MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
<br />OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL
<br />HELD AUGUST 30, 1974, 4:30 P.M.
<br />AZ' EDINA CITY HALL ..
<br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Schmidt, Shaw arid Mayor Van Valkenburg.
<br />KRAHL HILL CONDEMNATIOM CONTIhTED TO SEPTEMBER 7, 1976. Mr. Hyde advised Council
<br />that this meeting had been called at the recommendation of the City Attorney so
<br />that the Council could decide whether or not to appeal the Comzissioners' award
<br />for Krahl Hill. Mr, Erickson reviewed his letter to the Council dated August
<br />26, '1376, in which he had presented information for Council's consideration of the
<br />$324,000 awarcl, recalling that the City Appraiser had valued the property at
<br />$277,000 and the landowners' appraiser had valued the property at $450,000.
<br />Erickson advised that the City had been served with a Notice of Appeal in the
<br />matter of the Krahl Hill condemnation and also that a demand has been made by
<br />Mr. Gittleman for payment of three-fourths of the award, as permitted by law, such
<br />amount being $243;000. Mr. Erickson clarified that, in addition to the require-
<br />ment of prompt payment of the $243,000, the statute relating to appeals states
<br />that any party may, within 40 days from the date of filing of the Commissioners'
<br />award, appeal the award by filing a notice of the appeal and mailing a copy to
<br />all parties having an interest and that, within 10 days of the date of mailing,
<br />any other party may appeal.
<br />has 4.0 days to appeal, but if one side appeals, the other side has only ten
<br />days after the date of mailing in which to file its appeal.
<br />recalled that, notwithstanding the appeal period, he had previously advised the
<br />Council that it is desirable to decide whether or not to dismiss the condemna-
<br />tion proceeding prior to making the three-fourths payment now demanded by the
<br />owner. He added that he had been advised by Mr. Gittleman's attorneys that he
<br />is willing to accept the Commissioners' award, despite the appeal. Mr. Crane
<br />Bodine, 6141.Arctic Way, representing Arctic Hills homeowners, said that he had
<br />not had an opportunity to discuss the possibility of neighborhood participation
<br />in paying ic portion of the cost of the land because he had not known how much
<br />money would have to be raised. He requested that the matter be continued for 30
<br />days so that residents could meet and get support for raising the approximate
<br />$40,000 difference between the $280,000 which the City had agreed to pay and the
<br />price required by Mr, Gittleman. Mr. Bodine said that he did not think that the
<br />additional cost for the land should be ?aid.only by residents of the area,
<br />inasmuch as the retention of the property as open space would benefit the entire
<br />remarks. In response to a question of Mr. Hyde as to the position of the City if
<br />it now drops the condemnation, Xr. Erickson said that the City would be responi.
<br />sible for payment of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney, appraisal
<br />and engineering fees.
<br />made to have the appeal continued an additional 30 days to give residents an
<br />opportunity to raise add'itional funds.
<br />Bodine that the Council was in error when it did not appeal the Krahl Hill zon-
<br />ing decision, Mr. Erickson recalled that his recommendation that the matter not be
<br />appeeled was based on the fact that he did not think that an appeal would be suc-
<br />cessful and that he would still stand upon that recommendation. Councilman Court-
<br />ney recalled that not all members of the Council and the staEf had agreed that
<br />the land is actually worth $280,000. Mr. Hyde added that already "Viking Hills is
<br />an island surrounded by a lot of open space .... with more green space than almost
<br />any other area in the City". He emphasized that the City does not have any addi-
<br />tional funds to spend on the acquisition of the property.
<br />he was not questioning the judgment of Mr. Hyde or Mr. Erickson but he asked that
<br />the record show that he appreciated the efforts made by the City in attempting to
<br />acquire Krahl Hill.
<br />Larkin to agree that prompt payment need not be made in this case so that he
<br />would have time to check further on whether the 10 or the 40 day appeal period
<br />the "tine period", but said that he would recommend that Council decide on its
<br />action by September 3. Mr. Shaw said that he would feel negatively about pay-
<br />ing the three-quarters of the award at this time, and also felt "hard pushed" to
<br />go up to $280,000.
<br />Council might have to pay over $280,000 for the property.
<br />said that Councilman Richards had expressed his similar coilcern to him. Mr.
<br />Erickson said that the Council. must make a decision as to what to do if an
<br />extension of time cannot be obtained, as well as a decision on what to do if
<br />an extension of time is granted. Following considerable discussion, Councilman
<br />Courtney offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
<br />He clarified that in a condemnation case, each side
<br />Mr. Erickson
<br />Hr. Richard L. Seaberg, 6108 Arctic Way, expressed support of Mr. Bodine's.
<br />Mayor Van Valkenburg suggested that a request could be
<br />In response to an inference of Mr.
<br />Mr. Bodine said that
<br />Mr. Erickson suggested that it might be possible to get M-r.
<br />He emphasized the two separate problems of the "appeal period" and of.
<br />Councilmen Shaw and Courtney expressed concern that the
<br />Mayor Van Valkenburg
<br />BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby authorize the City Attorney
<br />to request the dismissal of the appeal of the Krahl Hill condemnation so that the ..