Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> --~ <br /> Arden Hills Council 8 october 12, 1993 . <br /> Administrator Person advised that the City Attorney's <br /> recornmendati on was not to close the assessment publ ic hearing, <br /> but to continue the hearing to allow the City time to <br /> investigate possible legal or engineering options relative to <br /> the Arden place drainage issue. <br /> Council noted that the October 25 Council meeting agenda was <br /> quite full making it appropriate to continue the assessment <br /> public hearing to the November 8 regular Council meeting. <br /> Councilmember Malone commented that this matter has been <br /> discussed at length and appears to still be at an impasse. He <br /> added that the toughest issue is that of whether the <br /> resolution to this problem should be a public or a private <br /> improvement. He noted that there is really no impact on the <br /> overall public so he does not believe it is appropriate for <br /> the overall public to pay for such a project. He suggested <br /> the possibility of a private project with a development <br /> agreement be investigated. <br /> Councilmember Probst expressed concern regarding comments made . <br /> by the public to the affect that the City warranted the <br /> buildability of the properties which are now plagued with <br /> drainage problems. He added that it is the responsibility of <br /> the developer, not the City, to assure property is buildable. <br /> He responded to comments heard this evening with regard to the <br /> City's poor maintenance of the existing pipe by saying that it <br /> is still une! ear how the City was involved with the initial <br /> installation of the existing pipe and who was actually <br /> responsible to maintain the pipe. He objected to the taxpayer <br /> at large paying for a project which would benefit only a <br /> specific neighborhood. He favored an arrangement whereby the <br /> one or two most severely impacted property owners bear a <br /> larger share of the cost of the proposed project, perhaps <br /> double the $3,517.19 amount that was reflected in the public <br /> hearing notices. He emphasized that this issue must not only <br /> be brought to a close but it must also be resolved in a <br /> reasonable and equitable manner. <br /> Councilmember Hicks said he is troubled by allegations of City <br /> negligence in the maintenance of the existing pipe because he <br /> does not believe it was the responsibility of the City to <br /> maintain that pipe. He added that if there had been a <br /> mechanism in place to assure the developer had addressed the <br /> drainage issue prior to building the homes, there would not be <br /> this problem now. <br /> . <br />