1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:08:56 AM
12/23/2013 11:46:42 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
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.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.