Laserfiche WebLink
June 14, 1976 Page 13 <br />Mayor Johnson asked Atty. Meyers what the options are at this point. <br />Atty. Meyers cited Chapter 429 -- the Council is granted authority <br />to install certain improvements, etc. Without arguing the facts, <br />what occurred officially on behalf of the city was on July 11, <br />1975, when the city received a request from Don Paster indicating <br />that certain work should be done abutting the shopping center <br />and also indicating that if the city would do the necessary work <br />they could assess back to the shopping center on a 6 -7 year <br />period. Secondly, is the Ordinance #231, moving public health <br />and safety hazards against the Mounds View Shopping Center. It <br />was adopted as an emergency type proceeding. A certain amount <br />of money has been spent by the city -- enough of the work has been <br />done to alleviate any situations that existed and this spring <br />Council discussed completing or going further. They ordered <br />the engineer to discover what was the most desirable way of completing <br />this project. Eng. Bearden came back with his report that the <br />most desirable way would be to complete,at an estimated $26,000, <br />and assess back to Mounds View Square Shopping Center on the <br />theory that they would be benefitted. The only question now is <br />how much more does the city want to do and that is what this <br />discussion has been about. You can assess against a benefitted <br />property owner costs of improvement: 1. that he is benefitted, <br />and 2. that it increases the market value of the property by the <br />amount of the assessment. The procedure to follow is under <br />Chapter 429. After you close the hearing you have 6 months to <br />determine what you want to order. You can order as much of the <br />$26,000 or any portion thereof. You cannot assess anyone else <br />for this improvement because you have not advertised or noticed <br />anyone else. If it is challenged in the court and the city <br />assessment is upheld that would be valid subject to appeal rights. <br />If it is disallowed, you would have to reassess it on a different <br />basis. Any amounts not recovered would have to be backed up by <br />general taxes. If you abandon this proceeding and want to assess <br />a broader area, you would have to readvertise and renotice all <br />those people who would be benefitted. The only one to assess at <br />this time is the shopping center. What agreements made verbally <br />would not be binding. <br />Mayor Johnson asked Eng. Bearden: Your cost estimate indicates <br />$2,000 -- for two entrances to the shopping center, Long Lake <br />Rd. and the service station. Was it our intention to patch that <br />back up and assess it to the shopping center? Mr. Bearden replied, <br />"I assume." Mayor Johnson asked if that was also true of Long <br />Lake 66. Eng. Bearden stated that the city was going to do that. <br />Mayor Johnson stated that the intent was then to assess the cost <br />of the bituminous back to the shopping center? The administrator <br />replied, yes, because these roadway and driveway cuts were necessary <br />to lower the drainage ditch in front of the shopping center. <br />The Council was asked for comments; they had none. <br />MS (Johnson - Pickar) that we take the further construction work <br />under advisement and table the matter for the time being. <br />