 02200 Q20 54 25 17000 100 O1 25 17000 110 Ol 25 17000 120 Ol 25 17000 121 O1 25 17000 130 O1 25 17000 140 O1 25 17000 150 O1 25 17000 160 OL 25 17000 170 O1 Change Made Original Revised $15,573.89 $15,298.44 3,501.26 3,325.07 35,757.50 34,787.10 2,615.79 2,572.44 2,554.26 2,526.3D 2,615.79 2,572.44 2,270.79 2,227.44 2,313.76 2,276.01 9,526.02 8,737.40 25,714.12 23,183.26 2,259.23 2,187.91 2,143.17 2,095.63 4,200.02 4,097.95 12,752.19 10,927.45 13,820.47 12,462.75 29,720.30 26,368.66 2,617.56 2,609.17 3,003.48 2,898.61 1,539.49 1,484.96 1,531.10 1,478.67 3,003.48 2,898.61 3,003.48 2,898.61 3,003.48 2,898.61 3,003.48 2,898.61 3,003.48 2,898.61 12 Parcel Number • 25 17000 �80 O1 25 17000 190 O1 25 1700D 220 02 25 17000 230 02 25 17000 240 02 25 17000 250 02 25 20000 O10 Ol 25 20000 020 Ol 25 20000 030 O1 25 44000 031 O1 25 44000 060 02 25 44000 070 02 25 44000 080 D2 25 44000 100 02 25 44000 110 02 25 44000 090 02 �� 25 50000 O10 02 25 50000 094 03 25 50000 083.04 25 50000 201 04 25 50000 211 04 25 50000 221 04 25 50000 231 D4 25 50000 241 04 25 50000 251 04 Change Made Original Revised $ 3,Q03.48 $ 2y898.61 12,545.87 12,162.04 3,003.48 2,898.61 3�003.48 2,898.61 3,003.48 3,003.48 296.43 268.47 268.47 28,549.11 313.21 212.54 223.72 257.28 453.04 268.47 3,238.39 1,504.53 1,661.14 598.46 206.94 206.94 206.94 218.13 346.77 2,898.61 2,898.61 222.32 201.35 201.35 26,361.52 234.91 159.40 167.79 192.96 339.78 201.35 2,428.79 1,128.40 1,245.86 448.84 155.21 155.21 155.21 163.60 260.08 � 13 �Chan e Ma�de Parcel Number Oric�inal Rsvised 25 50000 D11 05 $ 385.92 $ 289.44 25 50000 021 05 201.35 . 151.01 25 5D000 031 05 206.94 555.21 25 50000 041 05 408.29 306.22 25 50000 D52 05 464.22 348.17 25 92260 O10 O1 285.25 ` 213.93 25 92260 O10 02 637.61 478.21 25 92260 O10 03 419.48 314.61 25 42260 O10 04 425.07 318.$0 25 92260 O10 05 38U.33 285.25 25 92260 O10 O6 620.83 465.62 2. It is hereby faund and determined by this Council tha.t the foregoing amendment is just and equitable to said propo�ed 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 Crichtan, and�upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereofs A13.; and the following yoted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adapted. Councilman Hanson then introduced the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: i �So��zaN �o. �9-�2 RESOLUTION ADOPTItdG A1JD CONFIRNIING ASSES3NIENTS AS AMENDED FOR COMBINTD IMPROVEM�3NT5 W-77-S AND W-78-2 14 BE IT RESOLVED by the City CounciZ of the City o€ Arden • Hills, Minnesota, as follows: L The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Combined Improvements W-77-5 and W-78-2, against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land af£ected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of beneEits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with.the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all ti:nes since its filing been open for public inspection, and an opportuni�y has been given to all-interested persons to present their objec- tions, 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, finda that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumer- ated in the proposed assessment as amended was and is specially benefitted by the construction of said improvement�in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the deseription of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respc:etively, and such amount so set out ie hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of lan3 therein. 3. The proposed assessments as amended are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assess- ment against each parcel, together with interest at the rat� of 88 per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to ti.me 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 install- ments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment from the date thereof to December 31, 1980, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1979, collecti.ble in 1980, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid install- ments, 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 C3ty Treasurer, but no interest shall be aharged i€ such payment is raade within 30 days after the date of this resolution. 15 5. The City Clerk Administrator shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on • each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Crichton, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: A11; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • �, J �� Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 21, 1979 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City CounciZ of the City of Arden Hi11s, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on TuesBay, the 21st day of August, 1979, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: . Mayor Crepeau and Councilman Sanson, Wingert, Grichton and Woodl�urn; and the following were absent: None. � Also in attendance were: Charlotte McNiesh, City Clesk Administrator; Donald Christoffersen of Shart, E11iot, Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & F1ynn. City Bond Consultant. 0 The City Clerk Administratar presented an affidavit showing publication o€ notice of hearing on the proposed assassment for Improvement No. SS-W-P-78-1 in the New Brighton Builetin on August 2, 1979,which affidavit was examined, found satis£actory, and ordered placed on file. The Clerk Administrator also • exhibited a Certificate of Mailing Notice of Searing ta all effected property owners. MAYQR CREPEAU: Mr. Christoffersen, the city engineer. will briefly e�lain the improvement and outline the area on the map. f' . �. 2 • MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Janet Estates includes the construction of sanitary sewer, watermain, streets and drainage for the Janet Estates development. MAYOR CREPEAU: Mr. Peter Popovich will briefly elcplain the financing. MR. POPOVICH: This matter was 100 percent petitioned for. There was no neaessity for a feasibility hearing. . It's 100 percent assessed. The total cost is $119,591. There are some 15 lots involved. The sanitary sewer comes out to $2,230 per lot; water is $1,450 per lot; storm sewer $1,343; and there are nine lots of street at $4,913 per lot. The assessment will be spread for 20 years at 8� with the right of prepayment. ASRS. MC NIESii: There were no written coimnunications. Mayor Crepeau announced that the meeting was open for the cons3deration of objections, if any, to the proposed assessment. All persons present were then given the opportunity �o present oral objections. _ No one appeared to be heard. . Mayor Crepeau closed the hearing and Councilman Wingert introduced the following resolution and �ved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-43 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING SMENTS FOR IMPROVEMEN'i' N�. SS-W-P-78-1 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden • Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Improvement No. SS-W-P-78-1 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land a£fected therehy has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objec- tions, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an oppor- tunity has been given to all interested persons to present 3 . their objections, if aay, to such proposed assessment. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objec- tions so presented, and being fully advised in the premi.ses, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of Iand enumer- ated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respeatively, and such . amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the rerapec- tive lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted an8 con- firmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 8$ per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from �ime to tima unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such . parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such asgess- ment shall be payable in equal annual princip�l i:nstallments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first of said installments, togethar with interest on the entire assess- ment from the date hereof to December 31, 1980. to be payable with general taxes for the year 1979, collectible in 1980, 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 there- after 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 asses"sed hereby may at any time pay the whole or at least S08 of such assessment, with interest to �tlie date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if snch 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 Anditor a certifiecl duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment.set forth sepasately, to be extend�d 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 Hanson, and upon vote beinq taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: A11; and the followinq voted against the same: None; wh.ereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 � , Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City o£ Arden xills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: Auqust 21, 1979 Pursuant to due call and notice thereo£, a special m�eting of the City Council of the Gity o� Arden Hills, Minnesata, taas duly held in tYte City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 21at day of August; 1974, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Crep�:au and Councilman Hanson, Wingert, Crichton and Waodburn; and Ehe following were absen�: None. Also in attendance were: Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Donald Christoffexsen of Short, E21iot, Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Laaab, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Itnutson � Flynn, City Bond Consultant. The City C1erk Administrator presented an affidavit shovaing publicatian of notiee af hearing on the proposed assessm�nt for Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-77-7 in the New Brightan Bulletitt on August 2, 1979, which affidavit was examined, found satisfactory, and ordered placed on fi1e. The Clerk Administrator al.so . exhibited a Certifieate of Mailing Notice of Hearing to all affected property owners. MAYOR CREPEAU: At this time I would ask the city enginesr, Don Christoffersen, to brie£ly explain the improve�ent. . z � MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This is Valentine Lake View No. 3 and the ivaprovement included sanitary sewer, water, street and drainage, serving four lots on Gale Cirole. MAYOR CREPEAU: Our fiscal consuZtant, Mr. Popovich� will explain the financing. MR. POPOVICH: The feasibility report showed a total cost of $27,100. Final costs are $33,738. There are four lots involved. It will be 100 percent assessed. Sanitary sewer will be $I,006.54 a lot. Water, $1,543.85 a lot, and streets and drainage $5,884.11 a lot. Assessments will be for 20 years at 8$, with the same policy applying to prepayment without interest charges. MAYOR CREPEAII: Does the Clerk Administrator have any written questions or objections? MRS. MC NIESHr None, your Honor. MAYOR CREPEAU: The meeting is open for consideration of any objections. Are there any? Hearing none, w� wil.l have comments from the Council.. Does any Council member have a comment7 COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: Don, a question for you. Apparently the cost was over 20� of the original estimate. 'T understand there were some problems. Is that what generally eaused the over- run? Was the developer aware of that? MR. CIiRISTOFFERSEN: At the time the bids were awarded, the owner was present and advised the Council that he wished the Council to proceed. Mayor Crepeau closed the hearing and Councilman Wingert introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-44 \J RESOLUTION ADOPTII3G AND CONFIRMZNG ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-77-7 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ot Arden Yills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-77-7 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land af£ected therehy 2 • has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law. that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objec- tions, if any, and said proposed assessment has at a1.1 times since its filing been open for public inspection, and an oppor- tunity has been given to all interested persons to presant their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Councii, 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 speeially`benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against eaeh of the respec- tive lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and eon- firmed as the proper special assessments for each of 'said lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assessment against each parcel. together with interest at the rate of 8� per annum accruing on the full amount thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concvrrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. .The total amount of each such assess- ment shall be payable in equal annual principal in�tallments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the firsf of said installments, together with interest on the entire assess- ment from the date hereof to necember 31, 1980, to be payable with general taxes for the year 1979, colleeti.ble in 1980, 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 g�neral taxes for each consecutive year there- after 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 A 3 • upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the rnanner provided by law. The motion for the adoption of the foregoinq resolution a was duly seaonded by Councilman Crichton, 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. • �a� ,� �"`� Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council • City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota Held: August 21, 1979 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a sgecial meeting of the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, hiinnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 1979, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Crepeau and Councilman Hanson, Wingert, Crichton and Woodburn; and the following were absent: None. Also in attendance were: Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Donald Christoffersen of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, City Consulting Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Peter S. Popovich of Peterson, Popovich, Knutson & Flynn, City Bond Consultant. The City Clerk Administrator presented an affidavit showing . publication of notice of hearinq on the proposed assessment for Improvement No. W-78-5 in the New Brighton Bulletin on August 2, 1979, which affidavit was examined, found satisfactory, and oxdered placed on file. The Clerk Administrator also exhibited a Certificate of Mailinq Notice of Hearing to all affected property owners. MAYOR CREPEAU: At this time I will ask the city engineer, Don Christoffersen, to briefly explain the improvement. 1 � . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: This improvement includes con- structing watermain along County Road E between Fernvrood and Lexington Avenue, and it serves the abutting property owners MAYOR CREPEAU: At this time I'll ask our fiscal consultant, Mr. Popovich, to explain the financing. MR. POPOVICH: This project was i00 percent petitioned for. No feasibility hearinq was required. The total estimated cost at that time was $23,6D0. The final cost for this improvement is $29,408. The improvement will be 1008 assessed. It's $13.86739 per front foot and one 1-inch service at $345.00 to raise the $29,408. Assessments will be spread over 20 years at 88 unless prepayment rights are exercised. MAYOR CREPEAU: Does the Clerk have any written coimminica- tions or objections? MRS. MC NIESH: None, your Honor. Mayor Crepeau announced that the meeting was open for the con- sideration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessment. All persons present were then given the opportunity to present oral objections. No one appeared to be heard. Mayor Crepeau closed the hearing, and Councilman Hanson then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 79-45 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. W-78-5 • BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City o£ Arden Hills, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time £or I�provement No. W-78-5 against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected thereby r 3 • has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, and notice has been duly mailed and published, as required by law, that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pas� upon all objec- tions, if any, and said proposed assessment has a� all times siace its Eiling been open for public inspection, and an oppor- tunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Covncil, having heard and considered all objec- tions so presented, and being fully advised in the premises, finda that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enwner- ated in the proposed assessment was and is speeially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not iess than the amount of the assessment set opposite the deseription of each such 1ot, piece arid parcel of land, respectively, and such amount so set o.ut is hereby ievied against each o€ the respec- tive lots, pieces and parcels of land therein. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and con- firmed as the proper special assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land, respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of 83 per annum accruing on the full amount thereof £rom time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assess- � ment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first of said installments, together with interest on the entir� assess- ment from the date hereof to December 31, 1980, to be payable with general taxea for the year 1979, collectible in 1980, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's inter�st on that and all other unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecutive year there- after until the entire assessment is paid. 4. Prior to certification of the assessment'to the County Auditor, the ownar of any lot, piece or parcel of land.asse�sed hereby may at any time pay the whole or at least 5U� o£ such assessment, with interest to the date of payment; to the City . Treasurer, but no interest shall be charqed if sueh payment is . made within 30 days after the date of this resolution. 5. The City C1erk Adi�ninistrator shall, �s 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 �xtended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. , 4 • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilman Wingert, and`upon vote being taken thereon, the foZlowing voted in favor thereof: Mayor Crepeau and Councilmen Hanson, Wingert and Woodburn; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, Councilman Crichton having momentarily left tfie Cvuncil ehambers and being absent when the vote was taken. G �