Laserfiche WebLink
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 />assessed. <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 />projects <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 />follows: <br />was unanimously carried. <br />meeting). <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 />Hr. <br />He referred to the Estimated Cost of $16.35 per <br />He <br />I <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