02-17-1981 Special Hearing
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Reconvened Special Assessment Hearing
CP 705
February 17, 1981
The Richfield City Council met in reconvened session on February 17, 1981
in the council chambers of the city hall at 8;00 p.m. to continue the hearing on
special assessment appeals for improvements made in conjunction with City Project
105.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Priebe at 8:25 p.m.
Present: Bunce, Collins, Hassenstab, Ludeman, Priebe
Mayor Priebe gave a brief description of the events which led up to this
reconvened session and Assistant City Attorney John Dean explained the procedures
to be used for the conduct of the appeals hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Dean then requested that all Land owners and/or Legal
counsels present to identify themselves to the city council. Lawyers identifying
themselves were as follows: J. A. Brill, Jr., representing the Hub Shopping Center;
Ralph Gale, Jr., representing four apartment owners on 65th Street including
Wayne Johnson, Robert Blumberg, Hendrick Miller, Mr. and Mrs. Ambrose Zeller and
Paul Thompson, representing Gordon and Elaine Strom. Landowners present included
Charles Adams, representing the C. D. Adams estate.
Mr. Dean then explained that there would be a complete transcript made of
the evening's proceedings and he introduced Ronald 0. Fenstad, the court reporter
who would be responsible for the formulation of the transcript.
Assistant City Attorney John Drawz then indicated the procedure he would be
r1
lJ
using in presenting the city's case before the city council. Mr. Drawz further
indicated that while two different verbal communications had been received from
the Godfather Block owners indicating that they were withdrawing their appeal,
no written communication had yet been received on this subject. -
Reconvened Hearing -2- February 17, 1981
The city`s first witness was Richard Krier, a planning consultant and former.
Richfield Community Development Director. Mr. Krier provided testimony relating
to the planning and physical development activities which were partially implemented
by City Project 705. Mr. Drawn then distributed copies of a written statement
prepared by Mr. Krier. These statements were given to the city council, as well
as to landowners and attorneys present at the hearing.
The city`s next witness, 0. J. Janski, then gave expert appraisal testimony
on behalf of the city.
Hub Shopping Center Property
Mr. Janski indicated that, in his opinion, the value. of the land of the Hub
Shopping Center had increased from $4.00 per square foot to $4.48 per square foot
(approximately 12% increase) as a result of the special assessment improvements.
This resulted in a minimum special benefit to the property of $275,000.
Attorney Brill stated that he had no additional information to present at
this time but that he would reserve the right to submit information within the
next thirty days.
Motion by Bunce, seconded by Ludeman that the Hub hearing be closed.
All ayes - Carried.
Mayor Priebe indicated that it was his intent to have the public hearing go
until midnight and that if more time would be needed, the city council would
reconvene this hearing on Monday, February 23, at 8:30 p.m.
400 W. 65th Street (Zeller Property)
Mr. Janski testified that, in his opinion, the impact of the improvements on
the land owned by the Zellers at the above mentioned address was $6,000. He
indicated that the total value of the land increased from $56,000 to $62,000
and that the per square foot cost increased from $3.40 to $3.75. Attorney Gale,
representing the Zellers, then cross-examined Mr. Janski.
Reconvened Hearing -3- February 17, 1981
Mr. Drawz then conducted redirect examination of Mr. Krier on the subject.
Mrs. Zeller, one of the owners of the property, then gave testimony relative
to her opinions as to the impact of the special assessments on the property.
Attorney Gale then introduced several letters into evidence for this property.
Motion by Collins, seconded by Hassenstab that the hearing be concluded.
All ayes - Carried.
300 W. 65th Street .(.Blumberg Property)
Mr. Janski stated that in his opinion, the property received a benefit of
$4,000 as a result of the improvements and that the property had a before con-
struction value of $39,000 and a post construction value of $43,000.. Mr. Janski
was then cross, redirect and recross-examined.
Mr. Blumberg, representative of the owner of the property, then gave direct
testimony, as did Mrs. Bates, a tenant in the building owned by Mr. Blumberg.
Attorney Gale then submitted several items for consideration by the city
council over the objections of Mr. Drawz.
Motion by Ludeman, seconded by Bunce that the hearing be closed.
All ayes - Carried.
312 W. 65th Street (Miller Property)
Mr. Janski testified that the increased value of thin property was $4,000
as a result of the improvements. This included a before improvement value of
$39,000, and an after improvement value of $43,000, and a per square foot increase
in value of 25~ (from $2.50 to $2.75).
The property owner, Hendrick Miller, then gave testimony and was subsequently
cross-examined by Mr. Drawz.
Mr. Gale submitted several exhibits to the city council over the objection
of Mr. Drawz.
Reconvened Hearing -4- February 17,.1981.
Motion by Bunce, seconded by Hassenstab to close the hearing...
All-ayes - Carried.
Strom and Adams Properties
.Motion by Hassenstab and seconded by Ludeman-chat-the appeal hearings on the
two above mentioned properties be continued to February 23, 1981 at 8:30 p.m. in
the city council chambers.
All ayes - Carried..
'200 - 212 W. .65th Street (Johnson Property)
Mr. Janski indicated that the benefit to the two above mentioned properties
was $16,000. He .then indicated a before improvement value of $126,000 and an ..
after improvement value~of $142,000, or an increase_of 12%. Mr. Janski also
indicated that-this included a before square foot. value of $3.75 and an after-
improvement. square foot value of $4.20.
Mr. Janski was then cross-examined..
Mr. Gale then gave summary comments contending that the improvements which
were made were of virtually no benefit to the: property owners.
Mr. Hassenstab then questioned three of the property owners who.. were present
whether they had apartments vacant at this time. and all responded that they-.had
no vacancies:
Motion by Bunce, seconded by Hassenstab to-close-the hearing.
All ayes - Carried.
Motion by Hassenstab, seconded by Ludeman to continue this hearing to~Monday,
February 23, at 8:30 p.m, in the city council chambers.
All ayes - Carried. Time: 12:28 a.m., February 18, 1981.
Reconvened Hearing -5- February 17, 1981 '
Date Approved: March 9., 1981
a1d J. Frie Mayor
r
`ct~- ~V ~4-~-I~°Q^
Dennis Kraft Acting C ty Clerk Karl Nollenberge City Manager