Minutes - Council - 09/26/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

increased by at least the amount of the assessment. We would rely on an appraiser as well. If we get into the project and it cannot be proven that the benefit will be at least as much as the assessment, we would have to come up with alternative financing. Mr. Jankowski commented that this project would allow a potential creation of up to 18 other lots. Mayor Hardin inquired of Attorney Goodrich if he is suggesting the City obtain an appraisal also. Mr. Goodrich stated that the property owners are concerned about the improvement and that what we are proposing does not benefit them. If we cannot prove the benefit is at least equal to the assessment, we cannot assess the property owners. Mr. Schroeder stated that the total project cost is about $120,000, and you can get 23 total lots for a total of $5,000 to $6,000 per lot ff lots are created. It's not unreasonable to expect that amount of benefit per lot. ff the lots are not created, an assessment of $20,000 to $30,000 is expected for a lot that is not subdivided. As a result of that, the project value would be more difficult to prove. Aim an issue is when assessment begins and when connection is mandated by the Council. This discussion will take place at a subsequent assessment hearing. He stated that Mr. Jankowski is suggesting that if Council moves forward we can do it by a change order. Mr. Jankowski stated that we have a contract with Barborossa to bring the water down 151st. If the subdivision gets sewer and water, it would be an advantage to do it concurrently to minimize disturbance. Attorney Perry stated he would strongly argue that you cannot consider what may happen in the future. Affirmative action would have to be taken by my clients; they have no plans to subdivide. Attorney Goodrich stated that an appraiser would look at the highest and best use of the land; that's really the essence of this subject. Jim Green, 5858 o 151st Lane N.W., Ramsey, stated this discussion has been going on all summer. What's been given to you tonight should have been given to you 60 days ago. We have followed the City Code to the law. The vote should be taken; it does not make sense to wait. It's a matter of economics, the price is right. We should be included in that project and we should have been included in the beginning. He added that some of the laws should be changed. If this gets thrown into the courts, it could take years and the price to do this project would probably be up. If Mr. Olson wants to sell in the future, he can gain profit from this connection. There is a gain for him and for the Croteau's and everyone else on the street. All lots were divided when you bought your property. City Council should vote in favor of this. Attorney Goodrich stated that up to this point, the City has followed the procedure correctly. They can order the project. The next step is the final step which is the assessment hearing. At that time, in order for the City to adopt the assessment, they have to show that much benefit. The risk the City takes is if they are not able to show benefit, they cannot assess these properties and the City would have to pay for it out of the general fund if it proceeds. Attorney Goodrich stated this does not have to go to court. It may not proceed this year but Council will have to decide. City Council/September 26, 1995 Page 15 of 22