Hugo council orders Bald Eagle Industrial Park street improvement project amid resident objections over assessments

The Hugo City Council on Dec. 15 voted to order the 2026 Bald Eagle Industrial Park Area Street Improvement Project and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications (Resolution 2025-54). The motion to order the project was made by Mayor Mary White, seconded by Council Member Petrick, and the roll call recorded unanimous 'yes' votes from council members present.

City staff presenter Mark summarized the feasibility study and project scope: partial reconstruction and full pavement removal/replacement on segments of 130th Street North, 140th Street North, Fenway Boulevard North and Farnham Avenue North; spot curb and gutter and drainage repairs; replacement of nonfunctioning street lighting in portions of the corridor; trail improvements in coordination with Washington County; and removal of an abandoned Nextel communications facility in Water Tower Park. Staff said the project is identified for improvement in 2026 and that construction would likely begin in May or June and last roughly three months.

Staff presented cost and assessment information: an estimated total project cost of about $4,690,000, with assessments historically covering about 22% of project cost (just over $1,000,000 in this estimate) and the city responsible for the remainder (approximately $3,192,720). Under the city’s assessment policy (rates last updated in 2013), a partial reconstruction assessment is $4,100 per residential unit and an urban roadway overlay is $2,100 per unit; commercial assessments use a frontage formula (staff cited approximately $76.8 per front foot for partial reconstruction and $39.37 per front foot for overlay). Staff noted assessment payment options: property owners may prepay assessments without interest within 30 days of the assessment hearing or pay via an assessed installment (commonly spread over 10 years) with an interest rate set at the assessment hearing; senior deferral options are available for property owners age 65 and older. Mark emphasized that tonight’s meeting was the improvement hearing (whether the council authorizes the project) and that the assessment hearing to fix amounts and payment terms would occur later.

Several residents spoke in opposition to the special-assessment portion while not disputing the need for roadway improvements. Gerard Torambly said he objected to being assessed because he believes the project primarily benefits the industrial park rather than adjacent residential properties. “I’m here to object to the assessment,” Torambly said. Tyler Lessard read a written objection into the record arguing that the proposed improvements do not confer a “special benefit” to his residential parcel as required under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 and asked the council to reconsider assessment allocation; he said his estimated assessment was $2,050 and that the improvement primarily serves industrial traffic. John Squires and Mike Worrall described counts of daily vehicle and truck traffic and expressed concern that improved pavement would encourage more truck traffic and ongoing wear. Commercial property owners said they had met with staff and asked that the city consider the distribution of costs; one business owner cited an anticipated assessment above $50,000 for his properties and questioned paying for bike-path components inside an industrial park.

City staff responded to concerns: staff said the corridor’s 2024 pavement ratings (scores in the 40s–60s depending on segment) and photo documentation show patching and distresses that justify the improvement; MnDOT/state aid design standards require a heavier pavement section for truck traffic, and the proposed work is a partial reconstruction that staff said will provide a long-life design appropriate for industrial traffic. Staff also reiterated that trail improvements are not included in assessment calculations (some trail segments are a county responsibility) and that project details — including final lighting locations, trail participation by Washington County, exact assessment amounts and interest rates — will be resolved in subsequent design and at the assessment hearing. Property owners have the right to submit written objections before or at the assessment hearing and may appeal assessment determinations to Washington County courts within 30 days of final action.

Following the hearing and public comment, the council adopted Resolution 2025-54 ordering the project and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications. Staff will return with plans, finalize designs, hold additional resident meetings (anticipated late January), and ask the council later to accept plans and authorize advertisement for bids prior to the assessment hearing and contract award.