CCP 06-29-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- --.-.---- -- . Arden Hills Counci 1 6 June 8, 1992 else have taken responsibility to notify residents? Attorney Filla: We are unsure what the developer had in mind, but it was known that Keithson Pond was not designed as a permanent solution, that an outl et would eventually be necessary. Resident Jean Crimmins, 4509 Keithson Drive: RCWD and past engineers are responsible. I was told by the previous owner of my home that the City held money to deal with this situation. I reca 11 the city Attorney saying to Counci 1 at a past meeting that the City must take action to correct the problem. Assessments are not warranted and this is not an improvement. Attorney Filla: I do recall saying the City is responsible to find a solution to the problem, but don't recall saying the City is responsible to pay or that assessments won't be warranted. The public hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m. Councilmember Malone summarized the arguments heard this . evening into two major categories: 1) Dispute over drainage area, and 2 ) Dispute over benefit to properties. Council agreed that these are the two items which need to be formally addressed. Attorney Filla stated that he believes every property owner on the proposed assessment roll has filed an objection and perhaps Council should formally respond with a ruling on each objection. He added that since most of the objections were just received this evening, it would be appropriate to continue this meeting in order to allow time for proper review and informed response. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to continue this hearing to the June 29, 1992 regular Council meeting at 8:30 p.m. in order to provide adequate time for informed response to all objections received, Motion carried unanimously (5-0) . (NOTE: See "Keithson Pond" under "Council Comments",) Attorney Filla advised all residents that the City must receive all written objections by the end of today. Council broke for a few minutes and reconvened at 8:49 p.m. .