CC PACKET 12131988 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 based on similar cases where there was such statutory authority to limit 41 the duration of such an agreement and the amount related to the value of what was being conveyed. The Attorney indicated that even since 4 those cases, (some of which even involved the Minneapolis Park Board) , 5 there had been a Constitutional Amendment in which one of the cases 6 suggests that the amendment itself would even prohibit the legislature 7 from even authorizing such an agreement. He said he therefore had to 8 conclude that "if the City had no authority to agree to exempt a piece 9 of property forever because it would be invalid to do so, that agreement 10 should have no bearing on the City's proposal to assess the Park Board 11 now. " Mr. Soth told Mr. Feldman he had not researched the validity of 12 the agreement not to charge the park Board for maintenance of the 13 parkway as well or whether the restrictions of certain types of traffic 14 would still be in force. 15 Mr. Feldman said he perceived the City in 1965 had come to the Park 16 Board requesting the easement because they wanted to control that 17 roadway. He said the Park Board agreed to grant (for an amount the 18 Board assumes was probably a dollar) the easement, making the parkway 19 a St. Anthony street, which the City would maintain. He said he had 20 a hard time seeing how one of the parties could separate one part of the 21 agreement by saying it was invalid without dealing with all the other 22 parts of the agrement. 23 Mr. -Soth told him he assumed the other parts of the agreement were still 24 valid because there is authority for those sections but there was not 25 authority for the City to exempt property for an unlimited period of time or amount forever. Mayor Sundland indicated the City maintained all of its roads, but when the time came to reconstruct them, the City 28 had developed an Assessment Policy whereby abutting property owners 29 shared in the costs. He pointed out that even the non-profit St. 30 Charles Church had been assessed for its share of the costs of 31 reconstructing section of the same Boulevard in that area. He said he 32 perceived all assessments were based on the benefit received by the 33 abutting property owners and, if even the legislature can't 34 constitutionally property certainly the City can't either. 35 Mr. Soth indicated that even in cases where there had been statutory 36 authority for such an agreement, the Courts had ruled that specific 37 amounts had to be spelled out in the agreement which, as far as the 38 City can see, certainly wasn't done in this case. 39 Councilmember Enrooth reiterated that the Park Board and Sunset Memorial 40 Cemetery were only being assessed for a 8 foot traffic lane on a five 41 tone road, which is estimated to amount to only about 20% of the total 42 reconstruction cost. 43 When Mr. Feldman said the golf course didn't make $50,000 a year and 44 there would have to be reconsideration of the golf fees which would have 45 to be charged, he was told the assessments could be paid off in ten 46 years and Councilmember Ranallo pointed out that the golf course hadn't 47 been assessed anything for the past 30 years and a new road could be • 9