CC PACKET 12131988 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Soth added that the City was required to conclude that the amount of the special benefit to each property assessed would be at least equal 3 or greater than the amount of the assessments and had retained an 4 appraiser to evaluate their properties and provide evidence that these 5 assessments had met that criteria. The appraiser had written the City 6 a letter assuring that the values of the properties being assessed had 7 increased substantially more than the amounts proposed to be assessed. 8 Assessments Opponents 9 Harvey Feldman, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Secretary, 10 summarized December 13th letter from the Board to the City Clerk which it he handed to the Council Secretary in which the Park Board "went on 12 record as objecting to being assessed for St. Anthony Boulevard roadway 13 improvements against Gross Golf Course property in the amount of 14 $56,494 . 50. " 15 The Minneapolis Park Board Secretary reiterated the following points in 16 that letter: 17 *said the Board had an agreement with St. Anthony dated December 17, 18 1965 which stated that the Minneapolis Board of Park Commissioners at 19 that time would convey an easement for parkway purposes to the Village 20 of St. Anthony with four conditions; 1 *indicated that the condition he would be addressing that evening would be the one which stated that "the City of Minneapolis and its 03 Board shall not without their consent be assessed for boulevard or 24 other improvements within the Village of St. Anthony"; 25 *argued that St. Anthony should continue to honor the terms of that 26 agreement; 27 *indicated that the Board perceived Gross Golf Course to be "a 28 significant asset to the City of St. Anthony's liveability and should 29 be treated as a major recreation resource enjoyed by the community"; 30 *said he perceived St. Anthony should see to it that the golf course 31 is utilized to the best of both cities abilities and for the lowest 32 possible cost to the golfer; 33 *insisted that those costs would rise if the Minneapolis Park Board 34 had to pay the proposed assessments. 35 Mayor Sundland read aloud the Board's letter. When he read the 36 paragraph which indicated the Park Board "does not recall receiving 37 legal notice of the hearing on the proposed improvements and therefore 38 was not able to object at that time and question the benefits received 39 by the improvements", Mr. Childs produced the Affidavit of Mailing 40 dated December 22, 1987 which certified the Notice of the Hearing had �1 been sent to the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board at the same address 7