Laserfiche WebLink
10/3/66 <br />6. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 85 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (On the west side of <br />Lake Edina approximately 500 feet north of Poppy Lane) <br />Assessment , showing total construction cost at $5,042.18 , proposed to be assessed againsf <br />43 lots at $117.26 as against $50.00 Improvement Hearing Estimate. Mr. Everett A. Eyden, <br />7416 West Shore Drive, questioned why Lake Edina area property owners are being assessed <br />for Lake Cornelia storm sewer improvements when Lake Cornelia area property owners are <br />not being assessed for Lake Edina storm sewer facilities. <br />Cornelia storm sewer project consisted of an overflow that diverted Southdale air <br />conditioning water into both lakes whereas the Lake-Edina project was a dam that <br />benefited the properties on Lake Edina only. <br />of assessment, seconded by Trustee MacMillan and carried. <br />7. NEW HEARING DATE SET FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 90 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. (Indian <br />Hills Pass from Gleason Road to 220' southwest, Gleason Road from Indian Hills Pass to <br />plus or minus 300 feet north of Valley View Road, Balder Lane from Gleason Road to Scandia <br />Road, Scandia Road from Creek Valley Road to Nordic Drive from Valley View Road to plus <br />or minus 850 feet south, and Creek Valley Road from Scandia Road to Nine Mile Creek) <br />Tabulation of assessment was presented by Mr. Hyde showing total construction cost at <br />$112,852.93, proposed to be assessed against 2,745,811 assessable square feet at $0.04156. <br />Mr. Richard Mahoney, 6716 Rosemary Lane, stated that the area below his property was a <br />swamp until it was subdivided and that improvement of this property constitutes a private <br />rather than a public improvement. <br />receive no benefit from the storm sewer. Mr. VanValkenburg stated that he desired to read <br />to the persons in the audience a portion of a special assessment policy statement relating <br />to storm sewers. He called attention to the fact that this statement of policy applied <br />not only to the Storm Sewer Improvement No. 90, but also to the other storm sewers that <br />were to be considered that evening. <br />Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of <br />Mr. Hite adwised that the <br />Trustee VanValkenburg moved for approval <br />Mr. Mahoney further stated that Rosemary Lane properties <br />He read that statement of policy as follows: <br />"In Edina, storm sewer improvements historically have been financed by special <br />assessments against benefited property in the area served by the particular storm <br />sewer improvement rather than by payment from general funds of the Village. <br />theory is that at some time all property within Edina will be served by storm <br />sewers to carry off accumulations of surface water and that since it is the <br />development of property which both contributes to the accumulation of surface water <br />and necessitates its removal, all property should bear the cost of the removal of <br />the surface water. <br />for storm sewers, it is felt, would penalize property which has already been assessed <br />for storm sewer improvements by giving a "free ride" to property not yet so served. <br />It should be recognized that a storm sewer improvement will benefit property in <br />other ways than the obvious one of removing surface water from areas where it used <br />to accumulate. Property will also be benefited by.(l) faster and more orderly run <br />off of water from streets in the areas served by the sewer; (2) savings on street <br />maintenance and replacement; .(3) prevention of breakdowns in utility service caused <br />by flooding; (4) elimination of stagnant ponds and the concomitant dangers to health <br />and safety; and (5) improvement of the appearance of the neighborhood by permitting <br />growth and maintenance of grass and gardens in former ponding areas. <br />to take all factors of benefit into account and to assess the benefited property in <br />accordance with the benefits derived from the improvement. <br />It may be argued that the higher ground in a drainage area receives less benefit <br />than the lower land, and should therefore be assessed at a lower rate. <br />may be controlling in a rural situation, but should .not be considered controlling <br />in an urban situation. In the latter situation, the elevations and uses of land <br />are subject to change, the tendency is toward ever more intensive development of <br />the land, and buildings are located close to each other." <br />Mr. VanValkenburg then stated that the statement of policy that he had read was an attempt <br />to reduce to wri&ing some of the procedures followed in assessing. <br />Village felt that drainage was not the sole consideration but that there are other benefits <br />involved; that certainly the persons on high land don't have water standing on their lots <br />but that there are other benefits determining whether the lot should or should not be <br />assessed. <br />Mr. Mahoney as well as Messrs. Thomas E. Ashley, 6728 Rosemary Lane; James L. McLaughlin, <br />6724 Rosemary Lane and Winston R. Wallin, 6720 Rosemary Lane, all. stated that they had <br />received no mailed notice of this assessment hearing. <br />they objected to the project on the grounds that it does not serve a public purpose. <br />were advised by Village Attorney Schwartzbauer that the improvement hearing was the time <br />when objections should have been made to the project and that the only objections pertinent <br />at this hearing are objections to the assessments. In view of the fact that some of the <br />property owners had indicated that they had failed to receive "Notice of Assessment <br />Hearing," Trustee VanValkenburg offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />The <br />Any departure from this approach by using general funds to pay <br />It is the policy <br />This argument <br />He stated that the <br />These gentlemen also stated that <br />They <br />RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING <br />' ON STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 90 <br />BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Village of Edina, as follows: <br />1. The Clerk and Engineer having calculated the proper amounts to 4e assessed for the <br />improvement set forth in the Notice of Hearing form hereinafter recorded, and the amounts <br />proposed to be assessed against the respective lots, places and parcels of land within <br />the district affected by said improvement, and said proposed assessment having been filed <br />with the Clerk, the same are hereby approved, and the Clerk shall keep the same on file in <br />her office and open to public inspection pending hearings thereon as herein provided.