The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6B - Ridgemont Ave Streets ~ DATE: 6B JEFFREY T. EVENS, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN IV CONDUCT ASSESSMENT HEARING ON RIDGEMONT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #95-01 - AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 95-90 SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 AGENDA #: PREP ARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider adoption of the assessment roll associated with Project #95-01 and the adoption of Resolution 95-90. BACKGROUND: At its regular meeting of August 21, 1995, the Council approved Resolution 95-78 which declared the cost to be assessed and ordered the preparation of the assessment roll. Also Resolution 95-76 establishing the date of the Assessment Hearing for the Ridgemont Street improvements was passed. DISCUSSION: All benefiting property owners have been mailed a Statement of Special Assessments which included information pertinent to their property such as the total assessment amount and the assessment rate. A Public Hearing notice has been mailed indicating time and place of the Assessment Hearing. The proposed assessment roll as authorized by the City Council amounted to a total of $142,909.43. Included in this total is $17,360 Trunk Fees to be assessed. The remaining amount is to be paid by the City's Ad Valorem Tax Levy and Trunk Reserve in the amount of $26,000.67 and $97,036.00 respectively. The amount to be assessed against the benefiting properties of this project is $142,909.43 with a assessment fron~ge total of 2875 front feet (FF). Included in this total front footage is 964 feet abutting Lakefront Park which the City 16200 ~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER of Prior Lake owns. The City is paying its share of the assessments in the amount of $97,036.00, for Lakefront Park from Trunk Reserve Funds. The following assessment rates were calculated per City's Assessment Policy based upon 100% of the benefiting properties portion of the project cost for street, sewer, and water improvements. For Properties where sewer and water were extended Project Assessment (1000/0 - Sewer, Water, & Street) $183,603.84 Assessable front footage * 1824FF Project Assessment Rate S100.66/FF *Note: This total includes 964 linear feet (LF) of City property in Lakefront Park. The final assessment rate of $100.66/FF represents a decrease of 13.90/0 when compared with the original estimated assessment rate of $116.89/FF. The following assessment rates were calculated in accordance with Ordinance 85-01 based upon 600/0 of the street improvement portion of the total project cost assessed against the benefiting properties, and the remaining 40% of the street portion total project cost recovered by ad valorem property tax levy over the entire community. For Properties where sewer and water existed Project Assessment (60% - Street Only) $38,981.59 Assessable front footage 1051 FF Project Assessment Rate $37.09/FF The final assessment rate of $37.09/FF represents a decrease of 20.3% when compared with the original estimated assessment rate of $46.53/FF. All the proposed assessments rates have been calculated to include subcuting of the roadway and placement of additional rock as approved by Council on July 31, 1995 council meeting. The total amount of this additional work was $29,941.00. The work was required to complete the project. The initial assessment amount at the February 6, 1995, Public Hearing was estimated to be $262,110.00 as compared to the current project assessment total of AGRID918,DOC $222,585.43. The net adjustment reflects a lowering of the total assessments to 84% of the preliminary estimate. Both of these totals represent actual assessment totals with no Tax Levy or Trunk fees included. These lower rates are due to using actual bid prices that were favorable. The assessment frontages were determined as per the City's assessment policy as adopted by City Council on February 21, 1989 and utilizing the existing plat drawings for this area on file. In the event that a property owner provides a surveyor justification that the frontage for a parcel is incorrect, the City Council can adjust the frontage for the parcel and the resulting assessment. The assessment terms are to be for ten (10) years for paving, sewer and water. Added to the first installment (1996) will be an additional 104 days of interest which accounts for the remaining days of 1995 following the Public Hearing. A interest rate of 8% will be charged in accordance with City Assessment policy. Prior Lake Code, Chapter 1-13 allows for the deferment of assessment principal and interest if the following four criteria are satisfied: 1. Applicant must be 65 years of age or older. 2. The qualifying property must be the homestead of the applicant. 3. Annual gross income shall not exceed the income limits as set forth by family size according to Attachment "A" of Ordinance 86-3. 4. Total special assessment to be deferred must exceed $1000.00. The property owners have a right to appeal their assessments as per Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. Written objections must be signed and filed with the City Manager prior to the assessments hearing or presented to the Council at the hearing. The City has received one letter objecting to the assessments from Mr. and Mrs. Larry Haferman, 15831 Ridgemont Avenue S.E., Prior Lake, MN. PID #25-936-015-0 which is attached. AGRlD918.DOC ALTERNATIVES: ISSUES: AGRID918,DOC The alternatives are as follows: 1. Approve Resolutions 95-90 adopting the assessment roll as submitted. 2. Approve Resolutions 95-90 subject to Council approved changes. 3. Continue the hearing for a specific reason. Residents have expressed concern about the additional $29,941 project cost associated with subcutting and added rock. These are actual costs associated with the project and should be assessed to the benefiting properties including the city. These additional expenses enhanced the road subsurface and expedited the project for everyone's benefit. Unfortunately rain and the contractors failure to comply with the bid specifications despite repeated written correction: notices added to the frustrations associated with this project. The fact that this road is the only access to 150 or more homes and to Lakefront Park exacerbated the situation. Residents may argue that since over 150 homes have their only access via Ridgemont Avenue that they should participate in the cost of the improvements. This situation was discussed during the adoption of the assessment policy. This argument was one of the considerations given when the Council adopted the policy of assessing 60% of the project in lieu of 100%. However the focus of tonight's hearing is the question whether the properties have benefited because of this project and whether, the assessment has been calculated accurately and in accordance with city policy. For comparison's sake we have compared Ridgemont to other road projects. The comparison is as follows: 1000/0 Assessment PrQjects -Street. Sewer & Water North Shore Oaks NO. 90-13 $101.80/FF Ridgemont Avenue NO. 95-01 $100.66/FF 600/0/400/0 Assessment Projects Prior South NO. 94-01 Northwood Road NO. 94-02 Ridgemont Avenue NO. 95-01 $54.47/FF $54.47/FF $37.09/FF RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is Alternatives No.1 approving the Resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project costs will be recouped from the Trunk Reserve Fund, Ad Valorem Tax Levy and Special Assessments. ACTION REQUIRED: rove or deny the various Resolutions. AGRID918,DOC RESOLUTION 95-90 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR RIDGEMONT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT # 95-01 MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvements of Project # 95-01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, is hereby accepting and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable on an equal principal method extending over a period of .1.Q years. The first installment shall be the annual principal plus interes~ calculated from the Public Hearing date to the end of this year plus twelve months of the next year and shall bear interest at the rate of .8. percent per annum from the date adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, l22Q. To each subsequent installment/when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, except that no interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days, and the individual may at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Finance Director the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, excepting the installment portion appearing upon the current year's property tax statement. 4. The City Manager shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of Scott County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid to the City in same manner as other municipal taxes. 5. The fmal project cost apportionment has been determined to be $265,946.10 of which $26,000.67 and $97,036.00 shall be paid from the City's Ad Valorem Tax Levy and Trunk Reserve Fund, respectively, and $142,909.43 which includes $17,360 Trunk Acreage Charges, to be assessed to the benefited property owners as per attached assessment roll. Passed and adopted this 18th day of September, 1995. YES NO Andren Greenfield Kedrowski Schenck Scott Andren Greenfield Kedrowski Schenck Scott Frank Boyles City Manager City of Prior Lake { Seal } RE9S0S/G:/resolu ... -.... ...-.,..-...---.---.-...-... .........-....--..-r-'--.....---......'.--.--.... ""'"----''''--_.''''''' ~ O'NEILL, TRAXLER, ZARD, NEISEN & MORRIS, Ltd. A1TORNEYS AT LAW LAW BUILDING 222 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. BOX 105 NEW PRAGUE, MINNESOTA 56071 ROBERT O. O'NElU NORBERT B. TRAXLER STEVEN D. ZARD CHRISTOPHER A. NEISEN CHRISTOPHER E. MORRIS Phone: (612) 758-2568 Fa%: 758-2599 CERTIFIED MAIL September 7, 1995 City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 ATTN: Mr. Frank Boyle RE: Haferman Property PID #259360150 Dear Mr. Boyle: This is to confirm that our office represents Mr. and Mrs. Larry Haferman who are the owners of the property located at 15831 Ridgemont Avenue S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota. This letter is to notify you that we are objecting to the Assessment Notice for Public Improvement Project #95-01. NBT/clv Yours very truly, O'NEILL, TRAXLER, ZARD, 2:e N/7& MORRIS, LTD. /' %~/)- 1:- o~ert B. ~ler ~ / I cc: Mr. and Mrs. Larry Haferman .J <.J -< E--_ ZE-- ~Z e~ E-- .JCI)Q Z <~r;) ~ _Cl::~ ~ E-->Cl:: ~ Z.J> > ~-.J O Q~- r;)<~ Cl:: ~'-< ~ Cl::~'- ::5 >.J~ ~ =~t5 ;:J ~r;)Z CI) ~ ~cir;) ~~ > ~~~ ~< < .JE--e" >~ E-- e,,<Cl:: U;> ~ ~~< gg ~;: ~ CI)~= . e". ~ .. ~ U e" Cl:: e" t5 ~~~\Cz <z QI/)Z~zr->- =-> -~0r{2;:J · U .J Cl::~ e"Cl::~< ~< < ,..;~~~~e,,~ e,,~ e:: ~->~~~~ ~~ U ~~<~~~~ ~~ ~ tj~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~Z~ z~ << ot:~=g;:J~~;:J~\CQ;:J Cl::~~:;~Cl::~~Cl::~~:0' ~CI)~~~E--CI)QCE--CI)--~ ~ E-- < Q Co-' Z ;~ <E-- ..~~ zE--E-- ozz -~~ t:~~ -CI)CI) Cl::CI)CI) U~~ CI)CI)CI) ~CI)CI) Q<< ~ E-- ~ E-- CI) .. ~Q Cl::< ~~ E--Cl:: z=- _CI) ~ rJ':J ~ .. Cl::Q ~o E--= ..ZE-- Cl::-~ <.J~ ~~E-- >oz .J_~ :SC~ E--Q> -Q< ~<=- ~ Q o U E-- Z ~ :e CI) CI) ~ rJ':J CI) < ~ o ~;G' u r- < .g ~ 0 S 8 ~ ~ ~ z ~ :::> u ~~ Z~~ ~~ :::>0 u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I p.. ~ p.. 5 E= p.. i:2 u ~~ Q ...:l < o ~ ...:l ..- 00 00 ~ "0 o U '-" ~ ; ~ 5 ~ c ::s a5~ :c>r- c<~ ~-"1 > 5 ~ B e CI) ~ -0,) ClO .. "'Q"O~ eCi2~ as"1...:l ClO ~ ... ;s r- .9 ~"1'" ,..:;-p.. ~ ;:J Z ~ > < E-- Z o )1 ~ e" Q - Cl:: ~ - u 0 as I e:: \0 c....('f'\g 0_ I :..~:A o ell 0 -~.n CI)~~ 01 ~ ~ ~ {/) ~ ::s ::s as c ~~~ u > r- o<('f'\ ..._"1 I:Oc"1 asO~ ::: e ~ ~ ..c ClO .. eIl"O~ ~Ci2~ {/)"1...:l ~ "1 ... J: \0 .9 a "1 ... ",",,-p.. c .9 - :e "0 _<0 I:O-o~ -,,~g ...:lcoO .. ~ r- 020 00 ~ 1 Z:C~ 01 ~ ~ ::s c ]~~ ..c<('f'\ u_"1 "'c"1 o 0 z ~5~ as ClO .. O:2~ ~~as _('f'\...:l ~ \0 ... a \0 .9 Q~Q:: c .9 - :e -0 -<0 1:0-01 .. c ~ _~o ~cc:r .. ~ 00 Ocr- OcO -as.n eIl:C~ ! i I ~ 5 ~ c ::s c c as~~ :c>r- c<~ ~-"1 >5~ B e ell ~ -0,) 00 .. "'Q-o~ ~Ci2~ ;S"1~ 00 ~ ... ;s r- .9 ~"1'" ,..:;-p.. c .9 - :e -0 <0 --01 . C ~ ~~g 1:0 coO "~r- ~So - ~ 1 .s:c~ 01 ~ ~ ::s c5~ B>r- ~<('f'\ ..._"1 I:Oc"1 as~~ ]~.. -0 ~ ~Ci2~ ~o...:l ~('f'\'" == \0 .9 o~o: o 1 - ~~o I:O-;Jc:r -,,000 _Q,)o O"C 1 ...:l~~ ~ iii ..I ~ III < OJ i ~ ~ ::3 C ~ >N <r--- ~ ~~1rI ~31r1 ...:IUZ ... ~ :E 0- .. .- 00 ~ ...~~ Q..~~ ~O...:l e~ .~ .- \0 ... U-Q.. C"f ... ~ ~ 0 .5 ... U -o~ ~uZ Z~~ -Zoo . ~ 0'\ ~olrl 0 coOOr--: N .. r--- 1rI en 0 ~~~~c:;> o~~ - ...:IlrIoOoo ...n - 0 o "'"'~ ~ · Q:;~ooE5~ 01 i ~ ~ ::3 C ~ >N <r--- ~~~ ~~1rI ~ e ~ ...:IU ... ~ 0- .. .- 00 ~ ~~~ ~~~ 00...:1 o ... eN .9 .- \0 ... U-Q.. ~ Sr-.. ..00 N . ...:I~ O~o -:Q:;~M ~en~O CO~oc:;> ~oo- ~.. 0 00 00 -~~c:;> o ~ .;;0 1rI ...:I E--< ~ N 01 i ~ ~ ::3 C ~ > <~ ~~~ ~~1rI ~e~ ...:IU ... ~ .9 bh ~.. ...~~ Q..~~ ~o...:l e~ .~ u~~ ~ ~ ~ E) ~ o~- 0055 ~.. ~~! 0'\ - r., c:;> 1rI r., """'4 1rI """'400.. ~ ~><:ad~C:;> lrI~ft ~1I"l =N~oog:: 1rI0~><:.A ~...:IOO~N 0/ 0/ 0/ 01 0/ ~ ~ i i 9 ~ ~ ::3 C ~~N C,) > r--- ~<~ ti:c~ .:O~ - S ::3 ~ ~oo.. AY "'0 ~ :;2~ all"l...:l .:00'" C,) 1rI .9 2~~ = ;, "'0 < - en - en ..~ 0 -- . ~- . ..c 0 ~"'O CO~I ...:.5 ~ >0 - - . 0~1rI ...:IUN ~ en "'0 a ~ ~ s t2~~ "'O<~ (;c~ = 0 Z ~5::E rn~ai ~2~ AY 0 ...:I "'QO'\... ~. 1rI .9 1rI ... -Q.. = ;, "'0 < _0 - en I . _ N ~ ften 8 co"'O. .. a ~ N~_ o "'0 · ...:I~~ ~ ~ ~ S S~N ::3 > r--- tU<~ coc~ .e~z ~~::E ~~~., -2~ adll"l...:l :g~8 0\0.- ~~~ "'00 N C . ~~8 a3=C:;> ~1I"l -"-5 ~ 0'<;:: · ...:I:E~ ~ ~ ::3 C ~~~ N<~ 5_1rI co=1I"l e~z ~ ~ ::E > 00 .. "'0 ~ ad2~ "'0_...:1 -a~... ~ \0 .9 o~~ "'00 NS~ ~Q..O co=c:;> ~1I"l "': II"l NC,)_ 0'<;:: · ...:I:E~ ~ .~ ~ - C O~N OO>r--- ~<~ en_1I"l e = II"l ~~~ AY 00 .. "'Q"'O~ ~2~ Oll"l...:l .:0'" .~ ~.g Z-Q.. N"gc:;> ~~:g a3=C:;> ~1I"l "': 1rI ~C,)_ 0.<;:: I ...:I:E~ ~ i ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ s ~~~ s::<~ r::_1I"l ~=1I"l ~~~ o~.. ~:2~ C,) ~ ~ 5_...:1 ... ~ ... ~ 00 .9 ...:I~~ ~ ~- -~ ~oo OO'<:t ~::::; -~ ~oo oo~o C .;;0 r--- c:;> ....... . "'" ., ~ N- 8~NC:;> ~ .,>< ~ ~ .. 0_0'\ ON I ~ad~~ ~ uj ..l ~ -< i ~ = = = \C f'f') r-: ~ ~ i ~ f'f') "I!f' iii oc II) M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .~ - - ~ G) V'\ =' V'\ c: ~G)N ~ >l'" a<(M _V'\ ~ t: .. ~c:V'\ =' !i ~O~ ..c:O..c: ::c 8 e u.~ O~.. =' ~ G) "'0 u COO::C 8ii2~ . fI) ~ ~ s.; 5_~ 8CO-6 < .. M .. Eo- ~ 00 .9 2 00 ~ 0 ~~~ CO~> Eo- ~ < - M ~ r--: lZ) M ! >< u u:l ~ =' c ~ lZ) G) - C+-o > 0 ~ 0 <( V'I M - 0\ lZ) C 00 ~\O OMO :s! -NO N080 ~ ~ ~o\~ ~ . U . C ~ - 0000 lZ)N8 ~M:s!8 0 ~ N. M~. 00 ~ .5 V'\ \0 oV'\V'\\O C ~ <_M M-ooM .~ \1.1 _ 0\ ..J I M-l"'~ lZ) ~ M \0 V'\ Z\OV'\V'\ g., <( en - M N M - M * < APPLICATION FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Pursuant to City of Prior Lake Ordinance 86-03 TO: City Manager City of Prior Lake Scott County, Minnesota File # 95-03 I, Margaret Hannen , the undersigned declare under penalties of perjury: That I reside at 15745 Ridgemont Avenue That my spouse is (name) Deceased That I am 65 years or older and that my date of birth is 4/20/14 That my family size/number of dependents is 1 IF APPLICABLE: That I am retired by reason of permanent and total disability (Please attach a sworn affidavit by a licensed medical doctor to the fact that you are unable to be gainfully employed due to a permanent and total disability). That the following described property is owned by and is the homestead of the applicant: Property Address Phone Number Legal Description Parcel Identification Number 15745 Ridgemont Avenue 447-2835 S 101' of Tract E 25 054 006 0 That my annual gross income for myself and my spouse as reported on applicant's most recent income tax return (attach a copy of your last year's Federal Income Tax Return), plus non-taxable income received such as Social Security, pension, worker's compensation or similar proceeds is $ ~ Q.~(j . '}7 which does not exceed the family size income limits according to Attachment A of Ordinance 86-03. Applicant hereby requests that the following special assessment of $12.716.66 for Project 95-01 which is levied against the above described property be deferred. I hereby acknowledge that any of the following reasons shall result in the total amount of the deferred special assessment, including interest, to be certified currently upon the property tax rolls of Scott County to be collected over the appropriate time period. 1. Failure to renew this application each year by September 30th. 2. Death of the owner, if the spouse is not eligible for benefits. 3. Sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof. 4. Loss of homestead status. 5. Determination of no hardship. I hereby declare that I have read the above and that the information contained in this application is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. hrA/(~L-. .t (Applicant's Signature) Subscribed and sworn to before me this/i day of4- 9;<S- i~;zI " ;' I e KATHRVNE H. HAGGER1Y \i 'NOTARY puBUC-MINNESOTA SCOTT COUNTY My Ccm'\1iSllICn Expif8I JAN 31. ~ . + September 6, 1995 TO: Presiding Officer/City Manager Public Assessment Hearing Public Improvement Project #95-01 Ridgemont Avenue Held September 18, 1995 @ Council Chambers RE: Excessive assessments to nine Ridgemont Ave.residents We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the City Council reconsider the proposed assessments, both with respect to the percentage of the project charged to these nine homeowners, currently proposed at 60%, and the number of homes bearing the brunt of the assessment, nine homes, versus the 150 homeowners who will benefit equally by the improvements to Ridgemont Avenue. IS 60 % A FAIR PERCENTAGE? While we recognize that each city can set its own guidelines as to the percentage of assessments charged to a given homeowner, we disagree with the proposed 60% levy on Ridgemont Avenue. Other communities in this area charge the following percentages: CITY HOMEOWNER % CITY % Shakopee 25 75 Chaska 20 80 Savage Case by Case Basis Burnsville 40 60 Eagan 45 55 Lakeville 50 50 Apple Valley 0 100 We feel that the Citr of Prior Lake is out of step with its contemporary citles. These city guidelines should be . ..._.......~_..,...__....... . , .._._.. _M~.. ....._..__.., .._ _..._._~._._.,_.. _,., ,... HM... ".... ._......._____.__...._..._______M~.._..'._ " ..... brought into line with similar communities south of the river. At a minimum, we would ask that 70 % of this project be paid for by the city and the homeowners pay no more than 30%. IS IT FAIR TO CHARGE 9 HOMEOWNERS FOR THE ASSESSMENTS WHEN OVER 150 HOUSEHOLDS AND COUNTLESS LAKE FRONT PARK PATRONS USE RIDGEMONT AVENUE AS THE ONLY ACCESS TO THEIR HOMES AND THE PARK? DID POOR CITY PLANNING CAUSE THE PROBLEM ? Ridgemont Avenue is an arterial road that must be used by all residents past the intersection of Ridgemont and Hope Streets, (see Map), and all Prior Lake residents usinq Lakefront Park. The City Argues that the 40% of proJect costs they are assuming should make this a fair arrangement. We strongly disagree. Rid~emont Avenue takes the brunt of a great deal of traff1c because its the only access road. That is why Ridgemont needed repairs in the first place. The City would have us believe that the road bed needed normal replacement due to t~e number of years of normal wear and tear. We would like to point out that the number of new homes constructed in the area, with the attendant large trucks hauling cement, lumber and scrap have contributed greatly to the deterioration of Ridgemont Avenue. We feel that due to poor city planning, with only one access road, that Ridgemont takes a disproportionate share of abuse and it is unfair to penalize the nine homeowners on Ridgemont for this poor planning. Your own letter states,"The area proposed to be assessed is every lot, piece, and ~arcel benefitin~ from said improvement, whether abutt~nq or not, with~n the following described areas: Ridgemont Avenue from Rutledge Street to 1600 feet South within the Hannen 2nd Addition,Mitchell Pond, Calvin Erbe1e's Addition, Edwards 1st Addition, and the The Oaks SUbdivisions, and other adjacent property in sections 35 and 36, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota. It is our contention that the area to be assessed should be amended to include the 150 households who use this road ,daily to go to and from work, go grocery shopping, have their children bussed to and from school, have their garbage picked up, etc. Without Ridgemont Ave, none of this could be possible. Those 150 homes benefit at least equally from the paving improvements on Ridgemont. A nominal charge of $300.00 per household would substantially reduce our disproportionate costs and still be reasonable to the 150 homeowners. I can't envision too large an uproar over a $300.00 per household charge...spread over 10 years at 8% that would be a whopping $43.68 per year for the other 150 households who must use this road. This is the only fair way to pay for the improvements on Ridgemont Ave, unless the City has concrete plans to construct another access to the area. Chapter 429 MSA gives the City approval to proceed with this ~roject. It also states that the amount of the indiv1dual assessments has to be proportionate to the improvements. We seriously doubt that the value of our property will be enhanced at the same level as our proposed assessments. We challenge you to have benefit appraisals done by an independent appraisal firm to establish weather or not the assessments proposed equal a corresponding increase in our property values as 429 MSA states must be the case. In closing, while we do not wish to raise the specter of costly class action litigation, we are committed to appeal any decision which we feel is as unfair as the one currently pro~osed. We respectfully ask that you ,as elected offic1als, respond to our concerns in a fair and sincere manner,using something that seems to be in short supply so far, that being common sense. ~~b~ / ~ltt~S- ;21P~ 4t/e- S,(C . .. ~.....~ 9- f' -~' tl/;ttl I i.5-~;J1 I?~~~..r-/~ /I'C: if' /'I 7 /_C!/ V~./~1f 9-~~jLl ~~. JSIs<{ ~~j.(. ~p'7G ~~r~ /5SYd~~L ~;- ~ CS~ / ~-tPD~- If j(fl<c~ ;(peSE ~~~at~1k t)cX~ ~~d,~eS~ '- . '-f vi ,,#. 11// / -0"'/ k/J (- /' // r-' t::- e' rt~"'4"-c:..J~ / i~ /5 <l j . 1(' f-t'",.., /1....<..:> I COLLECTIVELY, THE RIDGEMONT 9 -- -,,~,,- .-.. ,. .. ..--- -----....''. - - '...---.. ..,,--... ......< ...... -.... ,. --- ...... '''-i''''''''''----'''' -.. ,...,....., '--"""'"'~''''''''''-''''''----~'~-''"''''''---~._--'~-'''''-"''''._'_"''''''~_'''''''~'''_~~'"""_""'"_"~""'"'.n'._'''_"''-''',,,__--'---''''''''-__~_~_''"_____~ Al\71 U-If..-lEkJT lD Lt:llc R () F b(;{fJ', 10 I I CV15 QE: PfJt5UC ACL8.-<Sl-1txJT Hrni2(A1:5 f:< I D 13 E/-A.{J flT ftVe tJ T'O:Jl:ZJ:itq S'-oJ ILl C) <l > <l en '~'--"'-'.----~---------,.--