HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A - Ridgemont Ave Prj. 95-01
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
6A
JEFFREY T. EVENS, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN IV
CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT HEARING ON
RIDGEMONT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT #95-01 - AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF
RESOLUTION 95-90
OCTOBER 2, 1995
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. At the September 18, 1995 Council meeting
the assessment hearing was conducted. Written and oral
comments were received and entered into the record. The
Assessment hearing was continued to October 2, 1995 at
7:35 P.M. to allow City staff to revise the assessment term
for the sewer and water assessments from 10 years to 20
years. Staff was also directed to investigate if the proposed
assessments are consistent with others that have been
approved within the city and whether there are internal
inconsistency problems if some parcels are assessed for
street at 100% and others at 60/40%.
ISSUES:
Issues were raised at the hearing both by the public and by
members of the City Council. Responses are provided
below:
1.) The sewer and water assessment term by City
policy is for 20 years not 10 years as proposed
for Ridgemont?
16200 &lgIel6i.neek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The term for the sewer and water portion of the assessment
has been revised from 10 years to 20 years as reflected in
the attached assessment roll, as per Council direction. The
change affects three of the nine parcels to be assessed. It
has the affect of reducing their annual installment by
approximately 26%. However interest dollars over the
entire 20 year term would increase by 86%.
The reasons that the sewer and water term was
recommended for 10 years instead of 20 years as set forth
in our policy is:
1. The length of repayment for the bond issue
was for 10 years and it is desirable for the
assessment term to correspond with this time
frame.
2. Relatively few property owners (3) were
affected by this change.
3. The amount of the sewer and water
assessment rate was considerably less than
past projects, therefore it would save the
property owners interest dollars by having a
shorter term.
Staff should have provided the Council and Public with the
rationale as part of our written or oral report.
2.) Some lots are receiving 60/40% street assessment
while others are receiving 100% street assessment.
Is this contrary to the policy in that it is not
"uniform in relation to the same class of property
within the assessment area? "
The reason for the different percentage methods is because
the type of benefit differs, ie., street reconstruction versus
utility installation. Therefore it is important to apply a
uniform assessment method which relates to the same type
of benefit provided, This has been accomplished as all
parcels served with sewer and water have been assessed
uniformly (100%) and those receiving street upgrading only
assessed at 60/40%.
It has been past practice to assess 100% of the sanitary
sewer, water, and street cost to the benefiting properties
when these utilities are installed the first time regardless if
AGRID102.DOC
their existing street consisted of bituminous paving or a
gravel surface. The reason for this underlying assumption is
that the street must be removed in order to install sewer and
water lines and as such becomes a cost of utility
installation. Therefore no credit is applied toward
assessment rates which results in 100% being assessed.
A good comparison to the Ridgemont project is the North
Shore Oaks project constructed in 1990. On August 14,
1978 City Council approved an assessment roll for the
paving of the roads in North Shore Oaks 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd
Addition. Years later at the September 17, 1990 Council
meeting the Council approved a assessment roll which
assessed the benefiting properties for 100% of the project
cost for the installation of streets, sanitary sewer, and water.
This is consistent with the proposed assessments for project
95-01, Ridgemont Avenue Improvements.
All three properties that are being assessed 100% for sewer,
water, and streets did not have City sanitary sewer and
water. This project extended the sanitary sewer and water to
these properties with services to their lot line.
3.) The 60% assessment for street reconstruction is too
high and should be reduced?
The City has been able to sustain the 60% assessment in the
past. This is the same amount which has been used in
numerous street reconstruction projects. If the council
would like to consider a change it should be done when
there are not projects before us.
4.) Other residents who use Ridgemont as the access to
their home or for access to Lakefront Park should
be assessed, say $300 per parcel.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 which regulates special
assessments do not allow us to spread assessments over
parcels which have not received special benefit. There is no
question that the lots immediately adjacent have received
special benefit through improved access to their homes,
concrete curb & gutter, better storm water control, etc. It is
more difficult to ascertain special benefit for others. The
proposed assessment addresses this issue by having the
City pay for 100% of the street, sewer and water
AGRID102.DOC
assessment for the 964' frontage of Lakefront Park. The
60/40% assessment also disperse 400/0 of the cost of the
assessment to the general public who directly benefits. In
total the assessment amount is 51 % while 490/0 of the
project cost being paid by the general public.
5.) The value of the properties will not be improved at
the same level as the assessments.
The City Council cannot make this finding. To the best of
our understanding the special benefit can be sustained. The
final determination will be through further appeal if that is
what property owners elect to do.
DISCUSSION:
The City must recover the expense of installing public
improvements, if undertaken, while ensuring that each
parcel pays its fair share of a project cost accordance with
the assessment policy. While there is no perfect assessment
policy, it is important that the assessments be implemented
in a reasonable, consistent and fair manner. The policy has
been followed in the past and is intended to be followed as
written in the future.
The policy of distributing street overlay cost on a 60/40%
basis was originally established by Ordinance 85-01, then
was incorporated into the City formal assessment policy on
February 21, 1989, and reaffirmed by Council as an
equitable distribution method during the Prior South
assessment discussion in 1994.
For comparison's sake we have compared Ridgemont to
other road projects. The comparison is as follows:
1000/0 Assessment Projects -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
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-
AGRID l02.DOC
..----"""'-,.".,_..,~,.~~~-,..~. ~ ~.~"."..',~,.-~..",,"...'~'~.'-'~~"'"
015-0, and the Council also received a written petition
signed by 9 out of the 10 effected property owners, which
is attached.
ALTERNATIVES:
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 and revise Resolution 95-78 to
reflect any changes to the assessment amounts.
There are only two potential revisions which could
be considered, one is inconsistent with previous
practice and the other with special assessment
policy. Option (1) is to assess the three parcels
proposed for 100% street assessment on a 60/40%
basis. Option (2) would be to assess them 100%
but also spread the street assessment for 20 years
rather than 10 years as provided by the special
assessment policy. From a staff perspective option
(2) is more preferable than option (1) for financial
and past practice reasons.
3. Continue the hearing for a specific reason.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the following considerations it IS staffs
recommendation to approve Alternative No.1.
1. The project Feasibility Report incorporated 100%
street, sewer, and water assessments for the
properties without sewer and water and 60/40%
for lots with sewer and water.
2. Informational meetings subsequent to the project
hearing were held and the assessment policy was
explained and the assessment rates were discussed.
3. Resolution 95-78 establishing the amount to be
assessed has already been approved by Council that
was calculated on the combined basis of 60/40%
and 100% methods.
4. Provide consistency with past practice.
AGRID102.DOC
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
ACTION REQUIRED:
AGRID102.DOC
The project costs will be recouped from the Trunk Reserve
Fund, Ad Valorem Tax Levy and Special Assessments.
Make a motion to approve Resolution 95-90 and make a
motion to approve the deferment for Margaret Hannen's
two parcels (PIN #2 78-002-0 & 25-054-006-0).
..::I
<
-
E-
z
~
E- ..::I ..::IQ
Z < ;S(j5
~ E= E-~
~ Z Z
~ ~..::I~>
> Q<8::3
o __r.n~
~ ~E-~<
~ ~~~'-
;:!: >Q>~
- ..::1-::3..::1
~ -~~~
;:J ~~<z
~ ~~:~
> ~=..::I~
< ..::I~~~
E- ~<Z~
Z z,--<
o (j5~":=
~ ....::I~U
t; ~~~~\C
8 ~(j5~;:Jr-; 0\ r.nr.n ..::I
~1n~tS~~~ ~ ~~~ <
-O\zz I ~ ~ <~~ e::
=O\__~~< ~ ~>> u
.n->>~ ~ > Z
~N<<~~~QC~ In;:~ _
~~~r.n<uQC~ I I I ~
t)~,-,-,--<t1, \CQCO\ r.n~
~~~~~~~~~ ~:: ~~
OE-~~~g;:J>~~QQQ\CQ;:J
~u~~~~~<~~ooo~=O'
~O~~~~E-~r.nQCuuu-O\~
~
E-
<
Q
~
Z
;~
<E-
oo~~
ZE-E-
Ozz
-~~
s:~~
;{/)r.n
ur.nr.n
r.n~~
~~~
Q<<
~
E-
~
E-
r.n ..
~Q
~<
~~
E-~
z~
-{/)
~
{/)
~ oo
~Q
~o
E-=
ooZE-
~-~
<..::I~
~~E-
>oz
..::I_~
;St::~
E-Q>
-Q<
~<~
~
Q
o
U
E-
Z
~
~
{/)
{/)
~
r.n
{/)
<
~
Cl
~~G'
u l'
< ~
~ 0
5 8
ex:
E-<
~~~--.
<~ 0\
~~ QO
r.n CI.)
{/) "'0
~~ 0
00 u
00 --
~<
E-<
Cl~~OO'
~~ QO
>00 CI.)
<00 ]
~~ u
00 --
<
E-<~
Z~~
~~
::>~
u~
ex:
~
~
~~I
~
~
~
o
ca:::
~
6
[::
~
;:
u
~~
o
~
<
Cl
~
~
~
~
i i
--.
-
~ S 5
.2 E
~c.2
--CI.)
"'0
5 CI.)
s::: ~
s::: s:::
~CI.)N
::C>l'
s:::<~
CI.)-V"l
>S~
B e
00 CI.)
-~ 01) ~
"'Q"'OCI.)
-.- ~
~~~
OI)~ _
~ l' .9
'o::'V"l-
~-~
~
;:J
Z
~
>
<
E-
Z
o
~
~
~
Q
-
~
~
-
u 0
~ .
~ \C
~('f')g
0_ '
:....:;t:A
0000
-~J..
(1)C:Z:::N
01
01
~
en CI.)
~ ~
~ s:::
~CI.)N
u > l'
O<('f')
__10
lXls:::V"l
~ 0 ~
::: e
CI.) CI.)
..c:0I)~
{/)"'OCI.)
.- ~
~ca:::~
en V"l
CI.) 10 -
~ \C .9
a V"l -
....-~
s:::
.9
-
;a
"'0
_<0
lXl"g..!..
_~N g
~s:::oO
~ CI.) l'
~29
Z:I:~
01
01
!
~
CI.)
~
- c::
]~~
..c:<('f')
u_V"l
-c::V"l
o 0 z
~5~
~ 01) ~
r'" "'0 CI.)
'""'Q2~
~ ~
_ ('f')
~\C -
;J \C .9
o~~
c::
.g
;a
"'0
-<0
lXl"'O'
~c::N
-NO
~c::9
~ CI.) QO
O~l'
o 0
- ,
(1)::C~
!
i
i
--.
-
~ S 5
.5 E
enc.2
--CI.)
"'0
5 CI.)
c:: ~
~5N
::C>l'
c::<~
CI.)-V"l
>s~
B e
00 CI.)
-~ 01) ~
"'Q"'OCI.)
~iia~
~V"l~
OI)~ _
~ l' .9
'0::'10-
~-~
c::
.9
-
;a
"'0
<0
-"'0'
. c:: N
~Ng
lXlc::oO
~ CI.) l'
N~O
o_J..
~,"""N
8
.J
...l
~
'"
<(
01
01
i i
~
o
::s
c::5N
~>I""'-
~<M
......1(')
CQC::I(')
~O~
a5~
- ~ '"
-"00
~aa~
~0..J
..... M ...
....!::l \0 .0
. I(') 'C
Q-~
o
I
-
~rnO
CQ~:!
-,,000
_00
o ~ I
...JEo-~
01
i
~
o
::s
c::
o
>N
<?""'-
M
0~1(')
~Ol(')
.~ e
..JuZ
...o~
0- '"
.- ~ 0
~~~
~~..J
o g ...
.eN .2
.- \0 ...
U-Q..
('f ...
o ~ 0
.5 ~ U
-o~
~UZ
Z~~
-Zoo
~~O\ 0
CQCI)~ N
N'" ~ I(') rn g
o~it~~
...J1(')0000
~-0C;>
~O~~I(')
Q..CQCI)Eo-N
01
~
~
~
o
::s
c::
o
>N
<?""'-
M
0~1(')
~Ol(')
.~ e ~
...JU
... 0
0- '"
.- bO 0
~~~
~~..J
o g ...
.eN .2
.- \0 ...
U-Q..
~
air-..
",00
N .
...J:;!;
000
--51
.Q..:-M
~rn~O
-~OO
CQ .~ 00 ~
M"'O bOoo
_oc::c;>
o ~ .- I(')
...J Eo- ..0 N
01
i
i
~
o
::s
c::
o
>N
<?""'-
M
0~1(')
~Ol(')
.~ e ~
..JU
... 0
0- '"
.- ~ 0
~~~
~~..J
00
.e~ .9
u~~
M
M
M
e> ~
0t,L.-
QO~
M'"
C"!~~ 0
~:~ .n
- 00 '" M
~><~~c;>
I(') ~ '" ~ I(')
-NNCI)M
-_\0 0\
1(')0~><.n
M...JCI)~N
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
~
9
~ ~ ! ! 9 ~
~
o
::s
c::
~ON
u > I""'-
O<M
...._1(')
-c::1(')
.;;o~
::s 6
~ 0
~ '"
AY "0 0
:;aa~
al(')..J
.:00'"
u I(') .2
i:i2~~
c::
;,
"0
<
-
rn
-
rn
"'00
_- I
0_
~-eg
ai~1
_"'.5 ~
>0
- - I
o t'::S I(')
...JUN
~
rn
"0
a 0
~ ~
t2~~
"O<M
__I(')
~ c:: I(')
c:: 0 z
~5~
lIi~tU
~Q2~
_Y 0 ..J
WQO\...
~. I(') .2
I(') ...
-Q..
c::
;,
"0
~o
- rn I
. _ N
~rnO
ai;,c;>
'" a ~
N~_
o "0 I
...J~~
~
o
~ ~
6 0 N
::s>1""'-
~<M
CQ-I(')
c::1(')
€~Z
~O~
~~tU
-.- ~
~~..J
"O~'"
-g \0 .2
f-~~
"00
N c:: I
~cfa
ai=C;>
01(')
-"~~
0.-:: I
...J~~
~
o
::s
c::
o~~
N<M
5_1(')
CQC::I(')
e~Z
OO~
> ~ ..
"0 0
~aa~
"O_..J
"aM'"
~ \0 .2
C)~~
"00
..... c:: I
'" 0 ~
~Q..O
CQ=C;>
01(')
.. .: I(')
Nu_
'0.-:: I
...J~~
~
.~ g
- c::
OON
00>1""'-
~<M
rn_1(')
ec::1(')
~~~
AY ~ ..
WQ"OO
~aa~
OI(')..J
.:0'"
u \0 .2
Z~o:
"00
N c:: I
. 0 I(')
~Q..O
CQ=C;>
01(')
"'': I(')
MU_
'0.-:: I
...J~~
~
~
.i
o
~ ::s
i ~
e<
~c
~ 0
::c 6
C)~
"0
Baa
c::
0_
~~
~I(')
..J-
~
~-
-~
~CI)
C1)~
~:::::
-~
~CI)
00 c::
S .-
: ~
MO
O~
~'"
'" 0
ON
~~
~
,.j
...l
~
VI
<
N
t--
M
l/")
l/")
~
G$
~
.J
l-o
o
~
00
t--.
.l/")
N-
NO
.
l/")\Q
_M
_ 0'\
.
\Q l/")
MN
!
!
~
~
~
.i
Go)
a:d ='
~5N
=<~
C_l/")
~c:l/")
:!~~
O~~
"0 Go)
82~
5_.J
~ M l-o
~ ~.g
.J-~
<
M
r--:
M
><
~
!
~
00
~~o
- . .
~O'\t--
ooN;;
N.
. $ l/") \Q
<=~
I
M \Q l/")
- M N
~
~~
i~
!I
o
-
-
l/")
l/")
~
= 1:: ~
(; =' rI2
..c:O,:Q
e U.~
=,~Go)
l::QO:I:
; l-o.~
- =' ~
8l::Q.a
2 00 c:
l::Q~>
::t
~
00
::t
-
~
00
1+00
o
Go)
='
c:
Go)
>
<
-
M c:
OMO
NOSO
~ . Go) .
~ - bOOO
1+000 N :2 ;;
N~I
ol/")l/")\Q
N-OOM
N-t--~
Z\Ql/")l/")
M - N
>.
"2
o
bO
c:
.~
~
*
=
=
=
IoC
~
~
......
fI:t
IoC
......
~
~
QC
=
I"'-
fI:t
?"'-
M
...;
~
1"'-..
......
."
......
fI:t
~
.;l
-<
~
o
~
-
o
l/")
0'\
00
:2
..!::
o
~
.J
o
~
00
<
8
,.j
...I
~
en
<(
,~
O'NEILL, TRAXLER, ZARD, NEISEN & MORRIS, Ltd.
A7TORNEYS AT UW
UW BUILDING
222 EAST ldAIN STREET
P. O. BOX lOj
NEW PRAGUE, MINNESOTA 56071
ROBERT o. O'NEIll
NORBERT B. TRAXLER
STEVEN D. ZARD
CHRISTOPHER A. NEISEN
CHRISTOPHER E. MORRIS
PhoM: (612) 758-2568
Fax: 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.
Yours very truly,
O'NEILL, TRAXLER, ZARD,
2~ & MORRIS, LTD.
./ /fl~/)- 1::-
o . ert B. ~ler~
NBT/clv
/
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Larry Haferman
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 City of Prior Lake is out of step with
its contemporary cities. These city guidelines should be
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 LAKEFRONT 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 using
Lakefront Park. The City Argues that the 40% of project
costs they are assuming should make this a fair
arrangement. We strongly disagree. Ridgemont Avenue
takes the brunt of a great deal of traffic 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 the 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, liThe area proposed to be assessed
is every lot, piece, and parcel benefiting from said
improvement, whether abuttinq or not, within the following
described areas:
Ridgemont Avenue from Rutledge Street to 1600 feet South
within the Hannen 2nd Addition,Mitchell Pond, Calvin
Erbele'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 project. It also states that the amount of the
individual 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 proposed. We respectfully ask that you ,as
elected officials, 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.
f';;li &~ btt/4tt1'N
/ S" lj~ S- !2/P?-6ftm! /lr;liE- s, (C .
"I
,,1 ./ ." .'":'
..L.-t7-- '+ v ~ J ~.~ '.'
~'Loo'~ 9- f - ' ''''/"lf~ J
1.:)-(;;1/ /(d~~.-~/~ "it!:
./
f-~~jLJ ~fuJL
15?s<" ~~~ f1..". j {'.
"
?7; ~..-r+ S{;u ---h1..~"'^-') IS7'fS- r<\D\Ovf~ tlw> S'€"
. ~ ~ 0 edc; Menr rXS{
~ tTJ'L .&uL~rvtkj /SSYd ~4- ~~E-
~t-~ <sed:: 1,:J-tPo::J- fljo&(~;(re5E
rfJ.~~At~~ 1~~5 ~~~dAe5C2
o ,
'- c..; ,,( j ...., //, c
. .- !. .-::J~~L' . (/.'14'11-- /s-Y.J I k , ('/~",~.11 /Iv < 5 i;;'-
....
I
COLLECTIVELY, THE RIDGEMONT 9
ATf1\CHi\-lU.,-UlfC u:rrcR or:: 0t:f1}, 101IYc)5
kE: PI)I~U C r,(c.e~:s 1- >~)lJ-; l-rt."K(2iA..Y5 "- I
~ /0 I.
\.J \ I -! I O!r - f'lr- ---., . v-., ~~lL~
\ IQ 5't.. -.(.~, ,t:, +--' f,-'),TEZJ:ltciS;{)1 ,\'/ ~\'V ;f? . .
001 ~ ~ ~'\
!0~0 x.~
\ \) rf\~ ~~ ,-0
\\M \ \ ~. \\.,
~~~~~.
/'-.-
ILl
~
<t
>
<t
en
....1
:\)1
...~
.. ~I
. ..~
'..J
~~~I
..:i
:.:.]
'..
...~
o . ..R~I t2i
''':'''IF
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 5. years for trunk acreage, .1.Q years for paving and 2.Q years
for sanitary sewer and water. The first installment shall be the annual
principal plus interest 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 &..percent per annum from the date adoption of this assessment
resolution. To the first installment shall be added 2.Q days of interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 12.2n.
To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one
year on all unpaid installments.
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 final 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 2nd day of October, 1995.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Schenck
Scott
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Schenck
Scott
Prank Boyles
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
{Seal }
RE9S0S/G:/resolu
October 2, 1995
TO: Presiding Officer/City Manager
Public Assessment Hearing
Public Improvement Project #95-01
Ridgemont Ave.
Held October 2, 1995 @ Council Chambers
SUBJECT: Excessive assessments to nine Ridgemont Ave.
residents
We, the undersigned, object to the assessment for street
reconstruction on Ridgemont Ave as proposed, on the
bas.l....~... at said reconstuction assessments do not improve
the./ a e of our respect' properties proportionately.
i
i
/5&:7/
/S-ff3
m () It f. !I-ve/