1 8 1. 8/17/64
<br />total assessable footage in Chapel Hill (South 2/31 by $10.13, then dividing
<br />this Total Cost by the total assessable lots.
<br />area is ppoposed pursuant to the petition signed in 1961 by Boran Builders,
<br />developers of the tract; asking that assessment be made in this manner.
<br />Public Works Dipector Hite reported to Council that a number of new residents
<br />in the area iqant the assessment levied on a "per foot" Basis, and, also, that they
<br />want the costs broken doim, street by street, throughout the entire Improvement,
<br />rather than combining all street costs into the one assessment,
<br />With ragard to the "Edina Parklands" assessment, it was reported that A, LI,
<br />iTorth Construction Company, developer of this Adhition, had agreed to pay for
<br />the cost of Asphalt Concretew :aviia@+with PCC Curb and Gutter, the cost of which
<br />rrould have been $9.75 per Assessa&le Foot; that purchasers had.subsequently
<br />agreed that they piqeferred the Portland Cement Paving with Integral Curb providing
<br />they would not be assessed more than $1.00 per assessable 2oot for it. lfr. iiyde
<br />business, Ilarvin Anderson has today deposited rrith the Village a check in the
<br />amount of $10,905,€33 ds part payment on the North liability, with the statement
<br />that the balance would be forthcoming as soon as VA and FHA a2proval had been
<br />obtained; and that as additional security the Village has a bond covering this
<br />sum--that the Assessment against Edina Parklands properties will, therefore, be
<br />the difference between the $10.13 per foot for the Portland Cement Paving with
<br />Integral Curb and the $9.78 per foot for Asphalt Concrete Paving with PCC Concrete
<br />Curb and Gutter--$.35 per Assessable Foot.
<br />of the South 2/3 of Chapel Hill Addition, requesting that the assessment be levied
<br />on the basis of a unit cost per front foot, rather than on a uniform cost per lot
<br />the fact that he had been obliged to pay corner-lot assessment while he had lived
<br />in another part of Edina and would now like the privilege of paying for only the
<br />Eootage of his own interior lot.
<br />Mr, Gordon Lewis, 6824 Chapel Lane, presented petition signed by the same ten
<br />Chapel Hill residents, requesting the "Street Iniprovement Ao.El8 be assessed on an
<br />actual cost basis for each section of the improvement and not on a uniform basis
<br />as is proposed."
<br />Hill are beinG unduly assessed for work done in other parts of the village."
<br />Levis referred back to the Notice of Improvement ilearing, which had listed the
<br />proposed Assessable Costs on a per street and per addition basis, rather than on
<br />an "entire improvementf1 basis,
<br />foot for Johnson Drive, as compared with the Estimated $10,01 for the Chapel Hill
<br />area, maintaining that the Chapel Hill area is now being charged for some of the
<br />greliminary base work done in other sections of the Village. Public Works Director
<br />Iiite reported that such an assessment would be very difficult to effec-c at this
<br />time because, once the Council had determined to pave these streets as one improve-
<br />ment, separate cost records were not kept on the various individual. streets.
<br />added that an assessment reflects not only the cost of the project, but the characzer
<br />of the area to be assessed--that in an area where -the long side of the poperty abuts
<br />the street, and lots are being assessed €or only l/3 of their footages, the
<br />assessable cost per foot would be greater than in an area where the full front
<br />footages were assessed.
<br />little about the "entire improvement" method of assessment until they learned that -
<br />this year's work is to be assessed on a "per street1' or "per platft basis. To this,
<br />ilr. Hite replied that for the jobs to be done Last year there were some differences
<br />in the work €or the various streets, but that these differences were relatively
<br />minor--and that is why these particular streets were grouped into one project;
<br />wheraas, in this. year's work, there were major differences in the condition of the
<br />streets poposed to be improved; thus the separate improvements €or the various streets.
<br />ilr. Tupa asked if it weren't true that some price advantage was obtained by
<br />securing bids on a large project, rather than on several snall ones, and i4r. Hite
<br />replied that there is some benefit obtained for the property owner in bidding larger
<br />Improvement No. E-18, including an assessment for 1/3 the long sides of Lot lD
<br />Slock2, and Lot 9, Elock LC3 Chapel Hill, and changing the Chapel Hill Assessment
<br />from a "per Lot" to a "per front €oottl basis oE assessment. Motion was seconded
<br />by i4acIIillan
<br />objected strenuously to paying on a "per lot" basis.
<br />against the poposed change in the Chapel Hill. Assessment from 'Iper lot" to "per
<br />front foot", but one thing that was not clearly brought out at the Hearing was that
<br />tils mailed "dotice of Hearing" had been sent Listing onZy the "per lot" basis and
<br />thus proaonents for this basis had no way of'knowing that any other basis would be
<br />considered at this Hearing.
<br />was unanimously carried.
<br />The "Per Lot" assessment for this 7J
<br />, reported that, although A, r?. tlorth Construction Company has now gone out of
<br />i4r. Carl Noser, 6909 Shane Drive, presented a petition signed by ten residents
<br />?3 a 0
<br />Ga u
<br />Be reported, as one reason for his preference €or a per-foot basis,
<br />, Petition went on to say, "de believe that sections such as Chapel
<br />He referred to the Estimated Cost of $16.35 per
<br />Mr. Lewis told Council Chapel Hill residents had thought
<br />Trustee iiixe then moved that Council approve the Special Assessment for Street
<br />Before vote could be taken on the motion, Wr. A. L. Huggins, 6012 Erin Terrace,
<br />Mo objections were levied I
<br />Rollcall vote was taken on motion, and there were four ayes and no nays, as
<br />Iiacllillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, aye; and Bredesen, aye; and the niotion
<br />(See Resolution Adopting Amended Assessment, of Later in